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.

[calcowgirl]

From our resident FR Constitutional attorney;
“Ex post facto applies in only one direction. ... Congress does have the power to “undeclare” an act as a crime. ...”

Well, now you've changed your argument. Remember, this conversation started as follows:

BobJ: ..."demanding Hunter and Poe serve up legislation to get R&C out of prison NOW"

Cyropaedia: “Congress is basically forbidden from applying changes in criminal law retroactively...”

BobJ: "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”."

Previously, you were asserting that new legislation could be written (ex post facto) to release Ramos and Compean from prison. Now, per input from the unnamed "resident FR Constitutional attorney" (who I assume is Congressman Billybob so I have included him on the ping), you suggest that R&C might be freed by "undeclaring" an act as a crime.

I ask you, exactly which crime would you have Congress "undeclare"? 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii)]? All of 924(c)? Are you now suggesting that the solution you were previously suggesting, 100 posts ago, was for Congress to unwrite the law, thereby relieving tens of thousands of criminals of sentences handed down under this law? Or, are you suggesting that the resident FR Constitutional attorney believes that a law could be undeclared and applied only to the case of Ramos and Compean, but leaving all other criminals sentences unchanged? Somehow, I don't think he is going to agree with that one.

(And let's not forget that Ramos and Compean have appealed the application of 924(c) altogether--claiming it is a sentencing guideline, not a crime in and of itself.)

You don’t know if you’re right, you don’t even check to see if you’re right, you just don’t want it to be so you start flapping your gums and spouting anything that comes into your head. Which pretty much sums up the way you have been arguing this case for the last year.

Quit with the insults, already. Talk the issues or take a hike.

So I just proved everything I’ve been saying. For two years you have had at your disposal the simplest, quickest option for getting Ramos and Compean out of jail and you haven’t even checked it out much less considered it.

You've proven nothing, thus far.

[calcowgirl]

Correction to italics in last part of post (to clarify that it was YOU spewing the insults):

You don’t know if you’re right, you don’t even check to see if you’re right, you just don’t want it to be so you start flapping your gums and spouting anything that comes into your head. Which pretty much sums up the way you have been arguing this case for the last year.

Quit with the insults, already. Talk the issues or take a hike.

So I just proved everything I’ve been saying. For two years you have had at your disposal the simplest, quickest option for getting Ramos and Compean out of jail and you haven’t even checked it out much less considered it.

You've proven nothing, thus far.

[GregH]

This does not help Bush with his approval among conservatives, one doubts whether he even cares about it.

[dragnet2]

This does not help Bush with his approval among conservatives, one doubts whether he even cares about it.

As America reacted in utter outrage to Bush's drive to legalize and grant amnesty to literally millions of illegals aliens, as Bush suggested Americans are bigots and lazy, why would he care about what Americans think of this tainted prosecution that railroaded these two border patrol agents into long prison sentences?

[Cyropaedia]

I ask you, exactly which crime would you have Congress "undeclare"? 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii)]? All of 924(c)? Are you now suggesting that the solution you were previously suggesting, 100 posts ago, was for Congress to unwrite the law, thereby relieving tens of thousands of criminals of sentences handed down under this law? Or, are you suggesting that the resident FR Constitutional attorney believes that a law could be undeclared and applied only to the case of Ramos and Compean, but leaving all other criminals sentences unchanged? Somehow, I don't think he is going to agree with that one.

Great point CCG. Bob doesn't understand the ramifications of what he's advocating.

The courts have declared that specific measures could be applied retroactively but only because they deemed them to be "regulatory" and not "punitive". We are talking about something that is clearly a bona fide punitive measure.

[calcowgirl]

Bob doesn't understand the ramifications of what he's advocating.

I'm just trying to understand what he is advocating--or what today's version is. It's a moving target.

I acknowledge that Congress could most likely declare a law null and void but I don't believe that could be selectively applied to only two individuals in a single case. So... he seems to be advocating that letting thousands of criminals out on the street is a way to help Ramos and Compean (which is anything but a reasonable solution).

[calcowgirl]

I will measure it Monday, so be prepared for the numbers.

Looking forward to hearing your input. In the meantime, I hope you are enjoying your holiday!

[Cyropaedia]

The same objective can be achieved through the Fifth Circuit.

Here is Olson from the Glen Beck show :

Olson said that one of his lawyers saw that the U.S. attorney did not indict Ramos and Compean using the language of the specific 924-C violation. The prosecutor had twisted the words of the statute so that they were not charged with any of the three verbs necessary for the charge. Rather, they were charged with an illegal discharge.

http://bordercontrol.blogspot.com/search?q=olson

[AndrewC]

I post an actual picture of the ditch at the exact spot the incident occurred, and you respond with a picture of ...a diving platform.

Ha. Coming from a guy who posts adverts for ALCOA throughout this thread, that is hilarious. 3 Meters is around ten feet. That is not deep. And 6 feet is not 5 feet 5 inches as Davila testified.

