Posted on 05/08/2007 11:58:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The power to pardon traditionally belongs to the president. But Representative Duncan Hunter, who is seeking the 2008 Republican nomination, isn’t waiting for Inauguration Day.
Mr. Hunter introduced a bill in January to initiate an unprecedented Congressional pardon of two former border patrol agents currently serving 11- and 12-year sentences after shooting a drug smuggler on the Texas-Mexico border in 2005.
For Mr. Hunter and other immigration hardliners, their conviction is an “extreme injustice.”
While Constitutional objections are “very much a possibility,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s spokesman, he doesn’t see the measure threatening executive power. The president’s required signature on the bill “would obviously be synonymous with his authority to execute a pardon,” he said. “The Congress is doing nothing more than initiating a pardon.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Deprivation of life without due process.
Well, this forum is for conservatives. We support conservative causes and conservative candidates. We don’t support liberals. We don’t support abortionists. We don’t support federally funded abortion. We don’t support NARAL or Planned Parenthood and we don’t go to bed with George Soros or any of his socialist organizations. We don’t praise Margaret Sanger. We don’t support the gay agenda. We don’t support gay marriage or gay unions. We don’t support hate crime or thought crime bills. We don’t support sanctuary cities or amnesty for illegal aliens. And we don’t support gun grabbers or constitution trampling authoritarians. Guess that pretty much rules out Rudy Giuliani for president.
“The only reason he polls high is because people don’t know enough about him and the campaign will eventually right that.”
He will probably fade, but the reason he is high in the polls is because Americans remember what he gave them in the hours and days after 9-11 . . . leadership.
Continue. I’m enjoying the debate
One thing I should add to that, calmly and passionately making your case...while respecting that others may have a different perspective. You can’t expect others to respect and consider your position if in return you don’t respect that they have a right to their own.
You both have to be AT THE TABLE for communication to take place.
No kidding. Well, at least we got a little order and direction back here. And we will continue fighting for our conservative causes and conservative candidates and ultimately for our constitution and our republic. Anyone is free to join us as long as they're willing to fight for us and with us rather than against us and for the liberals and their evil mores.
Superb indea Mr. Hunter.
Hey, ask me if I respect liberals. Ask me if I respect RINOs.
I didn’t realize anyone was deprived of life? The 14th Amendment clearly indicates those entitled to due process as US citizens. It brings up the same issues concerning those at Gitmo. So, again, what part of the constitution was violated, couldn’t be the 14th as I have clearly demonstrated.
I’m thinking...
But our founding fathers believed that there were certain “unalienable” rights that were bestowed on people by God. The reasoning was that if they were bestowed by God, no man had authority to take them away.
So they question is, are these rights our founding fathers believed were bestowed by God only applicable to US citizens?
And if we conclude that these rights bestowed by God are applicable to all of his children, than what kind people are we, what kind of society do we have, if we only fight to ensure and guarantee them to US voters?
Do you honestly think that God will give you a pass on judgement day because you believed his unlienable rights only meant you had to fight to protect them for yourself?
Due process.
I have never had a problem with jettisoning lib trolls. Their agenda is 180 degree from us and their goal is vandalism if not destruction. They do not deserve our consideration.
But the conservative tent is a big one...at least it needs to be if we desire to defeat the liberal forces. I have had many heated arguments with our other brothers in the trenches over policy and ideology. Sometimes I convince them, and sometimes they convince me to reevaluate my positions. Sometimes we agree to disagree. But the end result is always growth.
Growth is good. That is why FR is so important. It isn’t about where you or I might stand on a position today, it is the possibility that our position might change due to enlightenment.
Now, we have been through many dust ups here on FR. However, I never thought any of them helped to advance the conservatism cause because they prematurely end the possibility of growth. To you, the Rudy supporters represented an obstacle when it might have been healthier to view them as an opportunity for conversion.
Something you need to understand is that the same fervor you feel for FR is also shared by many other people. They get wrapped up in it to the point that it becomes part of their identity. When you take that away, it’s as if a parent is abandoning a child. They’re not libs and they’re not enemies, they just have a different opinion...today.
We’ll never win against the likes of Hillary unless we can find away to live with each others differences and keep our focus on the big picture without ripping each others throats out. IMO this latest dust up occurred not because of the philosophical or political differences we have, they have always been there. It’s because you allowed those differences to fester and multiply by not enforcing the “no abuse” rule.
