Thread: FOXNEWS: Bush would consider pardon

Originally Posted by Kate

Do you feel, generically speaking, that it is appropriate for a elected official to be able to circumvent the justice system when applied to the agents who work for him by pardoning them? Do you not feel that allowing, much less encouraging, the Executive Branch to be able to free its agents who have been convicted by a duly convened jury in a duly convened trial is a good way to encourage future tyranny?

Crockett, I think most of us, including me, agree at an intellectual level that you are right in the point you are making.

The problem as I see it is the context. This particular situation occurred against a backdrop of an Executive branch that has been hell-bent on having open borders, that touted sending National Guard to our borders but won't let them engage or apprehend intruders, prevents border patrol from pursuing drug smugglers or illegals, signed off on a border fence but really doesn't want it, etc. On top of this, the drug smuggler in this case was actively pursued by the justice dept, and the entire case was brought to the attention of border patrol via a third BP agent who grew up in Mexico and was a childhood friend of the smuggler - very bizarre circumstances.

Given everything that has transpired, the public has every reason to question what happened with these agents and even to strenuously object to the outcome. This may or may not be entirely rational. But I do believe these agents should not be allowed to simply fall through the cracks, never to be heard from again.

Has anyone actually read the entire trial testimony to see if Sutton has accurately portrayed the government's side in his sound bites? Are there any obvious omissions of evidence that should have been brought in? How definitive was the evidence that was presented? I have heard that certain testimony that would tend to support the border patrol agents' side was not admitted. You're right about the jurors - they should have been adult enough to voice their confusion or objections during the trial before a verdict was rendered. This was a big mistake on their part, one that could have prevented this entire situation. What a shame that they didn't speak up.

Are the trial transcripts available? I sure would like to read them.

Fair enough, Kate. That is a reasonable assessment and the course you suggest would likely lead to some reasonable conclusions. That's all I ask.

What got me inspired to write the series of posts on this issue is what appeared to be a lot of threads inspired by a lot of passion and very little calm deliberation. Most claims being made were strictly based upon the as-yet unsubstantiated claims of the supporters of the agents, even though there was a different set of claims coming from the other side which at least had the weight an official statement and a trial and conviction. Also, there was an almost irrational connection between the prosecution of these agents in what would otherwise have been a fairly routine excessive force case and the policies of the administration, to the point that the fact that the President had not immediately pardoned these guys immediately after the sentencing somehow amounted to (of all things) "treason." In other words, this case got piggybacked onto to a lot of other frustrations and got blown beyond all proportion or reason. I get concerned when my fellow citizens start storming the gates with pitchforks and torches.

I believe that a protracted dialogue in review of the actual transcripts is in order BEFORE accusations are made or plans of action are formulated. Wouldn't a lot of you guys feel a little silly if it turned out that this was a classic case of excessive force and the agents were actually guilty as charged. It seems that the bandwagon got started down the road before anyone knew who was driving or where it was going.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

I know that I am going to be in the minority here, and you all will think that I am crazy, but no, I don't think it is a bad precedent. Our country is already turning into the wild west, and the good guys are losing. By making an example out of a couple of Border Patrol agents, as they have to the Minutemen, only makes me more angry. I am almost willing to bet that these two men will serve more jail time than many of our rapist, drug dealers and illegals. I know what you are saying, but I don't agree with that anymore. It is already a free for all, especially on the border. We would rather see a little old lady rot in her apartment freezing from the cold, without food, and too fearful to step foot outside of her home, than to execute known criminals who are keeping her there. That, my friend, is a sad day. Let's start helping the people that make this country great, and stop protecting the dregs of humanity.

Okay, so let me get this straight. People here are ripping George W. Bush left and right, accusing him of conspiring against the People and even of being a foreign mole, but YOU think it would be a good idea if he were to routinely pardon the misdeeds of his own operatives in the event that they are made to face justice and are duly convicted. Is that right?

Wow. Is there no rational middle ground here any more?

