Ramos, Compean pardons? 'No,' 'No,' says Bush rep

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 22, 2007

[Man50D]

The White House apparently is so reluctant to discuss the issue of pardons or commutations for convicted U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean that a spokesman doesn't even want to allow questions about the issue to be finished.

The circumstances arose during a White House press gaggle with spokesman Tony Fratto, when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, tried to raise the issue of the disparity in the treatment of the Border Patrol agents, compared to that given Scooter Libby, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of lying during an investigation into the outing of the identity of a covert U.S. agent.

The agents were convicted and given prison sentences of 11 and 12 years for shooting after a self-confessed drug smuggler fleeing back into Mexico after leaving 750 pounds of marijuana in Texas, while Libby was excused from serving any of his prison sentence through President Bush's intervention.

The White House repeatedly has said there is a pardons request procedure available to the agents, even though Libby apparently did not go through the same process before Bush acted.

"A number of times here, when questions were raised about former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, we were told that there is a process for pardon. And I have a three-part question on this…" Kinsolving began.

"You have to make it quick, because they're calling for me," Fratto said.

"I will. Could you explain to us why the president refuses to commute these men who shot an escaping Mexican drug smuggler…" Kinsolving continued.

"No," interrupted Fratto.

"…as the president commuted the prison sentence of his friend, Scooter Libby," Kinsolving asked.

"No," Fratto responded.

[Cyropaedia]

Several lawyers have been on these threads who would disagree. Are you a lawyer? I always wonder when someone offers a legal opinion starting with the word “basically”.

No you're wrong. Once an actual verdict is rendered in a criminal trail the case has to follow through the appeals process if the defendant(s) want the sentence overturned.

You can't apply a new (criminal) law retroactively for the expressed purpose of nullifying actual verdicts rendered in actual trials. Such a maneuver constitutes a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws as well a violation of Constitution's separation of powers mandate. You don't have to be an attorney to realize this.

Now please provide the actual names of these attorneys here at FR that claim that such a maneuver is actually possible and the posts were they actually say so.

[Bob J]

Ex post facto laws protect people from being criminally prosecuted after the fact, it has nothing to do with correcting badly written legislation or assisting the victims of immoral laws. According to your theory, only slaves AFTER the 16th amendment would be free.

You don’t have to be an attorney to realize this...but it helps.

[Bob J]

But according to the beliefs of some on this thread, LEO’s could not be prosecuted for any crimes committed while “on the clock”.

[Cyropaedia]

Uh Bob... it was the 13th Amendment that banned slavery. And no, your analogy does not apply. The 13th Amendment did not apply "retroactively" it stated that effective immediately, slavery, as a practice/institution was explicitly banned by the Constitution. And as such, all slaves were now free.

Now, why don't you show us all the examples of a new criminal statutes being retroactively by Congress as to nullify actual verdicts rendered in criminal trials. I'm sure over the period of nearly 200 years there must be a vast multitude of examples/ precedents. A new criminal statute cannot be applied retroactively either to nullify verdicts after the fact or to prosecute people (after the fact). Such a precedent, if upheld, would unfortunately cut both ways.

[loboinok]

But according to the beliefs of some on this thread, LEO’s could not be prosecuted for any crimes committed while “on the clock”.

I didn't catch any of those...which posters were making those comments?

[Bob J]

You’re splitting hairs but in the process prove my point. You’re attempting to substantiate your opinion based on the affect on perps, which is irrelevant to how it affects victims.

The 13th didn’t criminalize slavery that occured PRIOR to it’s enactment, demonstrating your ex post facto opinion, yet it had the effect of freeing people that were enslaved PRIOR to the act, demonstrating my statements that laws can be passed that help the prior victims of bad or poorly written laws.

[Bob J]

Again, I’m not playing go-fer. First I said “people on this thread” not “comments on this thread”, I’ve been debating this issue for a year and some my opponents here have made many comments throughout the year.

They have constantly made statements that the 10 year mandatory was not intended for LEO’s acting in the line of duty. Of course not, but it was intended to include LEO’s NOT acting in the line of duty and committing felonies even if they were in uniform at the time. In other words, bad cops, corrupt cops, cops abusing their authority.

Ramos and Compean were convicted of assault, this means the jury found there wasn’t sufficient justification for shooting to kill a fleeing suspect. What I have found is that juries almost always take the word of the cops if there is any, and I mean ANY evidence supporting them. Unfortunately in this incident, there was NONE, in fact R&C appeared to engage in a cover up. Compean testified he shot at OAD from the bottom of the levee well inside the vega. But one BP agent testified he saw Comp shooting from near the top of the levee and another picked up Comps expended shell casings on top of the levee. Both stories can’t be true.

