Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents

The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.

"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"

On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.

"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"

The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.

Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."

"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."

The Bush administration further charges Ramos and Compean failed to file a report that was required after their weapons had been discharged.

Bonner argues that under Border Patrol policy, Ramos and Compean were required to make an oral report, not a written report.

"The agents did fail to make an oral report, but under Border Patrol policy, that failure merits at most a five-day suspension. It is not a crime, it is an administrative violation."

Bonner said a lot of Americans are wondering why the Bush administration seems to be making an effort to represent the case the way the drug smuggler wants it seen.

"If you go to the U.S. attorney's website and look at their version of the events, it looks like the drug smuggler wrote that statement himself," he said. "The U.S. attorney is relying on the drug smuggler's statements, and this drug smuggler has everything to gain by lying."

Bonner pointed out the drug smuggler is suing the federal government for $5 million.

"The government is aiding his case by prosecuting these Border Patrol agents wrongfully," Bonner said. "The U.S. government has virtually guaranteed that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila is going to walk away."

A statement from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, published Oct. 23, 2006, on the U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas, claims Compean and Ramos "shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."

In the Feb. 17, 2005 incident, the van driven by Aldrete-Davila was found subsequently to contain 743 pounds of marijuana.

In exchange for giving his testimony at trial, Aldrete-Davila was given immunity by the U.S. government for all events occurring in that incident, including his drug smuggling into the United States.

A rumor persists that Aldrete-Davila subsequently was arrested in October 2005 smuggling another 1,000 pounds of marijuana, but the indictment was sealed and later expunged because Aldrete-Davila was the star witness in the government's case against Ramos and Compean.

In a telephone interview with WND, Shana Jones, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Sutton's office, denied Aldrete-Davila had ever been arrested for drug smuggling.

A "Myths vs. Facts" press release published yesterday by Sutton's office repeated the denial, stating, "The Western District of Texas leads the nation in the number of individuals we prosecute for illegally smuggling drugs into this country. If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him."

Sutton's press release denied Aldrete-Davila was given "blanket immunity" for any crimes he may have committed or may commit in the future.

The U.S. attorney argued giving Aldrete-Davila a promise that the government would not use his truthful statements gave up very little, because the case against him "was not prosecutable."

Sutton states there was no provable evidence against Aldrete-Davila "until he agreed to cooperate."

Shana Jones argued to WND that a jury convicted Ramos and Compean, rejecting the version of events they presented in self-defense. Sutton continues to maintain the agents committed a crime by firing at an unarmed suspect who was fleeing the scene, stating in the "Myths v. Facts" press release that, "This is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way."

Bonner told WND he strongly insists Ramos and Compean should never have been prosecuted.

"What you have here is a case of two Border Patrol agents going to prison for simply trying to do their jobs," he said. It's a tragedy beyond description. "Both men have small children and how do you explain this to the children who are old enough to talk and comprehend what is happening?" he asked. "How do you explain to a child why Daddy is going to prison for a long time? At that age, things are black and white. Good people are on the outside of the prison bars and bad people are behind bars. How do you explain that Daddy's going to prison even though he did nothing wrong?"

"How is it that the drug smuggler goes free, but the two Border Patrol agents who were trying to apprehend him are going to prison?" he asked. "In this case, the drug smuggler not only gets off totally free, he walks away laughing then turns around to sue the federal government for $5 million.

"The drug smuggler is going to end off well-paid for his crime while the families of Ramos and Compean are going to suffer for years because these husbands and fathers were trying to do their sworn duty as Border Patrol agents."

Bonner said the Bush administration has been a "big disappointment to those of us in the conservative base who worked hard to elect him president in 2000 and 2004."

"There is no doubt in my mind that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila is a lieutenant in the Mexican drug cartels," he said. "There is a drug war waging across our borders, and the Bush administration's unwillingness to pardon agents Ramos and Compean only serves to put the drug cartels on notice that our borders will remain wide open to them. Ramos and Compean should be given medals for doing what they did, not going to jail. The whole case is an outrage and a tragedy."

