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.

Freedom is expensive. People die because of our rights and freedoms.

I spent 21 years in the military and fought in 3 wars. Thanks for the information.

Guilty people go free because of our rights and freedoms. Bad people get away with murder because of our rights and freedoms.

What? That sounds like some weird speech an ACLU defense attorney would spew on Oprah.

Our justice system isn't perfect, only God's justice is.

The rest of your post is somewhere between a basic civics lesson, a strange strand of Libertarianism, and some "shouting" by typing in all CAPITOL LETTERS.

I was not arguing it was OK now for police to shoot innocent people because they are forced to by terrorist tactics. If you had the sense to draw a parallel between what Professor Dershowitz was saying and this case involving the border agents, you would have seen what all the other posters have been trying to say to you. To wit: we play by civilized rules, but our enemies exploit those rules. It is a gross mistake by the Bush Administration to take the side of a drug running illegal invader - period.

We are not talking about innocent women and children in Waco Texas coming under fire from the BATF here. This case is the equivalent of Mike Nifong's bastardization of the law.

Alas, I have read what you have posted to everyone else, and I see you have dug in your heels and would rather go down with the Titanic rather than admit you are wrong.

Would that be the same Daddy they are sending to prison who in the past, apprehended drug smugglers and sent them to the same Prison he is now in?

A judge refused to let these two men stay free till they could appeal their case. That stinks.

But today in Texas, President Bush said he would take the case under review. THAT'S A START.

And admitting our hands are tied trying to apprehend Illegals, why don't you take on more of a just cause, like Illegals getting away with stealing Social Security numbers and forging documents. I'm sure you'll find real lawbreakers you can sink your fangs into..

I have been following these threads on and off for a while. The whole situation smells. A bad shooting and cover up by the agents, amnesty given to a drug smuggler, and an out of all proportion sentence. This is a lose lose situation for everyone except for the drug dealers, illegals and terrorists.

The battle can't be won on the borders, it has to be won in the nations heartland. The solution is simple, prosecute people who employ illegals and prosecute people who are here illegally (certainly don't offer welfare, health care and an education) and decriminalize drugs.

I am certain that none of that is going to happen though. Too many powerful people want cheap slave labor and too many people benefit from the WOD. The flood of illegals and drugs will continue. There is nothing we can do about it. We are past the tipping point, the populace has learned that it can demand anything, the law be damned.

I'd probably convict on their OWN testimony.

But I actually agree with you on the sentence. But that's not anybody's fault but those who argue for mandatory sentences because they don't want to give judges "discretion".

Seems that in this case, we suddenly WANT a judge to be able to "do the right thing" and show some restraint in sentencing. Unfortunately, our side has imposed mandatory sentences for the crimes they committed and were convicted of.

Your making the mistake of thinking there are "sides" here, and that the "drug-running illegal" was on one side, and the BP officers on the other.

The BP officers COMMITTED A CRIME. We don't excuse criminals because they commit crimes against other criminals. We wouldn't let you shoot a jaywalker.

Sorry if my post sounded pedestrian and a bit libertarian, but the idea of being convicted for committing a crime regardless of the status of the victim is a pretty basic part of our judicial system.

It's not that our system isn't perfect -- although it isn't. Our system is DESIGNED to let some guilty people go free. It is a CONSCIOUS DECISION on our part, to ensure that people have the greatest freedom and liberty we can muster while still providing some basic sense of security.

There was a time that we all know that meant a police officer might die, rather than taking the chance that an innocent person might be harmed.

Yes, we play by "civilised rules", and the criminals DO NOT. You think that's something new?

But we simply don't throw out our civilized rules just because it makes it easier to deal with the criminals, or the terrorists. I'm supportive of common-sense measures that would otherwise be seen as infringing upon liberty, in the course of fighting a war on terror.

You want to declare war against Mexico? Do it, and I'll support shooting mexicans who are in the country illegally, because that might make sense if we are at war.

But otherwise, I'm not supporting shooting illegals in the back simply because they aren't playing fair. If that means a BP agent might get shot while waiting to confirm a threat, well that's a sad thing, but I'd rather have a BP agent get shot, than an unarmed person who did nothing more than sneak into our country to earn some extra money. That's not because I'm soft on illegals, or want them here, but simply because the punishment has to fit the crime.

And while that sounds like I dont support our BP agents, that's not the case. They should be supported, because they SHOULD be in a position where they might get shot because of our laws and our liberties. But if you are a shoot-first person, go into another field. I don't want you as a BP agent, or a police officer, or a security guard.

It sucks to be a law enforcement officer who commits a felony, but that's hardly a reason to let them get away with it.

I wonder why the judge thought they were a flight risk.

This is hardly a cause for me, I'm not the one writing letters or signing petitions. If the jury had found them not guilty, I wouldn't lift a finger either.

I just feel compelled to argue against those on my side who have decided to support shooting unarmed people.