So you can believe that two BP agents lied and perjured themselves to put a veteran fellow officer in jail or you can believe an officer got mad about being dumped into a smelly ditch and made a bad shooting decision, then engaged in a concerted effort to cover it up and lied about it on the stand.

Once serious doubt was cast on Comps story, it cast doubt on the “black shiny object” testimony and justification for the shoot. I personally (and the jury it appears) may have been able to get past a bad shoot done in the heat of the moment but I cannot excuse the cover up. What put it over the top for me was when Compean dragged other agents into his mess, particularly Ramos and Vasquez, putting their freedom and livelihood in jeopardy for his butt.

What disturbs me most about this, and the reason why I and others got involved in the discussions, was the obvious
opinion of many R&C supporters that this was no big deal because OAD was only a Mexican, a drug mule, an illegal and that Leo’s, in this case BP agents, should not be held accountable for their actions if the dead victim “ends up” being a member of one of these “hated” classes. This is a dangerous proposition and history is replete with examples of how an attitude like this quickly gets out of hand. Once you establish that a class of people can have their constitutional rights taken away simply because they are “hated” it is only a matter of defining whom is “hated” at the moment to move it from one group to another. This is how a police state and despotism begins. Hitler rose to power against the backdrop of economic crises but was able to acquire ultimate power on his hatred for the Jews and his ability to make them the scapegoat for misery in post WWI Germany.

Some people think this is an over the top generalization, but I don’t. You can see the same thing happened in Rwanda and currently in Darfur (to show 2 recent examples...there are dozens in the last 100 years)...the names and places change but the melody is the same.

The funny thing about this is all the reasons the R&C supporters claim why the shoot shouldn’t be a legal matter, that OAD was an illegal or drug mule, do not apply in this matter. Ramos nor Compean KNEW OAD was either of those things at the time of the shoot.

[Cyropaedia]

Bob you don't know what you are talking about.

The 13th Amendment dealt with current slaves. Slavery was something that they were dealing with each and every single day. Any contract or arrangement that currently conferring ownership of one human being to another was now nullified by the Constitution. It didn't matter how or why that arrangement/contract came into being. It didn't seek to address those individuals who were "improperly" enslaved. The 13th Amendment simply sought to abolish the entire institution of slavery altogether. From the moment it was enshrined slavery ceased to exist as a trade/practice. Any and all people who were planning on acquiring slaves in the future, for whatever reason, would never be allowed to do so. Period.

The other reason that your analogy is bogus is that the 13th Amendment was a not a bill of legislation but a bona fide CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT passed by two thirds of both houses and then ratified by the States.

No one is saying that 924c needs to be abolished. There are individuals that warrant prosecution under this statute. The issue is that this statute needs to be used as the legislators intended. It was misapplied in this particular case.

[AndrewC]

So you can believe that two BP agents lied and perjured themselves to put a veteran fellow officer in jail or you can believe an officer got mad about being dumped into a smelly ditch and made a bad shooting decision, then engaged in a concerted effort to cover it up and lied about it on the stand.

Yes those two agents lied, it is a known fact that they are liars. Plus, unlike you, I have read the testimonies. I have written simulations and I have actually gone to Fabens and viewed the scenario for myself. I plan on going again within the next few days to make measurements of the ditch.

Calcowgirl, the ditch is a doozy. It might have been altered since Feb, 2005, but it is quite an obstacle.

I drove to Phoenix for this vacation and stopped in Fabens on my way here(I am now in Phx and I will soon be headed back home). I had hoped to enter Fabens in daylight, but got there after the sun had set so my camera with flash could not get a good representation of the area. I did however, travel the path from Fabens to the ditch, and the prosecutions tale is just that, a tale. The total distance from the light at Fabens(there are now two lights) was 4.1 miles. It took me 5 minutes and 26 seconds to traverse that distance driving at posted speed limits. The speed limits were 45 mph within a couple of blocks of the traffic light then 55 mph a block or two later. The speed limit dropped to 10 just before the infamous S curve and then went up to 15 mph at the S curve. There was no posted speed limit after that. No school signs. No deer crossings. No handicapped crossings, etc. The area on either side of the road was clear farming area(cotton from what I saw). I hit the dirt road going 55 mph and slowed to 40/45 with no problem. I could see I was leaving dust, but when I slowed to 35 for a moment, I could not see a trail(it was dark however). The dirt portion was .8 miles long and it took me one minute and 17 seconds to cover the .8 miles to the Sierra Delta. I could smell the ditch way before I got there even with my windows rolled up. I had no problem stopping at the ditch even though I was travelling at 40 mph at night. I did not slide into the ditch like Davila did.

