Posted on 07/19/2007 6:39:50 PM PDT by Rodney King
No Pardon Promise for Ex-Border Patrol Agents By Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Staff Writer July 19, 2007
(1st Add: Adds background.)
(CNSNews.com) - President George W. Bush Thursday praised the federal prosecutor who was grilled two days earlier by a Senate panel for his role in the conviction of two U.S. Border Patrol agents for the shooting a drug dealer.
Taking questions from members of the Nashville, Tenn., Chamber of Commerce after a speech, Bush declined to promise to pardon the two agents, as a growing number of lawmakers are urging.
"I'm not going to make that kind of promise in a forum like this," Bush said. "Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy."
Sutton has a long association with the president. Between 1995 and 2000, he served as then Texas Gov. George W. Bush's criminal justice policy director.
Before he was appointed to the post of U.S. attorney, Sutton served as a policy coordinator in the Bush-Cheney transition team when the president was first elected.
Bush spoke for the first time in months regarding the controversial case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively in federal prison for shooting a fleeing drug smuggler in the buttocks in February 2005 and then trying to cover up the shooting. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, was attempting to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana into the country.
On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) sent Bush a letter asking him to commute the sentence. A bill in the House, with more than 100 co-sponsors, is calling for a congressional pardon.
Bush gave no sign Thursday that he was feeling the heat over the episode.
"I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts," he said. "These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them. But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise."
Sutton, who has borne the brunt of public anger over the Ramos-Compean case, offered Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution for trying to smuggle the drugs into the U.S., in return for the Mexican's testimony against the two border agents.
In an interview with Cybercast News Service early this year, Sutton attributed public sentiment to distorted media coverage of the affair.
He faced fire from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday during a hearing examining the case.
Senators criticized him specifically for bringing a firearms charge that has a mandatory 10-year-minimum sentence, while also asking why Aldrete-Davila had been given immunity. Sutton was also asked why the jury in the agents' trial was not told about an alleged subsequent drug-smuggling offense by Aldrete-Davila.
Sutton has held firm that the prosecution was about upholding the rule of law. He stressed that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed and that the two agents had attempted to cover up the shooting.
In their letter to the president, Feinstein and Cornyn - both Judiciary Committee members - said the hearing had "confirmed the concerns raised by many members of the public: that this penalty levied on these agents is excessive and that they deserve the immediate exercise of your executive clemency powers."
"Ramos and Compean have now been in prison for more than six months," the letter continued. "Agent Ramos has been physically assaulted while serving his term and the agents' request to remain out of prison while their appeal was pending was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Both agents will remain incarcerated for many more months, even if their conviction is ultimately thrown out - unless action is taken quickly."
The woman who asked the president about the agents at the Nashville gathering said, "The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate, asking our Tennessee delegation to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were tried, where information was kept back from their trial.
"And there's also a resolution in the House, H.R. 40, with a number of our Tennessee delegation signed on to that," the woman added. "Will you pardon these men that are unjustly imprisoned?"
Bush replied, "You've got a nice smile, but you can't entice me into making a public statement."
Funny thing, The Bill of Rights does not mention Americans, it does if I am not mistaken refer to those in America.
Enlighten me as to how you may justify using deadly force when your home is violated, but you may not when your country is?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation............................................That “nor shall any person” and that”without due process of law” is kinda explicit don’t you think?
Only Americans are protected by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
The Bill of Rights are Articles 1-10 of the Amendments to that document.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. .................................The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,..................................and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I don’t think there should be a pardon at all.
I do think their sentences should be commuted to time served.
Does anyone have the audio and/or video to this infamous quote from Bush? I heard it and he has the worst verbal stumble of his term (hard to believe I know)! You’ve got to hear what proceeds when he says, “You’ve got a nice smile, but you can’t entice me into making a public statement.”
The story just doesn’t do it justice. Anyone have a link?
The power of the judiciary doesn’t vest rights to foreign invaders.
I heard it on Laura Ingraham this morning, he sounds like a bumbling idiot.
The drug smuggler wasn't shot in the back, he was shot in the butt. One can turn their upper body toward someone while still having their butt facing that person. Supposedly the drug smuggler turned his upper body and they thought he might have been doing so to shoot at them so they shot back in self defense. You don't have the right to run from law enforcement in the USA and expect to not be shot when you make moves that could be determined to be life threating to the pursuing officers.
Bush has once again showed his true colors to the American people, still yet some to refuse to see him for what he is.
Seems pretty strait-forward to me that a contract between a government and its citizens wasn't meant to apply to non-citizens.
We're really slacking. There should've been a chorus chiming in with "Hi Mark!" OK, gather into a semi-circle everyone. Now, what are the 12 steps to recovery to ADS? LOL! Blackbird.
Read the last paragragh of post # 65, that is from our constitution.
What’s with Homeland Security and Johnny Sutton having the second drug bust of the fleeing druggy declared “secret” so that the jury or the media can’t get ahold of it. This was reported today on Rush Limbaugh by Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush. The purpose of this was to keep this information away from the jury.
1) the perp was shot in the back because he was fleeing the scene - and with grievous wound, somehow managed to escape.
2) When picking up shell casings, the agents were helped and accompanied by their supervisors.
3) Supervisors were aware of the shooting.
4) The LEOs said they saw the perp with a gun. Anyway, whether or not the fleeing suspect was armed has no bearing on the use of force to stop him.
5) No written or further report of the incident was required by formal policy.
6) A known drug smuggler was given amnesty and other remuneration for testimony, and later permitted to go about his illegal business without interference by boarder guards, on the orders of Sutton.
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.