Have you read the response by the prosecuter, who denies that the "immunity" given to the drug smuggler cost them a chance to prosecute? If you did, do you disagree with that judgment, and if so, what evidence to you have that this smuggler could have been prosecuted?

Remember, the guy escaped into mexico. The agents failed to apprehend him, they didn't ID him, they didn't know who he was, they couldn't pick him out of a lineup, and they had no physical evidence linking him to the van.

The only reason we know he was a drug smuggler was that he TESTIFIED to that as part of the trial. And of course he would not have done so without immunity, but without that testimony, we never could have convicted him, much less got him extradicted.

The problem I have with the prosecutor granting immunity is that it is the same as bribing a witness. If the defense offered a witness reduced jail time or complete immunity for testifying they would be breaking the law.

This is simply another shining example of how the system is broken.

The only reason we know he was a drug smuggler was that he TESTIFIED to that as part of the trial. And of course he would not have done so without immunity, but without that testimony, we never could have convicted him, much less got him extradicted.

Two things jump out at me. First of all should anyone believe the testimony of a bribed witness? (He is also suing for 5 million dollars). Second, without his testimony would the Border Agents have been convicted? I don't think so.

If the drug smuggler really felt victimized, then he should be willing to do the right thing and take responsibility for his own actions. NO BRIBERY IS NECESSARY. The prosecutor should be jailed for bribing a witness.

The system is broken.

The more I think about this case the more I am convinced that everyone should be sharing a jail cell. The drug dealer, the Prosecution team and the two border guards.

The basic problem is that the system is inherently unfair and the wrong people are being targeted. The police and justice system are quickly becoming corrupt, trapped in an unjust system.

The real guilty people are the buyers. The people that buy the services of the illegal aliens and the drugs they bring across. Of course our system doesn't prosecute them because they are powerful and there are too many of them. So our justice system prosecutes the weak and not so numerous. I am noticing a new trend though, expect to see more police and border agent convictions. The system is starting to eat its own.

Nancy Pelosi hires illegal aliens. Nancy Pelosi should be serving time next to the border guards. But she is rich and powerful isn't she?

While I share a general disdain for immunity (although I think we all were happy to see the SP granting immunity when it was to get testimony against Bill Clinton), I don't think in this case there is any real indication of it acting like a bribe.

The guy in question was in mexico, and we had no evidence tying him to the van, so he was under no danger of prosecution.

But his testimony was only useful if he tied himself to the van -- and doing so would get him thrown in jail for a decade for drug smuggling. If the BP agents that had shot him had instead been a rival illegal immigrant drug cartel, I doubt anybody here would be arguing against the granting of immunity.

It is true of course that, without his testimony against the agents, he'd have little chance at the civil lawsuit. That is a disturbing part of the case, although it also is true that a person who was telling the truth would still sue. Further, we do have some facts in evidence that do not require believing the witness -- we know he was shot, we know he was shot by a BP agent, we know he was shot in the back (butt).

We also know that the agents hid evidence of the shooting, and that they filed a false report. We know from SOME of their statements (acknowledging that some of their statements conflict with others) and that of other BP agents that the man at one point had his hands up and showed there was nothing in them; we know that Compean raised his weapon against the man, and another BP agent testified that someone yelled "hit him".

Anyway, I think you realise that nobody is going to "do the right thing" by confessing to a crime and putting themselves in jail for a decade. Well, I guess a good man might do that on principle, but I think we ALL agree that an illegal immigrant drug-smuggler is NOT a "good man".

I agree that a top priority should be to go after those who HIRE illegals. Cut out the illegal jobs, you remove their reason for being here.

The guest worker program was meant to do just that. Bush's proposal was for a program that was strictly regulated, that forbid a path to citizenship for those who took part, that required companies in the program to make a good-faith effort to hire legals, that required fair pay (I think the senate version actually dictated bacon-davis wages, which are higher than minimum) which would lessen the chance of a compony hiring an immigrant to save money.

When the democrats pass their version of the bill this year, I think we'll all regret the house's decision last year not to get together with the senate and try to get rid of the worst parts of the senate bill and get 80% of what we wanted. Because now we will get NOTHING of what we wanted.

Anyway, I think the real problem isn't illegals, or legals, it's our embrace of multiculturalism. We wouldn't have any trouble with 20 million new workers in this country if they were all learning english and embracing our way of life. The problem is they are trying to turn our country into a rich version of their country.

Further, we do have some facts in evidence that do not require believing the witness -- we know he was shot, we know he was shot by a BP agent, we know he was shot in the back (butt).

I don't think the prosecution had that evidence without the drug smugglers testimony. No body, No crime.

Even in Bill Clintons case I don't believe that it is ever right to grant immunity or offer reduced sentences to get people to testify. The reason prosecutors need that 'tool' is because our laws are so screwed up. I really think that it should be against the law for prosecutors to offer 'deals'.

What is happening is that the laws are making it impossible for decent law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to do their job. They are all becoming dirty.

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.