The National Border Patrol Council has set up a Border Patrol Agents Legal Defense and Relief Fund. The group's website notes all donations designated for Ramos and Compean will be used to fund their legal defense and assist their families.

Well, yes, I am at least saying I understand why people would take his word over the agents in this case.

Realise it isn't JUST these three people. For example, there's this agent who testified there was no weapon and no fear of harm: "Border Patrol Agent Juarez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete [the shooting victim] did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him."

I have spent allot of time looking into this case...Now do you really believe that a person was hauling over a million dollars of drugs was unarmed...On the border....Well I do not....Like I said before the penalty for what they did was administrative...I refuse to believe anything a drug smuggler has to say in his defense...It was not his first time nor is it likely to be his last....I will not turn my back on those who risk their lifes each and every day with their hands tied...Defending us on our borders....They had a supervisor with them and if it was such a big deal then why was he not penalized....

I have read more than one account of what happened....I give the benefit to the agents and not the drug dealer...I have had this argument with a very good friend who took the drug dealers side...It is easy to shoot at someone who then turns his back and hit him in the what ever....I also know some of those on the jury wish they had the opportunity to change their opinions.....We have a serious problem on this border...I have several friends who live near the border....It is not a good place to be near....If we do not get serious about protecting the border this Country is going to pay a horrible price...If we are not already with all the gang problems in our and my community.....Like I said I give the benefit of the doubt to the agents and think that a travesty of justice has been done......

I'm trying to base my opinion only on what the defendents said for themselves. If they have given more than one description, that simply makes it harder to trust them.

The Prosecuter's letter is damning, and I've seen nobody present evidence to dispute what he says about the court testimony. If you want to convince people who seek the truth that you are correct, you should look for that kind of evidence, because based on the evidence we now have, this isn't a "he-said she-said" argument.

The scariest thing from the prosecuter's letter is THIS statement, uncontroverted by any testimony of the defendants. Regardless of what you think about the person who was shot based on what you know NOW about him, this statement should scare any law-abiding citizen:

"At the time of the shooting, neither agent Compean nor agent Ramos knew that the van driven by Aldrete-Davila contained 743 pounds of marijuana. The evidence was un-controverted that, at the time the victim was shot, neither agent knew whether the driver was illegally in the United States or whether a crime had been committed. The only information they had was that the driver had failed to pull over to be identified."

Two border agents pulled over a man of unknown status (who was in fact at one time a LEGAL resident of our country). When the man tried to run away, they chased him with guns drawn. When he tried to surrender, they one officer tried to hit him with a gun, but fell over. When the defendent then fled again, the officers shot him in the back.

Then they turned and left him -- which itself is a damning piece of evidence. Neither border agent was hurt, but having shot the perp they didn't go try to apprehend him.

but nobody is above the law

You are, of course, correct.

Without a doubt, the guys who leave people face down in arroyos in Mexico are visibly impressed by the Majesty of The Rule of Law in El Estados Unidos de los Estupidos, and are about to renounce their lives of horrific crime this very day.

Undoubtedly.

Right after they get finished laughing their murdering butts off at seeing one of their hit men put two American cops in the slammer for the forseeable future.

Are you arguing that police should be allowed to shoot anybody they pull over, if those people run away, so long as when we finally investigate the people it turns out they are illegal aliens or have committed a crime?

I would note that being an illegal alien is not a capital offense, nor is drug smuggling, but shooting a person could well kill them.

Would you be OK if these agents had shot you in the back, so long as they "thought" you were an illegal alien who was drug smuggling and you had a gun?

Oh, of course, you would never run away from a police officer. Of course, a police officer would never try to hit you with their weapon when you were surrendering either.

