Thread: FOXNEWS: Bush would consider pardon

President Bush Would Consider Pardoning Border Agents Convicted of Shooting Drug Runner

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244740,00.html


WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush left open the possibility of a pardon for two U.S. Border Patrol agents serving federal prison sentences for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled and covering up the crime.

Bush said "there's a process for pardons" and the case has to work its way through the system. In an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso, Texas, Bush said the White House will review the case, and he urged people to "take a sober look at the case."

"People need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as the judge. And I will do the same thing," he said.

Several lawmakers have urged the president to pardon former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos for the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who retreated to Mexico after he was shot and later admitted he was transporting marijuana while in the U.S. illegally.

The agents began serving their sentences Wednesday — 11 years and one day for Ramos and 12 years for Compean. Both were fired after their convictions on several charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, obstruction of justice, and a civil rights violation.

Rancor over the convictions and sentencing of the agents has been simmering for months, and the two have become a cause celebre among conservatives and on talk shows. Their supporters have said they were defending themselves and have called them heroes. The agents' prosecution occurred as the issue of illegal immigration was being debated in Congress and amid campaigns for last November's midterm elections.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, introduced a bill Thursday calling for a congressional pardon of the agents. Congress has never issued pardons to anyone convicted of a crime, said Joe Kasper, Hunter's spokesman. But Kasper said Hunter believes there is enough ambiguity in the law on pardons to give it a try.

"Agents Compean and Ramos fulfilled their responsibilities as Border Patrol agents and rightfully pursued a suspected and fleeing drug smuggler. It is irresponsible to punish them with jail time," he said in a news release.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton took the unusual step of issuing a five-page document of the "myth vs. reality" of the case as the agents began serving their sentences.

The document covered everything from the claims that the former agents were just doing their jobs to reports that the shooting was at night when it actually happened about 1 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2005.

White House spokesman Tony Snow also seemed to support the agents' conviction, listing details of the case in a briefing with reporters Thursday. He said an officer hit Aldrete in the chest with a gun after he got out of his car and that "a lot of the allegations about a scuffle and discovering drugs at the scene and all that, they're simply not supported by the fact record of the case."

Texas Sen. John Cornyn said the Justice Department should have the chance to explain why the agents were prosecuted. Cornyn sent a letter to Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asking for a hearing.

"I understand that the Justice Department believes all the facts have not come out on this prosecution and would welcome the opportunity to explain its decisions. I believe such a public explanation and opportunity for questioning is necessary," Cornyn wrote.

Cornyn said he and Sen. Arlen Specter, who chaired the committee last year, investigated the case and that his office personally interviewed Sutton.

What is Snow thinking in the 5th from last paragraph??

allegations about scuffle and drugs?
lets see, cuts and blood on compean does not mean scuffle?
does snow think he did it to himself??

allegations of drugs??? what the hell is 743 pounds of pot doing in the van then?????????

and the best for last, of course aldrete was hit after the agent got out of his car. does snow think he can do it while in a car????


IS SNOW THIS DAMN STUPID?????????

Duplicate.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=51745

You know Bush is feeling the heat now for him to be answering directly.

I believe that the minute those agents walked thru the prison gates, Mr. Bush's future fate was sealed.

He has passed the point of no return now. I feel that Mr. Bush is not going to like the direction things take in the near future and the investigations that will follow and what they may unearth.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

You know Bush is feeling the heat now for him to be answering directly.

I believe that the minute those agents walked thru the prison gates, Mr. Bush's future fate was sealed.

He has passed the point of no return now. I feel that Mr. Bush is not going to like the direction things take in the near future and the investigations that will follow and what they may unearth.

W

William, you don't blame the officers for using a surrendering suspect for target practice rather than simply doing their jobs and taking him into custody? You are aware that their successful prosecution hinged on the fact that they did not accept the man's attempt to surrender, but rather hit him with a gun butt and then shot at him as he fled, are you not?

