Bush Slammed as Border Patrol Agents Begin Prison Terms

(CNSNews.com) - As two U.S. Border Patrol agents surrendered to federal marshals Wednesday afternoon to begin serving more than a decade in jail for shooting an illegal drug smuggler, a federal lawmaker and conservative advocacy group expressed outrage at President Bush for not pardoning the men.

"This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said of the president.

"It's shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party," the California Republican added in comments coinciding with the jailing of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Rohrabacher said Bush "obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."

Ramos and Compean reportedly handed themselves over to the U.S. Marshal's office in El Paso, Texas, early Wednesday afternoon, facing the prospect of 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for a string of offenses including the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.

Steve Elliott, president of the conservative group Grassfire.org, also lashed out at Bush on Wednesday.

The American people "have a vivid picture of where the Bush administration really stands on border security," Elliott charged in a news release.

He described the crimes committed by Ramos and Compean as "so-called civil rights violations against an illegal alien drug smuggler who has been smuggling drugs into this country for years and was smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana at the time of the confrontation."

Elliott also argued that the U.S. attorney's office did not have to pursue the case, prosecute the men, "take the word of an illegal alien drug smuggler over that of our border agents" or give the illegal alien immunity.

"President Bush could have spoken out publicly in support of these agents and how their incarceration could further cripple our border security efforts," he added.

Instead, Elliot said, "when it came time to stand and be counted on the side of our border agents, the president's administration chose to side with a career illegal alien drug smuggler."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Ramos and Compean encountered Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila while on duty on Feb. 17, 2005. When they tried to stop him, he fled and was shot and wounded. Aldrete-Davila was treated at a hospital in El Paso and then returned to Mexico.

After learning of the shooting, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity from prosecution if he would return to the United States to testify against Ramos and Compean.

Sutton later defended the decision, arguing that the agents did not have knowledge of any criminal activity involving Aldrete-Davila at the time they shot him.

Ramos and Compean were charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, willfully violating Aldrete-Davila's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and obstruction of justice for intentionally defacing the crime scene, lying about the incident, and failing to report the truth.

During a press briefing last Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow addressed the case and criticism at some length.

"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," Snow said.

"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," he added.

"Now, at the time this happened, they did not know if he was an illegal," Snow continued.

"They did not know that there were 700 pounds of marijuana [in Aldrete-Davila's van]. They didn't know any of those things. But instead you had this. They also had received arms training the day before that said if you have an incident like this, you must preserve the evidence and you must report it promptly," he said.

"Instead, according to court documents, they went around and picked up the shell casings. Furthermore, they asked one of their colleagues also to help pick up shell casings. They disposed of them," Snow added.

Snow noted that a jury convicted the agents on 11 out of 12 counts and defended the government's stance.

"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 also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law," he said.

While initially incensed when I first heard this story, I have now come to the conclusion that at least, this is not something we should hold against the President.

The most we can say about this entire affair is that the agents shot at a fleeing man who, at the time, posed no imminent threat, and probably, in the past before this incident, smuggled drugs into this country.

Let's break this down. First of all, the agents shot at an unarmed man fleeing from them. The medical evidence shows he was shot in the back, so he was fleeing from them. And court testimony from the two agents themselves said that he had initially tried to surrender. Whether or not he actually was armed, from my cursory examination of this situation, one cannot immediately determine, (at best for the agents), however it's clear he was shot in the back thus there is no way, even if armed, he could have posed a threat at the time he was shot. IOW, a man running away and NOT firing, poses very little threat, even if armed, it's just simple anatomical fact.

Secondly, by the statement in post #44, we read that the suspect "has not subsequently been arrested for drug smuggling". The meaning of this sentence is two fold: One, that since this incident, it has not been demonstrated that he has smuggled drugs, AND TWO, PROBABLY (although this is not assured, the language does not necessarily imply this) he did smuggle drugs in the past.

Now from this, one may "rationalize" the shooting by saying, "well, the border agents were just doing their jobs, getting another drug dealing punk off the streets". However, as other posters on this thread have pointed out, this is a country of laws. We CONSERVATIVES cannot and DO not simply "pick and choose" which laws to follow; that's what LIBERALS do. "If it's good enough for Sandy Burgler, it's good enough for us too" is a CHILDISH mentality. It will get us no where to be so primal.