At the ditch I was astounded by what I saw. It is no wonder that Juarez and Vasquez did not come to the aid of Compean and it is admirable that Ramos did. The ditch is at least twenty feet deep with sloping sides of at least 75 degrees. It was as I had first envisioned it except deeper. My simulations are based upon a wider and much shallower ditch, but I suspect that the time to traverse it will remain the same if not longer. The one thing that it vividly demonstrates is that Juarez is a liar. Compean could not have fallen in face first without going into the water(Compean was not wet) since the sides were so angled and falling from upright to a face down position in the ditch would have probably knocked him unconscious or senseless.

At the ditch, I could not see where the van's tires stopped, but there was an old tire at the presumed location.

It is pretty evident that Vasquez was at the ditch within seconds of Juarez and would have seen Compean shooting from the levee had Juarez seen him shooting. Vasquez did not see Compean shooting.

The cock and bull story about Ramos and Compean not KNOWING that Davila was an illegal or drug mule is preposterous. Nearly the whole station showed up for this "crystal pure" individual's apprehension. The boss even showed up with a camera. And the proof is in the pudding. He was illegal and he was transporting over 700 pounds of drugs.

[calcowgirl]

Ya mean Sutton lied in his sworn testimony before the Senate? I'm shocked! (Of course, we know that Compean did not testify as Sutton states so definitively -- that "he took a header into the ditch." Agent Juarez simply gave the testimony that Johnny Sutton wanted to hear, given under immunity and only after changing his story at least four times after threats of prosecution.)

Little Johnny Sutton has got to go (straight to prison!)

---

FEINSTEIN: Are you saying Agent Compean was not on the ground?

SUTTON: Yes. He was not on the ground. And that's the difficulty in having a discussion like this, is that we had a two-and-a-half-week jury trial. All these people testified, including Agents Compean and Ramos. There was another Border Patrol agent who was standing right there, standing with Agent Ramos on the ditch. He testified at trial. He observed the entire confrontation. He observed Agent Compean go over the levy. He testified at trial ... that Compean tried to strike Aldrete in the head with a shotgun. Aldrete ducked. Compean fell headfirst into a ditch and then Aldrete takes off like a rabbit over the levy. And he...

FEINSTEIN: But you're saying Compean falls into the ditch. The ditch was 11 feet deep.

SUTTON: Right. He fell straight headfirst down into that ditch. Aldrete, the drug smuggler...

FEINSTEIN: So he was on the ground.

SUTTON: He was on the ground. But what Mr. Botsford was talking about is what Compean testified at trial. Compean's testimony was that he took a header into the ditch, was able to get up, run back up the ditch, catch Aldrete, wrestle with him, he fell to the ground. That is absolutely false.

FEINSTEIN: Who fell to the ground?

SUTTON: Compean.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

SUTTON: What the agent at the scene saw Compean fall, the smuggler take off like a rabbit over the levy and said he was halfway to Mexico by the time Compean got over the levy ...

[Cyropaedia]

"took a header into the ditch."

A ditch eleven feet deep. Yowza.

[Cyropaedia]

At the ditch I was astounded by what I saw. It is no wonder that Juarez and Vasquez did not come to the aid of Compean and it is admirable that Ramos did. The ditch is at least twenty feet deep with sloping sides of at least 75 degrees.

Twenty feet deep...?? Double yowza.

Great work Andrew. We really appreciate your efforts.

[Types_with_Fist]

Nothing else could explain his bizarre behavior in this matter.

Well... it could be that he believes in importing cheap labor for big business. Could be he believes weakening the American Middle Class and US sovereignty for daddy's New World Order.

It's actually not so "bizarre" or even accidental if everything he does or doesn't do aids the emerging result.

I've found it tough to give Bush the benefit of the doubt about this since he refused to protect the country at our porous border immediately after 911.

I've concluded that his behavior is not an accident. It is intentional, it is consistent. It is policy.

[Bob J]

Who cares about the 13th, if you think it was a bad anology fine, it doesn’t change my contention that ex post facto applies to perps, not victims. It applies to people being prosecuted for crimes prior to a law being enacted, not freeing victims of laws badly written.

[Bob J]

"Yes those two agents lied, it is a known fact that they are liars."

How dare you call 2 of our finest Border Patrol agents liars, agents who daily put their lives on the line protecting America from the invasion of illegals and druggies from the south (/sarcasm).

I love your "known fact..liars" comment. Juarez and Vasquez were fired from their jobs because they at first tried to hide the shooting and under pressure relented. Where is the outrage that these two fine officers lost their jobs because they tried "the blue line of silence" to protect Compeon and Ramos? Instead you defame them and sully their reputations. Oh, I forgot, neither Vazquez or Juarez shot anyone, so they aren't worthy.

