Posted on 01/13/2007 9:25:57 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
Those who have been lobbying for a presidential pardon or other intervention from the government on behalf of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to prison for shooting an escaping drug dealer in the buttocks should review the evidence in their cases, White House spokesman Tony Snow told WND.
"They (agents Jose Alonso Compean, 28, and Ignacio Ramos, 37) eventually went before a … jury – and were convicted on 11 of 12 counts, by a U.S. attorney who has prosecuted any number of cases. But the facts of this case are such that I would invite everybody to take a full look at the documented record," Snow said.
"This is not the case of the United States saying, we are not going to support people who go after drug dealers. Of course we are. We think it's incumbent to go after drug dealers, and we also think that it's vitally important to make sure that we provide border security so our people are secure," he continued.
"We also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law. And in a court of law, these two agents were convicted on 11 of 12 counts by a jury of their peers after a lengthy trial at which they did have the opportunity to make their case," he said.
His response came to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House:
"A nationally syndicated columnist, Phyllis Schlafly, reports the following, and this is a quote: 'President Bush pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers, at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend America against drug smugglers.' And my question: If Mrs. Schlafly was at all inaccurate in this statement, you would surely rebut, wouldn't you?"
Snow said he couldn't comment about the specifics of pardons. But he said Schlafly's reference should include the details, how "according to the facts presented in court, you had an incident in which there was an attempt to pull somebody over. He finally got pulled over; somebody holds out a gun. Sort of scuffling ensues. And what happens is you've got a fellow running away, and a couple of agents eventually in pursuit, firing 14 shots at him – I think 15, actually. Fourteen by one agent missed, one did strike him in the fleshy hindquarters."
At that point yet, Snow noted, the agents "did not know if he was an illegal. They did not know that there were 700 pounds of marijuana …"
"They also have rights of appeal. So I don't want to be acting here as – I'm not going to be judge and jury, but I do think that there's been a characterization that somehow the government is turning a blind eye toward the law in enforcing the law. And … I think that's the important thing. So take a look at the facts of the case."
He said questions about the fact that the government brought the man back from Mexico and gave him immunity on charges to testify against the agents would have to be answered by a lawyer.
As WND has reported, five congressmen recently issued a call to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to intervene.
The lawmakers have asked President Bush to pardon Compean and Ramos, who were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October. But the sentences are scheduled to begin Jan. 17, and in lieu of a pardon, the congressmen are asking Gonzalez to request the Justice Department to direct federal prosecutors not to oppose a court motion to keep the agents free on bond during the appeals process.
Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; and Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.; announced their request in a news conference at the nation's capitol.
The lawmakers cited "discrepancies" in the government's case that they said raised questions as to whether justice was being served. The members of Congress were joined by former Border Patrol agent Andy Ramirez of Friends of the Border Patrol and T.J. Bonner and Rich Pierce of the National Border Patrol Council.
Bush also has received a letter about the case from more than 50 Congress members, and Grassfire.org has an online petition calling on the president to pardon the agents.
"Two brave Border Patrol agents trying to enforce the president's nonsensical border policy ending up being sent to prison, while an illegal alien drug smuggler is given immunity and walks free," Rohrabacher said.
As WND has reported, a federal jury convicted the two after a two-week trial on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas issued a statement in September arguing "the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean's shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next."
The statement said, "Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once."
Ramirez of Friends of the Border Patrol said the drug smuggler has "fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."
Snow followed up after the press briefing by faxing 12 pages of comment about the case of the border guards, including the statement from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, as well as a guest column he wrote for the El Paso Times in October.
"Agents Compean and Ramos were not railroaded by some over-zealous prosecutor, they were unanimously found guilty by a jury in a United States federal district court after a trial that lasted more than 2 ½ weeks," he wrote in the newspaper. "The problem for Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true."
"In America," he wrote, "law-enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way."
Snow also faxed a six-page analysis of the case, with a list of unsigned myth-fact comparison statements.
On another related question, Kinsolving asked Snow: "What is the White House reaction to The Washington Times reporting that our National Guard troops in the Mexican border near Sasabe, Arizona being required to be disarmed, and who had to evacuate due to incursions by armed Mexicans?"
