Replies

If you really believe the judicial process is impartial and fair

I didn't say it is impartial and fair. I also didn't say otherwise. However, we have separation of powers in this country. We have a judiciary, and we have a Constitutional process of trying people accused of crimes before juries. Flog this story as much as you like, but what you want me to believe is this: not only was the prosecutor nefarious and out to get these two innocent babes, but the judge, jury and defense counsel all sat back and let it happen.

Then you want to throw away the separation of powers by having the president of the United States interfere in this one judicial proceeding.

And I'm sure you consider yourself a "real" conservative.

"only was the prosecutor nefarious and out to get these two innocent babes, but the judge, jury and defense counsel all sat back and let it happen."

It's abundantly clear that the judge took an active roll in railroading these heros. The most important evidence, the field evidence, was disallowed. No fair trial is possible under such conditions.

I did not state that the President should pardon them. However, there is enough evidence of jury intimidation, misrepresentation on the part of the prosecution, absence of evidence tying the officer's weapon with the wound inflicted, and underrepresentation by legal counsel to cast doubt on the fairness of the trial. It is my hope that the decision will be overturned on appeal. In any case, the Justice Department consigning the two men to the general population is tantamount to a death sentence. Former LEOs are not popular in prison, and in a prison where over 25% of the inmates are illegal, it would be easy to "McDougal" them. At a minimum, both men should be separated from the general population.

As for conservatism, one element of that philosophy is states' rights. Do you then oppose the prosecution by the Feds of Deputy Sheriff Hernandez, not a Federal, but a local officer, on charges similar to those on which Compean and Ramos were tried? Another element is the avoidance of double jeopardy. Did you support the conviction of Stacy Koon in Los Angeles by the Feds in the Rodney King mater even though a state jury acquitted them? A third element is preservation of the rights and privileges of American citizens, and not those of people in our country illegally. Do you believe aliens in this country illegally have the same civil rights as native born or naturalized citizens?

Yes, I am a real conservative, and proud of it. A person who defends injustice, opposes states rights, does not agree with the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, and wants to place illegals (and drug smugglers to boot) on a legal par with citizens may be a lot of things, but one thing he is not is a conservative.

Then you want to throw away the separation of powers by having the president of the United States interfere in this one judicial proceeding.

The use of a pardon is in no way a discarding of the separation of powers. It is a Constitutional exercise of a specific power given to the Executive as a check on a corrupt or incompetent judiciary. It is also not, as you indicated earlier, a tacit admission of guilt, but is actually a tacit reproof of a miscarriage of justice. That certain recent Democrat-ick Administrations used the power a a Crackerjacks prize, notwithstanding.