Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[pissant]

Good Job Hunter.

[wastedyears]

Agreed

[Calpernia]

Duncan Hunter Bump!
http://duncanhunter2008.us

[Calpernia]

ping to me for later.

[Calpernia]

ping

[NormsRevenge]

Hunter BumP!

[Eastbound]

BTTT!

[AuntB]

Thanks Calpernia.


I thought it was very interesting the years that Hunter has spent trying to protect this nation. And he was doing it before 9/11 when it became 'popular'.



HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

Washington, D.C. – Legislation introduced by Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52) to improve security at our nation's nuclear laboratories was approved today by the House Armed Services Committee. H.R. 4737, the Nuclear Secrets Safety Act, incorporates common-sense corrections into the Department of Energy's (DOE) current security policies, which are severely inadequate and have led to several security breaches over the past two years.

"In light of the testimony Congress has received recently, this legislation is a reasonable and valid approach to correcting the DOE's irresponsible security policies," said Hunter. "It addresses the basic problems that currently exist and requires the DOE to protect our secrets with the same effort in which they were gained. Additionally, passage of this legislation provides the new director of the National Nuclear Security Administration with the congressional backing to make the changes at DOE that will be necessary."

http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/losalamos2.html

[CharlesWayneCT]

He doesn't argue they are innocent. He claims instead that their sentences are too long (they are).

That is no reason to throw out a conviction. Instead, he should push Congress to remove the mandatory 10-year sentence for the crime they were convicted of, and make the removal retroactive for long enough back to cover their sentencing.

Of course, every convict will get a new resentencing, but if the law gives sentences that are too long, they are too long for all, not just these two.

Duncan is a bit disengenous in how he frames the "fact base" by suggesting the only evidence is the BP agents vs the drug smuggler, thus ignoring the physical evidence and the testimony of the other BP agents.

However, since he decided not to actually argue the innocence (he says they are not guilty, but doesn't argue it) I can forgive him the shortcut to get to his main point.

On the broader issue, I think electing a president to get criminal cases overturned is a very bad thing, and constitutionally I don't believe this was the intent the founders had when granting the privilege. However, at least it's out in the open so everybody can know.

Interestingly, it opens all sorts of possibilities. After all, in many cases where there is an outpouring of sympathy for a case, the supporters of change are much more focused, much more vocal, and care a lot more than those who like things the way they are.

So, while most people might believe the BP agents are guilty, they will hardly vote against Hunter for offering a pardon. Meanwhile, those who care deeply in the cause of freeing the agents might well be single-issue voters.

So, maybe a presidential contender should spend his time finding the 100 or so best examples of "bad cases", have his supporters gin up support for the convicts, and then offer to pardon them all.

That could buy a few million votes for almost no real cost.

[AuntB]

So, maybe a presidential contender should spend his time finding the 100 or so best examples of "bad cases", have his supporters gin up support for the convicts, and then offer to pardon them all.

I hope there are not 100 bad prosecutions of border agents and LEO's and informants. So far Johnny Sutton and crew have only about 6 that we know of.

Ramos, Compean,David Sipe, Guillermo Ramirez Peyro, Texas Deputy Hernandez, Gary Brugman.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/22/151009.shtml

The Abuse of Border Patrol Agents

[CharlesWayneCT]

If the media hasn't already created them, the candidate can do the work himself. It's not hard. There's lots of cases where police have used excessive force but it's not against a minority that has a political base. Start there.

Illegals are always a good place to start, especially if you are a candidate which has already abandoned the hispanic vote. Also, families of known drug dealers who get caught in the crossfire can be easily demonized so long as their kin don't have money and aren't well-spoken.

[Ben Ficklin]

For some reason, which we all know, Hunter chooses not to mention the testimony of agents Vasquez, Juarez, and Jacquez.

This was the testimony that was most damaging.

[Ben Ficklin]

You notice in the next to the last paragraph Hunter uses the word "murder". They were convicted for assualt with a deadly weapon, not murder.

[Bob J]

Is Hunter saying these guys are guilty?

[CharlesWayneCT]

His statement I'm referencing is above. I don't think that is a correct interpretation, my interpretation is he won't argue that they are innocent, and argues for a pardon on the basis that the sentence is too long.

He said he found the BP agent's testimony more credible than the smuggler, but doesn't explain how he reconciles the two BP agents having conflicting stories, or the statements under oath of the other BP agents.

However, he does not say "They are innocent and should be pardoned", so I gave him a pass.

[Kenny Bunk]

Frankly, kids, I am somewhat disappointed in Hunter's line of reasoning here.

First, he's all but saying that Ramos and Compean are guilty.
Second, he's talking about murderers, and slight wounds to OAD. Not germane.
Third, he's using analogies from his military experience, and conceding right off the bat that these two hapless schmoes deserve punishment, just lighter punishment than they are currently getting.

If officaldom wants to help these guys, instead of the beau geste, they ought to take some concrete legal steps that would help.
First, try and get these guys released pending appeal. The appeals court already turned down their request on somewhat specious grounds and that should be revisited.
Second, these guys don't need sympathy. They need a new trial in which relevant testimony about the government's chief witness is allowed in.

Instead, Duncan is issuing generalities. Not a good sign.

[Bob J]

For all practical purposes Hunter just stated R&C were guilty. As you mentioned, he ignores all the other testimony in the trial from other agents pointing to their guilt preferring to keep the attention on the one easiest to hate, Davila the illegal, the mule, the mexican.

I loved this.

"For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary."

No Congressman Hunter, but it does indicate a cover up which lead the jury to making the decision they did. If the agents believed their shoot was good why would they feel the need to dispose of the evidence and then fail to report when given multiple opportunities?

His attempt to link throwing away the casings with the sentence they received is disingenuous. The jurors convicted them for shooting a suspect without probable cause, a mandatory sentence the judge could do nothing about. For all we know if the judge had discretion she might have given them much less time on this charge.

But it's politically easier and more expedient to just find boogey men and scapegoats then you don't have to do any thinking or take unpopular stands.

[SoCalPol]

Ping

[calcowgirl]

PING!

Thank you Duncan Hunter!