"Talk to the Border Patrol about that," Snow said.
to be honest, you sound very hardline. I mean, shooting at a suspect is possibly giving them the death penalty for a possible petty crime. How is that helping police? That's just adding more of a burden on them if they were to act that way and kill some criminals that may have changed their ways latter in life. I think that's something you might see in a tyrant run government.
The 'cat is out of the bag' and they are not supporting our Border Agents!
So an illegal smuggler of 750 pounds of marijuana was given immunity to testify against the agents.
He was given very valuable consideration.
I wonder why you are unable to see this as motivation to lie against the agents.
Later on, the smuggler would claim that he was unarmed at the time. If you believe that a veteran narco-trafficker like Aldrete-Davila was unarmed while illegally smuggling 743 pounds of narcotics across our border then I've got a dozen bridges to sell ya....
I wonder why you are unable to see the jury taking this into consideration.
"We the People, of the United States of America". Not "We the people, in general, of North America, or what ever border we just happen to jump across, claim these Rights under the following fungible piece of parchment."
Don't be a retard. Advocate for your illegal alien buddies if you want, just don't pretend they are anything other than criminals.
When you get to the Bill of Rights, please let me know. Take your time.
So the Bill or Rights protects Mexican citizens Rights too? Wow... How about French people? Ethiopians? Chinese? I knew those Founders were some smart cookies, but this is the first time I've heard that they had taken over the whole World and brought everyone under our Constitutions protections for their Rights.
Please stay focused. The Bill of Rights protects everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States. If you choose to make the argument that it does not, proceed. As I mentioned earlier, I'll play the part of Justice Scalia. Convince me.
Really? So the "People of Mexico" are now the exact same, Constitutionally speaking, as the "People of the United States"? How remarkable...
How "one world" of you. Did you work for Kofi Anan?
Further, I would expect a home grown criminal, illegally crossing the border, and running from the LEO's to be shot at as well. In fact, it happens quite often. So where does that leave you? Really, trying to stick up for a criminal invader fleeing from the BP tasked with stopping him. What next? Saying we shouldn't jail anyone? That the cops have no duty to follow you if you flee the scene?
Utterly ridiculous.
The problem is "our people" to GWB and Snow are apparently the illegal invaders.
When has either one spoken up in favor of Americans over Mexicans?
Ok, so you are unable to provide a Constitutional basis for your argument. In that case, to complete the circle in which you are traveling, I refer you to my comment #155. Good Day.
Er.. no. "We the People, of the United States of America" is pretty clear to everyone except you. What I am unable to find is anywhere it extends the protections for individual Rights to anyone outside the country or not a citizen thereof.
It is YOU who must prove your claim that Mexicans get 4/5th Amendment Rights greater than those which we US born Citizens get. If I flee from the cops, I get shot at. I can't come back later and file criminal charges against them.
For some idiotic reason, you think this border jumping Mexican drug mule can. Why is that?
bump
[Justice Scalia leans to his clerk and whispers, "Check the status of Mr. Corpse's law license."]
It might be different, if the White House had any credibility on the issue...which they don't.
I am greatly disturbed at his Department of Justice and Homeland Security's Chertoff who scoff at the real vulnerability on our Southern border and continued insistence that our invaders are "good people trying to support their families" now rather than the former "doing jobs that ordinary Americans refuse to do."
Not to pardon these Border Agents regardless of "following the law" as Snow quipped, when laws are overlooked by our own criminal justice system and urged on by our own Department of (in)Justice, gives me no sense of hope.
Ok.(sarc) What stunning argumentation. Excellent quotation directly from the Constitution and a brilliant synopsis of your position. Mine eyes have seen the light. Mexican drug runners really DO have the right to run from the border patrol with impunity and if they get shot can file charges and expect them to stick.
Who knew that all along black really was white and up was down. (/sarc)
Buy a clue. Seriously.
I was simply responding to your remarkably-sophisticated argument that had you (as a U.S. citizen) would be unable to file charges against the cops who fired at you 15 times when you tried to flee, lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence, and then proceeded to write up and file a false report it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.