Let's be straight, here. I support the Border patrol 100% so long as it is properly doing its job, just as I support the local PD and the sheriff's dept. so long as they are properly doing their jobs. But if there is anything worse than an official granted special powers and trusted with specific and essential responsibilities abusing his position and using his power to brutalize suspects or citizens, or taking the law into his own hands rather than simply apprehending suspects and leaving it to the proper venue to determine guilt and punishment, it's those rash actions resulting in the suspect in question getting away with his crimes and being able to seek damages from the government. After all, when awards are given to the victims of law enforcement abuse, it is not the wayward officers who pay those awards, but you and I through our tax dollars.

I understand the natural prejudice in favor of border enforcement agents over illegal aliens. However, EVERYONE should be accountable for his actions, and that goes double for those entrusted with the power of deadly force. It sucks royally that the damned drug trafficker not only gets off scot free, but gets a payday out of it as well, but a good bit of the blame for that rests with the agents.

I have said an will continue to say that I find it objectionable that the White House is villified because it did not immediately leap to the defense of a pair of agents duly convicted of a crime. I don't know about you, but I find terrifying the idea that government would cover up for the misdeeds of agents duly convicted of crimes, and I think that it is especially egregious when the branch of government under which an official serves attempts to pardon its own. There are some very fundamental issues of governance at stake here, and I don't think that we should abandon them just because we have a kneejerk reaction to a given case.

It seems to me that in the rush to defend agents and lash out at an illegal alien drug peddler who got to mock justice, we are throwing prudence out the window.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

You know Bush is feeling the heat now for him to be answering directly.

I believe that the minute those agents walked thru the prison gates, Mr. Bush's future fate was sealed.

He has passed the point of no return now. I feel that Mr. Bush is not going to like the direction things take in the near future and the investigations that will follow and what they may unearth.

W

William, you don't blame the officers for using a surrendering suspect for target practice rather than simply doing their jobs and taking him into custody? You are aware that their successful prosecution hinged on the fact that they did not accept the man's attempt to surrender, but rather hit him with a gun butt and then shot at him as he fled, are you not?

Let's be straight, here. I support the Border patrol 100% so long as it is properly doing its job, just as I support the local PD and the sheriff's dept. so long as they are properly doing their jobs. But if there is anything worse than an official granted special powers and trusted with specific and essential responsibilities abusing his position and using his power to brutalize suspects or citizens, or taking the law into his own hands rather than simply apprehending suspects and leaving it to the proper venue to determine guilt and punishment, it's those rash actions resulting in the suspect in question getting away with his crimes and being able to seek damages from the government. After all, when awards are given to the victims of law enforcement abuse, it is not the wayward officers who pay those awards, but you and I through our tax dollars.

I understand the natural prejudice in favor of border enforcement agents over illegal aliens. However, EVERYONE should be accountable for his actions, and that goes double for those entrusted with the power of deadly force. It sucks royally that the damned drug trafficker not only gets off scot free, but gets a payday out of it as well, but a good bit of the blame for that rests with the agents.

I have said an will continue to say that I find it objectionable that the White House is villified because it did not immediately leap to the defense of a pair of agents duly convicted of a crime. I don't know about you, but I find terrifying the idea that government would cover up for the misdeeds of agents duly convicted of crimes, and I think that it is especially egregious when the branch of government under which an official serves attempts to pardon its own. There are some very fundamental issues of governance at stake here, and I don't think that we should abandon them just because we have a kneejerk reaction to a given case.

It seems to me that in the rush to defend agents and lash out at an illegal alien drug peddler who got to mock justice, we are throwing prudence out the window.

The problem I have with this statement is this.

IF the drug dealer was NOT in this country ILLEGALY in the first place, and second if he did NOT have a truck full of drugs, this would NOT have happened.

There's also a "process" for immigration. It seems Bush has no compunction about subverting processes when it serves him.

Crocket, in a good and decent world, I would agree with what you said 100%. Unfortunately, we already know that the President pardoned several people around Christmas time. Among them...drug dealers. Why on earth would I support that action, and defend the imprisonment of law enforcement? I am tired of hearing people say that the good people "set the example", because as we are setting the example, we have dangerous criminals running right over us. They don't care what the example is, and we won't be able to reform them. We can put the BPs on probation, let them continue to help our country and avoid putting their families on welfare. What is the saying? Don't cut off your nose to spite your face? I think that applies here.