I think it would be best for FR and the conservative movement to declare another one of your general amnesties but insist we treat each other with respect when we differ.
Good fences make good neighbors.
No way. My fence stands firmly at the abortion/gay agenda/gun grabber line. And no abortion supporter sticks his nose under my tent. The government sanctioned murder of millions of the innocent unborn in the womb is about the most evil thing I can think of.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Good night.
Sandy Burglar's "trial" ran the same gamut of feigned innocence to changing stories to finally admitting he intentionally stole and destroyed highly classified secrets. The Justice Dept. let him walk, literally, with a fine and small restrictions. [This man can be head of security for Hilliary's Administration in '09 when he should be serving jail time and have his security clearance lifted...forever!]
The difference is that Johnny Sutton's congenial relationship with the Mexican Gov't was not a factor. Nor did the poor Border Agents have access to top lawyers or friends in high places.
The Border Agents were doing their job. You have seen the illegal's photo. Any doubt in your mind that he was up to no good? So, they didn't know at the time he had drugs. He fled in his vehicle, then he fled on foot, and then after initially giving up, he fled again. Also, as the medical info indicated, he was not shot in the "back" but in the side, which would substantiate Ramos story that he was looking back at the Agents, for whatever reason.
You stated: "Either we protect the rights of everyone or no one is safe." I totally agree. But, that includes protecting the rights of those who risk their lives to keep us free. Mistakes are made when you deal with drug dealers and allowances must be made.
These Agents had the force of the US Gov't come down on them. The feds bought testimony by offering immunity to the illegal, whose story also changed a few times. They did the same with the fellow Agents who testified against Ramos and Compean. [And whose stories changed as well.]
Bob, good to chat with you again.
Second, the facts were not all allowed at the trial. Suppressed in your parlance. The jury makes a decision on the bases of what is presented to them. Recall, that at least one juror felt “pressured” to reach the final verdict. When the jurors find guilt, many say he was found guilty by his peers and say their guilty verdict proves the guilt. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. People believe the jury and then you have the split we have here on Free Republic.
Remember, I live in NC where we just had a prosecutor put three Duke students thru heck by abusing his authority. I don’t trust power and I don’t trust the government proportional to how high up the food chain a bureaucrat is. You have seen what Johnny Sutton has done in other Border Patrol cases. Ramos-Compean is not an isolated case for this agenda driven Assist. US AG.
Apparently you fail in distinguishing the difference between those who acted upon a perception of a "clear and present danger" and their attempts to act within their authority, regardless that their perception was found erroneous through hindsight, armchair quarterbacking, regardless they realized their error and tried to hide it, from a premeditated, coldblooded, double murder committed by a homicidal butcher.
Clearly, the "kool aid" of which you partake is far more dangerous. I would hope you rethink your position in that regard...
>>OJ killed his wife because she was making a fool out of him and his manhood, and the BPA shot Davila because he was making a fool out of them and their BPA-hood.<<
I don’t think that comparison is fair. I think it is likely that Compean did not intend to shoot OAD. If he wanted to, he could have shot him point blank with a shotgun. Ramos heard many shots fired, and it seems likely that he really thought that he was entering a fire fight with bad guys.
The main questions are whether R&C should be pardoned, and if congress has the constitutional power to pardon. Congress could try to pass a bill retroactively freeing LEOs convicted under the “use of a firearm” law which added 10 years to the sentences. However, both that approach and Hunter’s bill that pardons R&C would require GWB’s signature.
Which is more “just”:
1) R&C serving sentences of more than 10 years, with Compean’s life at risk every day, and Ramos in solitary confinement for the rest of his sentence (after being beaten by illegals in prison), not even allowed to read books
2) A pardon for both
While neither solution is perfect, I find myself closer to the camp for #2.
However, it is probably of value to read the transcripts to get an idea of how the judicial system works. One of the more humorous glimpses into a trial with serious consequences was reading how the judge and the opposing attorneys tried to establish a date for the sentencing hearing. It started I think in Nov. but, by the time they worked around yoga class and vacations [Ok, a little hyperbole.] they ended up agreeing on Feb., I think.
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.