My allegiance is to the safety of our nation. I am not saying that I would take matters into my own hands, but if someone else does, and it is against someone with a criminal record, I am not going to protest their actions. I don't think that there is a conspiracy, and I don't think that the President is a mole. I would, however, like some form of explanation for the decisions being made concerning the border. We know that tax paying citizens who live on the border are being kidnapped, threatened, not only by drug cartels but the Mexican military as well. We know that Laredo is a war zone and that there is a price on our BP's heads. The National Guard has been threatend, and we know that parents have to carry a gun with them when they walk their children to the bus stop. Our government is completely aware of what is happening, I know this because I write them all of the time inviting them to bring their loved ones for a nice family vacation in the war zone. So far, no one has taken me up on it, I can't imagine why. By profession, you have to have a certain mindset, luckily I don't need to. Do any of these things resinate? Is that the United States that you want for your children?

Neese, that response in no way addresses the point that I was making, so I will try again. Do you feel, generically speaking, that it is appropriate for a elected official to be able to circumvent the justice system when applied to the agents who work for him by pardoning them? Do you not feel that allowing, much less encouraging, the Executive Branch to be able to free its agents who have been convicted by a duly convened jury in a duly convened trial is a good way to encourage future tyranny?

I'll take this logical exercise a step further. When I hear people clamouring for a given power for an official they support, I try to turn the argument around and ask how they would feel if that same power was being exercised by their least favorite politician. For example, I ask those who support Bush and his War on Terror if they would be comfortable having Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office and free to circumvent due process via the Patriot Act. So, Neese, think about the most despicable person you can imagine occupying the Oval Office. Think about all the potential abuses of power by federal agents operating under the direction of that person. Then think about having a standard policy whereby any of those agents brought to trial and convicted of abuses could be summarily pardoned by their boss. Is that something that you want? It sure as Hell is not something that I want, and I think that the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves at such a thought.

Crocket, I am not saying that you are wrong in what you said. In the principals in which our country was founded on, I agree with you 100%. However, with that being said, I have been enlightened by the fact that innocent citizens are being abused. Once by the criminal and often, then again by our laws. Was justice served in the OJ trial? Even if he was sentenced, is justice really served when your loved one is buried six feet under? I have a special place in my heart for the folks that live on the border. Although they are living on US soil, they are being dictated to by Mexico. Some people cannot get utilities to their home because the utility company is too afraid to come out to their house. Some people can't sell their land because of the problems, and if they did, who would buy it? Someone with a special interest in digging a tunnel? In principal I agree with you, and I know we are never going to see eye to eye on this one. I know that you are a better person than me by being able to keep your focus. I don't mind being imperfect, because I can put myself in someone else's shoes, and really understand how it affects their life. I am not competitive and could care less who wins or loses, I just want everyone to have a safe, happy, healthy life. What is just a case to some people, is actually a lifetime of hardship for others. We allow little children to be shot dead as gangs are playing shoot'em up out in the streets. Our politicians have very little control of protecting it's citizens, and want to keep the minimum law enforcement in our cities and on our border. I don't understand why. It is already a free for all, and it will only get worse.

I am very pro Capitol punishment, I see no need to pay for a repeat offender to have any luxuries. Why should we provide a life in prison that is better than what he had on the outside? I think that we need four types of prisons:

#1: First time offenders: identical to prisons that we have now.

#2: Similar prison to #1, with less amenities and perks.

#3: A prison with nothing but the basic necessities and no perks. This prison also comes with a monthly caning, similar to what they do in Asia.

#4: And the grand finally: death row. I am not talking multiple years on death row, I mean enjoy your six month stay (or less), and see ya.

Our society is so liberal when it comes to people breaking the law. It is just a game of cat and mouse. I would put Joe Arpaio in charge of ICE and Homeland Security and call it a day. I don't want our children to be locked in the house any more in fear of child molesters or kidnappers, I am tired of people getting raped, robbed, people breaking the law, left and right, because they know that they will only get a slap on the wrist. If we keep doing things the way that we have always done them, and we get the same result, we need to do something else. Apparently, I have gotten to the point beyond reason. You have done a great job explaining your point and I thank you for that. A short time ago, I might have even agreed with you. We have enough idiots in our country, we don't need any more. I have a new motto: Nothing says welcome to America like a little lead.