You should read this post:

Dershowitz raises warning flags about new terrorist tactic

Excerpt:

The democracies, he said, are in a no-win situation. If they don't respond, they appear weak. And if they do, he said, civilians are often killed, prompting sharp criticism from international human rights organizations and the media. "The media and the international community and the human rights groups haven't really gotten on that issue yet," Dershowitz said. "They haven't figured out that this is a brilliant tactic of forcing democracies into what are perceived as immoral actions." The tactic, which is spreading to the war in Iraq, was commonly used by Hezbollah guerillas last summer during their monthlong conflict with Israel.

Do you see the parallel here?

Yer right Chuckie. It's all very civilized on the border, everything is done to Robert's Rules of Order, everyone's quite polite and upright! The illegals are just country gentlemen, out for a morning stroll....these Evil Cops had it coming, going off the way they did and attacking this decent, God-Fearing Gentleman just minding his own business!

Yer right Chuck. Civilization and The Rule of Law are Saved, because the Evil Cops have been justly imprisoned for decades to come.

Yes. I can believe that a person who was delivering drugs in a van did not have a gun -- we pass pretty tough laws to encourage criminals to not use guns in their crimes.

Smuggling drugs can get you thrown in jail, but it will be a lot worse if you have a gun, especially illegally, and have drugs. And having a gun on your person would give agents the right to search your car.

Note that, if the guy had simply pulled over, the agents may not have gotten enough to justify a search of the van -- but finding a gun on the guy would certainly give them the right to search the van.

And even if he HAD had a gun in the van (and note that they did not FIND a gun of any kind in the van), it would be possible that, while driving, he would not have had the gun in his pocket or stuck in his pants, but rather have it stored in the van somewhere.

Freedom is expensive. People die because of our rights and freedoms. Guilty people go free because of our rights and freedoms. Bad people get away with murder because of our rights and freedoms.

You can move to a country where they are safer, and have fewer rights. This country is founded under the principle that liberty, freedom, and the right to be left alone are valued above security and safety. In fact, we have the freedom (or we should, and used to have) to provide our own safety and security.

If you are going to argue that it's OK now for police to shoot innocent people because they are forced to by terrorist tactics, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

If you are going to argue that illegal immigrants are such a huge threat that it's OK now to shoot unarmed people in the back if we simply THINK they MIGHT be illegal immigrants, well I'm going to disagree with you as well.

Because once you justify shooting an suspected illegal in the back, you can justify shooting a suspected ANYTHING in the back -- and police are really good at SUSPECTING PEOPLE OF THINGS.

If they had followed all the procedures that are required of them by their job, they probably would NOT be going to jail.

It was their own actions which brought 12 jurors to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the agents acted contrary to law, and that the drug smuggler was a more compelling witness.

The message out of this is NOT that border agents shouldn't do their job, its that they SHOULD do their job, ALL of their job, as specified in the regulations.

The official report they filed on this incident, a report with their signature, was a lie. After putting your signature on a lie, and deliberately NOT following the required procedures of your job, your credibility IS going to be suspect.

When the authorities have to learn about a shooting YOU DID from an agent in another STATE, you are going to be in serious trouble.

I've read that somewhere. I suppose they are now reading all the misinformation circulating about this case, and based on that have changed their minds. If this new information was supported by evidence,the defense would have presented it to the jury. They didn't.

I bet some of them are shocked at the length of the sentence. I think the sentence is ABSURD, these guys in the end just shot a guy in the butt, and in fact only ONE of them did so. They shouldn't go to jail for more than a couple of years.

The problem there is FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES, not the prosecuter. They committed the crime, and there is no way for a judge to set the sentence appropriately because we decided not to trust judges to use their judgment. Normally conservatives are happy with that, but in this case it sucks.

Although realise that a typical judge would want to throw the book at these guys, because as law enforcement officers, they are trained to obey the law, so breaking the law is a lot more severe.

If they did what they are accused of doing, their action is much worse than if you or I shot some illegal in the butt, because we are not entrusted to ENFORCE the law.

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.