Posted on 03/05/2007 9:16:23 AM PST by pissant
I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.
Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.
I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.
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. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.
We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.
Agreed
Duncan Hunter Bump!
http://duncanhunter2008.us
ping to me for later.
ping
Hunter BumP!
BTTT!
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
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.
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
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.
This was the testimony that was most damaging.
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.
Is Hunter saying these guys are guilty?
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.
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.
Ping
PING!
Thank you Duncan Hunter!
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.