We must respect the rule of law, and this means NO vigilante style justice. That means, that even if we say the man smuggled drugs in the past, we cannot say it's "ok" to shoot him at this time, simply because of something he did in the past. As far as the drugs found in the van, again, because of the shoddy way the agents performed their job that day, there is no LEGAL way to tie him to the contents of the van. No drugs were found on him PERSONALLY, as Tony Snow pointed out in his press briefing today.

Now, at this point, some on this thread seem to think it's perfectly rational to suppose that the "facts" presented in Post #44 are actually bureaucratic doublespeak, or "evidence of a coverup", or "evidence of how much this administration really doesn't want to do anything about the border". That is an independent assertion of conspiracy. What one MUST understand that to make such a statement of fact, one must provide INDEPENDENT evidence. The Frontpage Mag article in post #98 is not such independent evidence, because the very points in the FrontPage Mag article are addressed in post #44! One must provide evidence that refutes the refutation in #44 to further the charge of conspiracy. IOW, #44 already addresses the claims that radio talk show hosts, FrontPage Mag, and other sources are making. From THERE we must move FORWARD with MORE evidence if we are to make incredible charges like "conspiracy" and "coverup".

Since no such evidence exists, at least not on this thread that I see, then I must conclude that at the least, there is no such grand conspiracy, and take the statement in #44 at face value. Therefore, IMO, when people on the radio or on this Forum are saying things like, "Bush is failing us" or "Bush doesn't care about border agents doing their jobs" or "Bush is just covering this up to further his amnesty agenda", actually does a disservice to people like myself who DO dislike Bush's "guest worker" program, and DO think Bush doesn't do enough about immigration. It does a disservice because it makes our point look like so much conspiracy nut hysteria.

Here's something to consider: We who oppose Bush's plans for immigration can still believe these two men deserve jail time. In fact, given the facts at hand, we SHOULD believe they deserve it, if we really DO, RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW.

Do you honestly believe that a Mexican drug smuggler with hundreds of pounds of drugs doesn't carry a weapon? The agents say they believe he was armed, and the smuggler's own relatives say he was never without a gun.

Okay, let's assume you're right. Let's say Davila had a gun on his person. It doesn't matter. He was shot while running away. You can't shoot people when they're running away *UNLESS* you have reason to believe that they're an imminent threat to you or others.

Allow me to give you two examples: LEO tussles with a bad guy, who draws a gun, pops a round or two at the LEO, then runs away, gun in hand, toward an innocent bystander. The LEO shoots him in the back. GOOD SHOOT, because the LEO has reason to believe that the bad guy is an imminent threat to the safety of the civilian.

Same LEO, tussling with same bad guy. Bad guy *doesn't* draw the gun, but turns and runs toward the same innocent bystander, but without the gun drawn. LEO shoots him in the back. BAD SHOOT, because the LEO had no reason to assume that the bystander was in danger of serious bodily injury or death.

It's really that simple.

Post # 44 addresses most, if not all of the relevant issues in this case. Please read it F.Y.I.

At first, when I heard about this, I was completely sympathetic to the Border Agents. It is embarrassing that many conservative shows are broadcasting the myths (as presented in post #44) as fact.

The one I hear all the time is one of the agents was Patrolman of the Year, when in fact he had been disciplined twice for domestic abuse (see the last myth). It has become apparent either complete ignoramusi or others with more sinister motives have hijacked this event to he detriment of conservatives.

Myth: ALDRETE HAD A GUN AND THE AGENTS ONLY FIRED IN SELF DEFENSE
Reality: Trial testimony from other Border Patrol agents who were at the scene and who arrived shortly after the shooting shows that this is not true. Testimony further revealed that Agents Compean and Ramos never took cover nor did they ever warn the other agents to take cover. This action demonstrates that they did not perceive a threat.

In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to surrender with both hands open and in the air. Had Agents Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, they would not have abandoned him after the shooting and they would have warned their fellow agents who arrived at the scene to stay out of the open while an armed suspect was on the loose. If the agents had believed that the shooting was justified then they would have left the crime scene undisturbed and let the investigation absolve them. The agents knew that Aldrete did not have a weapon and they knew he posed no threat to them as he fled. Agent Juarez(another Border Agent on the scene) also testified that Aldrete was surrendering to Compean with his hands open and empty palms turned to Compean.

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.