Conservatives back two border agents who are in prison

Washington - Former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos have become famous in conservative circles, in a case which shows the power of talk radio and the blogosphere.

The two agents are serving prison sentences after being convicted of shooting a suspected drug smuggler and trying to cover up the incident. Many lawmakers in Washington are asking President Bush to pardon the agents, who they say were convicted wrongly for protecting the border of the United States against criminal intruders.

The calls for an executive pardon and a congressional investigation into the case intensified this week following reports that Ramos was assaulted in a Mississippi prison.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, an ardent critic of illegal immigration who is pondering a run for the White House, spent about an hour with Ramos at the jail on Friday and said he had been severely beaten, with deep bruises along his arm, cuts and bruises on his chest and back, and bruises on his knees.

Ramos told the lawmaker that he had been pummeled and kicked by five or six inmates on Saturday in a planned attack while others watched after they saw him on an episode of the television show America's Most Wanted, Tancredo said. Ramos did not get medical attention until Monday and a CAT-scan showed no brain damage, the lawmaker added.

"This guy should never be walking around in an orange jumpsuit with handcuffs, he should be home with his family," Tancredo said, shortly after leaving the prison. "This is a horrible travesty."

Ramos' attorney, David L. Botsford, said that a motion is pending at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to get bail for Ramos while he plans an appeal.

A similar request was rejected by a district court, said Botsford, a prominent criminal defense attorney in Austin.

The plight of the two Border Patrol officers has become a major cause on conservative talk shows and on Web sites that promote more enforcement against illegal immigration.

The suspected drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, had entered the United States illegally in a van that contained more than 700 pounds of marijuana. The prosecution contends that Compean shot at him 14 times and Ramos fired once, hitting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks as he tried to run away on foot.

The agents contend that they saw an object in Aldrete-Davila's hands that looked like a gun and that he was pointing it towards them.

Ramos and Compean were convicted a year ago on several charges including assault with a deadly weapon and intentionally defacing a crime scene. Aldrete-Davila was given immunity in the case to testify against the agents and has filed a multi- million dollar lawsuit against the U.S. government.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said this week that "the sentences in this case are too extreme given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs."

In a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, she also said that the "aggressive prosecution of Border Patrol agents has a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties and on the morale of all agents."

Can you see why a an investigator, a prosecuter, and a jury might put more credence in the drug smuggler?>>>>

No, not ever. The first casualty with these types is THE TRUTH. What is that common sensical saying that seems lost on you--the fact that you get more of what you subsidize, or more commonly put, get what you pay for?

His testimony matched the testimony of 3 other BP agents.>>>

Oh sure, the ones who have now either resigned or have been fired, because...?

You crack me up. "Facts", schmacts, it don't pass the smell test for my mind, argue all day if you like to me, THE WHOLE THING STINKS

And I'd love to hear why he just couldn't follow his family over to earn a living honestly, somebody answer that

Oh sure, the ones who have now either resigned or have been fired, because...?

Because when the investigation first started, these three lied to investigators to help Ramos and Compean cover up the shooting. They could have each been tried for some of the same crimes Compean and Ramos were convicted of, covering up and hindering an investigation. But since they were not the shooters, they were given immunity from prosecution in exchange for them testifying about the events of the day, testimony that included them confessing that they had lied to the investigators at first and had not followed procedure about reporting a shooting. One of them even helped Compean destroy the evidence. They were fired for their lies covering up the shooting. NOT for lying in the trial. Either there are a lot of ignorant people on the pro-pardon side, or they are deliberately mischaracterizing the firings in order to confuse people into supporting their side.

Liars, liars, liars, who is lying? Who do you believe? All have been caught in a lie somewhere. But who is the biggest liar of them all? Believing the drug dealer is buying into a lie first off--I'm telling you FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE--they don't know how to tell the truth. They are so divorced from the truth it's pathetic.

Number two, the big lie that we had a unanimous jury hasn't even begun to be addressed, so conveniently forgotten.

And the "crime"? What a joke

"An unarmed drug dealer. What a crock of shit"

Why do you say that? What leads you to believe all drug dealers are armed? I've handled literally thousands of pounds with of drug cases as a public defender, lots and lots of them involving hundreds of pounds of marijuana found in vehicles. Occasionally weapons will be found in these vehicles, but the vast majority of the time these people are unarmed.

I'm surprised at how so many here are just absolutely certain that these two officers were innocent. The trial transcripts aren't even finished yet and all these people who know nothing about the case are jumping up and down screaming for a pardon. Personally, my bet is that in the end we'll see that there was a lot more to this case than a lot of you folks think there was. Law enforcement are rarely ever criminally charged for things they do in the line of duty. Normally fellow law enforcement and prosecutors protect their own. Officers really have to do something bad before they are turned over for prosecution in the first place, and prosecutors are going to have to see some fairly egregious facts before they'll elect to prosecute. My guess is that law enforcement and prosecutors looked at this case really hard before any charges were ever brought. Then twelve people on the jury also had to look at this case really hard before they unanimously voted to convict. These weren't crazy California jurors. This was in Texas. Most jurors tend to pull for the guys with badges and I would think they'd give these officers the benefit of the doubt more than they would the average person charged with a crime. These officers were in trouble for something they did in the line of duty. I would think the jury would need some pretty strong evidence to convict in this type of case. I would wait and take a good long look at all the evidence presented in this case as it comes out before I start jumping up and down screaming for a pardon, demanding the president be impeached, and the prosecutor lose his job, and for everyone to be sued, and all that.

I don't know anything about one quarter of the jury saying they were coerced into voting guilty. It's pretty common for people to feel that way though. They may be on the fence but the other jurors are wanting to get it over with and go home so they really lean on the holdouts to vote guilty. They did not have to go for a guilty verdict though. They'd have been there a lot longer probably, but eventually the judge would have declared a hung jury and then the deal for these two agents probably would have gotten a lot better as the prosecutors would have been far less gung ho to take this case to trial a second time after one jury shot them down.

Look, I don't know much about this case. None of us do. I'm just kind of amused by the fact that so many are ready to riot over this when none of us really have all the facts. I've been in this business a long time and I'm just no so quick to jump to conclusions without having all the facts. Juries are not always right though. Justice is not always served in our system. It may be that these two were totally screwed. Then again it may very well be that they were guilty as can be and deserved to be convicted. Did they deserve such lengthy prison sentences if they were guilty? I don't know about that. It seems like they got hammered pretty hard for what they were accused of doing.

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.