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I am not saying that you are wrong in what you said. In the principals in which our country was founded on, I agree with you 100%. However, with that being said, I have been enlightened by the fact that innocent citizens are being abused. Once by the criminal and often, then again by our laws. Was justice served in the OJ trial? Even if he was sentenced, is justice really served when your loved one is buried six feet under? I have a special place in my heart for the folks that live on the border. Although they are living on US soil, they are being dictated to by Mexico. Some people cannot get utilities to their home because the utility company is too afraid to come out to their house. Some people can't sell their land because of the problems, and if they did, who would buy it? Someone with a special interest in digging a tunnel? In principal I agree with you, and I know we are never going to see eye to eye on this one. I know that you are a better person than me by being able to keep your focus. I don't mind being imperfect, because I can put myself in someone else's shoes, and really understand how it affects their life. I am not competitive and could care less who wins or loses, I just want everyone to have a safe, happy, healthy life. What is just a case to some people, is actually a lifetime of hardship for others. We allow little children to be shot dead as gangs are playing shoot'em up out in the streets. Our politicians have very little control of protecting it's citizens, and want to keep the minimum law enforcement in our cities and on our border. I don't understand why. It is already a free for all, and it will only get worse.

I am very pro Capitol punishment, I see no need to pay for a repeat offender to have any luxuries. Why should we provide a life in prison that is better than what he had on the outside? I think that we need four types of prisons:

#1: First time offenders: identical to prisons that we have now.

#2: Similar prison to #1, with less amenities and perks.

#3: A prison with nothing but the basic necessities and no perks. This prison also comes with a monthly caning, similar to what they do in Asia.

#4: And the grand finally: death row. I am not talking multiple years on death row, I mean enjoy your six month stay (or less), and see ya.

Our society is so liberal when it comes to people breaking the law. It is just a game of cat and mouse. I would put Joe Arpaio in charge of ICE and Homeland Security and call it a day. I don't want our children to be locked in the house any more in fear of child molesters or kidnappers, I am tired of people getting raped, robbed, people breaking the law, left and right, because they know that they will only get a slap on the wrist. If we keep doing things the way that we have always done them, and we get the same result, we need to do something else. Apparently, I have gotten to the point beyond reason. You have done a great job explaining your point and I thank you for that. A short time ago, I might have even agreed with you. We have enough idiots in our country, we don't need any more. I have a new motto: Nothing says welcome to America like a little lead.

Are you familiar with the concept that the exception should not make the rule? Citing the OJ case is a classic example of this principle. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater every time the system goes a little haywire. We should simply learn from our errors and make the tiny corrects necessary. Even so, no system of justice that does not involve God Himself as judge and jury is ever going to be 100% fair or accurate.

I am concerned that what you appear to be saying is that we need to chuck the system and go on sheer "feeling." As a matter of fact, I am tempted to suggest that occasional high-profile miscarriages of justice are pumped up precisely to achieve that result. If justice is removed from the domain of objective deliberation and becomes a subjective detemination for each person, who then feels free to ignore the law and the system of justice when they don't don't like the results, what we have is anarchy. The only cure for anarchy is authoritarianism. If you get your way, what will happen is that you will provide the government with the justification to clamp down even harder to avoid chaos. That is a bad gambit.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by nittygritty

By all means no Crocket, let's make sure we give the benefit of the doubt to the scummy drug dealers not to our border guards, that just would not sit right with our Liberals and our PC Americans.

That's a cheap shot. This trial was not about the crime of the drug dealer. The possibiliy of trying him went out the window when the officers failed to arrest him or even provide a description of him. They blew that case. This was about the crimes that the agents committed, and taking a cheap shot at me by pretending that my desire to see both sets of lawbreakers punished somehow equates to sympathy for the drug trafficker, particularly when I have already repeatedly stated that one of the most egregious things about the actions of the agents is that they PREVENTED the damned guy from being prosecuted, is unwarranted to the point that I believe you owe me an apology.