Way to go Mr. #1 defender of Border Patrol agents.

"Calcowgirl, the ditch is a doozy...The ditch is at least twenty feet deep with sloping sides of at least 75 degrees."

You mean this one? The one that several agents testified was 10-12 feet deep? I don't know but it looks to me from this photo that it IS about 10-12 feet deep, but I wasn't looking at it in the dark like you so I could be wrong.

Someone must have gotten a shovel out and dug it 10 feet deeper since the incident.

"At the ditch, I could not see where the van's tires stopped..."

Funny, it's only been 2 years since the shooting, I can't understand why tire tracks in dirt still aren't visable.

"It is pretty evident that Vasquez was at the ditch within seconds of Juarez and would have seen Compean shooting from the levee had Juarez seen him shooting. Vasquez did not see Compean shooting."

For once I agree with you. Vasquez said he heard the shots as he was getting out of his car, but it is also quite possible he fudged this a bit because he didn't want to get dragged further into this obviously bad shoot by Compean or he didn't want to admit that Compean shot from the levee. Neither did Vasquez until it was obvious he was first on the scene and couldn't miss it. They both lost their jobs. All because Compean couldn't say "I got angry and shot, but wasn't trying to hit the guy". In that case only Compean would lose his job and neither him nor Ramos would be in prison.

So let's add it up. Because Compean wanted the shooting covered up we have to agents in prison and two that lost their jobs. Ya, Compean is a hero all right.

"The cock and bull story about Ramos and Compean not KNOWING that Davila was an illegal or drug mule is preposterous."

Knowing is a lot different than probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, but I don't expect you to understand the difference. Not only did they not KNOW, they didn't have probable cause.

"The one thing that it vividly demonstrates is that Juarez is a liar. Compean could not have fallen in face first without going into the water(Compean was not wet) since the sides were so angled and falling from upright to a face down position in the ditch would have probably knocked him unconscious or senseless."

Funny, Compean testified he fell into the side of the ditch, as did Juarez. Neither claimed he fell all the way to the bottom. You're conclusion that Compean must have is only a guess, maybe you should have testified at trial, what with your night vision accuracy and all.

[Bob J]

[Bob J]

The fact that you take Andrews word for the ditch being 20 feet deep even though forensic investigators measured it and several agents testified to it being 10-12, and, that there are ample pics out there showing it to be so, only makes you a...

[Bob J]

"Well... it could be that he believes in importing cheap labor for big business. Could be he believes weakening the American Middle Class and US sovereignty for daddy's New World Order."

[Cyropaedia]

The fact that you take Andrews word for the ditch being 20 feet deep even though forensic investigators measured it and several agents testified to it being 10-12, and, that there are ample pics out there showing it to be so, only makes you a...

Andrew said that the ditch is currently around 20 feet deep. Don't worry Bob, Andrew will provide the photos backing up his assertion. In the photo you show there is water in the ditch so once most of the water is drained then the actual depth becomes apparent.

Now you have a lot of audacity in trying label other people nut jobs. You're the idiot that tried to draw parallels to Rwanda. RWANDA!! Yeah, as if Sutton didn't actually prosecute R & C in Federal Court we could possibly wind up averaging several hundred thousand casualties a month down there in the southwest and the Rio Grande would turn red from the massive bloodletting. If that isn't a telltale sign of someone who's gone off the deep end altogether, I don't know what is. Even folks who love to drone on about "black helicopters" and the "Illuminati" don't push their paranoia that far.

I hope everyone here at FR gets a chance to see that little gem of yours.

Christ, even Sutton himself would be too embarrassed to draw an analogy like that.

[Bob J]

"Andrew said that the ditch is currently around 20 feet deep."

Andrew says a lot of things, 99% of them are wrong.

"Don't worry Bob, Andrew will provide the photos backing up his assertion."

What makes me think Andrew taking pics at the ditch will look something like this...

Anyway, you accepted Andrews estimate without pics, so what is there to argue about? Andrew is spun so tight you couldn't pull a pin out of his a$$ with a tractor.

" In the photo you show there is water in the ditch so once most of the water is drained then the actual depth becomes apparent. In the photo you show there is water in the ditch so once most of the water is drained then the actual depth becomes apparent."

Andrew is going to drain the ditch before taking pictures? Give him this pic, it may help...

No need to really, both Ramos and OAD testified the water in the ditch was about knee deep. That was on the day of the shoot, you know, when it mattered.

"Now you have a lot of audacity in trying label other people nut jobs."

I call 'em as I see 'em. Here's another one...since they're so cute.