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, in a good and decent world, I would agree with what you said 100%. Unfortunately, we already know that the President pardoned several people around Christmas time. Among them...drug dealers. Why on earth would I support that action, and defend the imprisonment of law enforcement? I am tired of hearing people say that the good people "set the example", because as we are setting the example, we have dangerous criminals running right over us. They don't care what the example is, and we won't be able to reform them. We can put the BPs on probation, let them continue to help our country and avoid putting their families on welfare. What is the saying? Don't cut off your nose to spite your face? I think that applies here.

Neese, we have a concept (a good one) in our legal system called "conflict of interest." It's good because it requires an official to recuse himself in the event that the recipient of a legal or other beneficial determination by him is closely associated with him or his office. The Border Patrol is an agency of the Executive Branch. The Exec. pardoning its own after they have been duly convicted is an EXTREMELY touchy proposition, and should be done only in the most egregious cases of miscarriage of justice. I know that a lot of people have a bee under their bonnet over this specific case, but there do not appear to be any serious issues with its prosecution or verdict. That's not to say that sufficiently serious problems may not come to light, but they certainly do not appear to have done so to this point. Procedurally, the prosecution and convction seems to have been pretty much by the book. The Executive Branch pardoning its own duly convicted officers sets a VERY bad precedent, don't you think? Try to be objective and consider the potential long-term ramifications if such pardons were to occur on any sort of regular basis.

Originally Posted by Ronster

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

You know Bush is feeling the heat now for him to be answering directly.

I believe that the minute those agents walked thru the prison gates, Mr. Bush's future fate was sealed.

He has passed the point of no return now. I feel that Mr. Bush is not going to like the direction things take in the near future and the investigations that will follow and what they may unearth.

W

William, you don't blame the officers for using a surrendering suspect for target practice rather than simply doing their jobs and taking him into custody? You are aware that their successful prosecution hinged on the fact that they did not accept the man's attempt to surrender, but rather hit him with a gun butt and then shot at him as he fled, are you not?

Let's be straight, here. I support the Border patrol 100% so long as it is properly doing its job, just as I support the local PD and the sheriff's dept. so long as they are properly doing their jobs. But if there is anything worse than an official granted special powers and trusted with specific and essential responsibilities abusing his position and using his power to brutalize suspects or citizens, or taking the law into his own hands rather than simply apprehending suspects and leaving it to the proper venue to determine guilt and punishment, it's those rash actions resulting in the suspect in question getting away with his crimes and being able to seek damages from the government. After all, when awards are given to the victims of law enforcement abuse, it is not the wayward officers who pay those awards, but you and I through our tax dollars.

I understand the natural prejudice in favor of border enforcement agents over illegal aliens. However, EVERYONE should be accountable for his actions, and that goes double for those entrusted with the power of deadly force. It sucks royally that the damned drug trafficker not only gets off scot free, but gets a payday out of it as well, but a good bit of the blame for that rests with the agents.

I have said an will continue to say that I find it objectionable that the White House is villified because it did not immediately leap to the defense of a pair of agents duly convicted of a crime. I don't know about you, but I find terrifying the idea that government would cover up for the misdeeds of agents duly convicted of crimes, and I think that it is especially egregious when the branch of government under which an official serves attempts to pardon its own. There are some very fundamental issues of governance at stake here, and I don't think that we should abandon them just because we have a kneejerk reaction to a given case.

It seems to me that in the rush to defend agents and lash out at an illegal alien drug peddler who got to mock justice, we are throwing prudence out the window.

The problem I have with this statement is this.

IF the drug dealer was NOT in this country ILLEGALY in the first place, and second if he did NOT have a truck full of drugs, this would NOT have happened.

The status of the victim is immaterial to the charges in this case. I understand that it is prejudicial in the minds of many, but that has nothing to do with our system of justice. This is not about who the victim was, but rather whether the officers exceded their authority criminally. This is a criminal case, not a tort case. Were this a tort case, I would agree with you.