I have no idea why you chose to take my remark personal Crocket, I was not calling you a liberal for gosh sakes. What I meant was, they keep telling us, our Border guards shot an unarmed man, if only the 3 of them were there at the time, why in the hell are we or they choosing to take the word of a scummy varmit vomit dealing drug runner, over the word of our 2 border guards? I choose to believe in them myself, I take offense myself at your saying my words were a cheap shot, when in fact they were not, that is exactally happened our Gov. choose to believe the scummy side instead of the side of the border guards, and yes, I feel mostly PC and liberals are the ones who choose to believe that crap! I stand by what I said!

Originally Posted by nittygritty

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by nittygritty

By all means no Crocket, let's make sure we give the benefit of the doubt to the scummy drug dealers not to our border guards, that just would not sit right with our Liberals and our PC Americans.

That's a cheap shot. This trial was not about the crime of the drug dealer. The possibiliy of trying him went out the window when the officers failed to arrest him or even provide a description of him. They blew that case. This was about the crimes that the agents committed, and taking a cheap shot at me by pretending that my desire to see both sets of lawbreakers punished somehow equates to sympathy for the drug trafficker, particularly when I have already repeatedly stated that one of the most egregious things about the actions of the agents is that they PREVENTED the damned guy from being prosecuted, is unwarranted to the point that I believe you owe me an apology.

I have no idea why you chose to take my remark personal Crocket, I was not calling you a liberal for gosh sakes. What I meant was, they keep telling us, our Border guards shot an unarmed man, if only the 3 of them were there at the time, why in the hell are we or they choosing to take the word of a scummy varmit vomit dealing drug runner, over the word of our 2 border guards? I choose to believe in them myself, I take offense myself at your saying my words were a cheap shot, when in fact they were not, that is exactally happened our Gov. choose to believe the scummy side instead of the side of the border guards, and yes, I feel mostly PC and liberals are the ones who choose to believe that crap! I stand by what I said!

Apparently there were other agents present and the damning testimony came from them as well as the trafficker.

BTW - From what information has been made available, the Mexican appeared to be a smuggler or mule rather than a dealer. I don't suppose that it makes a lot of difference.

I have to say, this is a great debate! Thank you, CrocketsGhost, that you have such an enlightening view on all the different topics on here. :P
It actually made me take a step back and ponder on the issues you have remarked on certain subjects. I hope others who have read your threads had the same reaction and have been enlightened to some of the subjects.
I still have my opinions on the trial as to actually believe the prosecution side. I do agree and also some people that the BP have used agressive force against someone who may have been unarmed, but in an article it states the prosectuion has also filed false statements.

"At the trial, the drug smuggler claimed that Compean fired 5 or 6 shots at him. During the trial, the prosecution upped that number to 16 shots. "
website below:
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/

I would also like to state that in part of law during court, a witness is testifying. How solid is his or her testimony is worth by, judging his or her past or present actions. In which same thing happening to the, "Lacross rape conviction". Which means that the drug dealer has nothing to stand on other then a bullet in the buttock. Which we can also think someone shot him to look like he was shot from the BP. Until we can read what action was taken to prove it was them, its her se. Also it has been known in some cases to get a conviction, the prosecution could have coheres the other BP who testified. Like I said until it was recorded on video we won't know. I don't know about you, but in some child molestation case shown on TV.....it showed prosecutors leading the child to convict their own parents. Even adults in some video cases...making to tired to think by constantly asking over same questions.
Anyhow, hope you keep up making great debates such as these! I hope to read much more of these typre of debates.

Last night I heard Dunkin Hunter on Michael Savage and he talked about giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on that he'll do the right thing. I also have heard Bush's comments on this matter. My analysis is that Bush will never give a pardon to these men, even with all the public pressure and the pleas from his fellow Republicans.