[Bob J]

Why do you two argue so vehemently about this when it is so simple? Tomorrow Duncan Hunter could submit legislation that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s, in other words that it doesn’t apply (was never meant to) to a federal agent when they use their service gun in the normal course of their duties. This could exclude instances of premeditation, conspiracy or wanton disregard so they could still use it to go after corrupt cops, but cops who make a mistake in the heat of the moment are protected.

And for two years you could have been urging your congresspersons to do so. Upon passage it would have led to the immediate release of Ramos and Compean. But instead you and others would rather spend two years ranting about a pardon or the new world order and how Jorge Bush is implicit with Mexico in a worldwide scheme to enslave humankind...while R&C rot in jail.

Now you will come on and say how maybe you didn’t SPECIFICALLY do all of this yourself, but everyone around you does and you haven’t lifted one finger to your keyboard to contradict them or clarify that is not part of your agenda. So while you agree with them or not your silence has emboldened and enabled them so that makes you part of their agenda.

I guess now you will spend two years arguing whether 924 can be clarified because that’s two more years of prison for R&C and two more years of headline grabbing press conferences, photo ops and sound bites to further your not so hidden agenda.

So don’t come in here and shed your crocodile tears about your concern for R&C because you really couldn’t care less. If you did you would stop this stupid push for a pardon (which is never going to happen) and it’s concurrent bashing of Bush, Sutton and our entire justice system and start doing something real to get them home with their families.

[calcowgirl]

Tomorrow Duncan Hunter could submit legislation that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s, in other words that it doesn’t apply (was never meant to) to a federal agent when they use their service gun in the normal course of their duties. ... Upon passage it would have led to the immediate release of Ramos and Compean.

Wrong. You are now suggesting that the law be changed and then state that it can be applied ex post facto. It can't. Best check with your resident constitutional lawyer again. You have strayed far from Congress "undeclaring" a law.

But instead you and others would rather spend two years ranting about a pardon or the new world order and how Jorge Bush is implicit with Mexico in a worldwide scheme to enslave humankind...while R&C rot in jail.

Show me where I have posted any such thing. Put up, or shut up.

Now you will come on and say how maybe you didn’t SPECIFICALLY do all of this yourself, but everyone around you does and you haven’t lifted one finger to your keyboard to contradict them or clarify that is not part of your agenda.

I have no agenda. And it's not my job to stifle other people's posts.

So while you agree with them or not your silence has emboldened and enabled them so that makes you part of their agenda.

ROFL! What nonsense! You're too much!

So don’t come in here and shed your crocodile tears about your concern for R&C because you really couldn’t care less.

Now you're verging on pathetic.

If you did you would stop this stupid push for a pardon (which is never going to happen) and it’s concurrent bashing of Bush, Sutton and our entire justice system and start doing something real to get them home with their families.

I guess after all this time you don't really read my posts. (Hint: I haven't been pushing for a pardon and I've never bashed Bush. I have, however, heavily criticized little Johnny Sutton and his thugs for an overzealous and dishonest prosecution.) I believe the appeals process is the proper place to resolve this, assuming the judges do the right thing. If not, I'll be pushing for a pardon.

[MHT]

Shameful—He’s been a great prez in so many ways but his blindness about illegals is sickening and totally undermines the good of his administration. Add this to his signing the lightbulb bill and this life-long Republican is no longer is #1 fan.

[Bob J]

You’re either illiterate or stupid.

[calcowgirl]

You’re either illiterate or stupid.

You can't support your argument so you resort to namecalling.

At least you are consistent.

[Bob J]

You deny the truth when it is placed directly in front of you. To make it a little more obvious for you, I asked the question directly to our resident constitutional attorney...

"Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?"

"Yea, they could. But if Congress does anything, it will probably take the easy route and cut the funding."

Now if this isn't plain enough to get through your thick head, nothing will.

You AND congress, both taking the easy route.

Chow baby.

[calcowgirl]

To make it a little more obvious for you, I asked the question directly to our resident constitutional attorney...

"Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?"

"Yea, they could. But if Congress does anything, it will probably take the easy route and cut the funding."

I'd certainly be interested in hearing how they could do that because it seems to violate everything I've read.

But, I have no interest in trying to carry on a conversation through you since you can't carry on a discussion without throwing around personal insults and posting juvenile graphics. If the resident constitutional attorney would like to dialogue directly, fine. I find no benefit in continuing this dialogue with you.

I already asked you specific questions that you were either unwilling or incapable of responding to. I'm still interested in answers to those, if Congressmanbillybob would be so kind as to answer.

I ask you, exactly which crime would you have Congress "undeclare"? 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii)]? All of 924(c)? Are you now suggesting that the solution you were previously suggesting, 100 posts ago, was for Congress to unwrite the law, thereby relieving tens of thousands of criminals of sentences handed down under this law? Or, are you suggesting that the resident FR Constitutional attorney believes that a law could be undeclared and applied only to the case of Ramos and Compean, but leaving all other criminals sentences unchanged? Somehow, I don't think he is going to agree with that one.

[Bob J]

C'mon CCG, I know you're not this dense. The law could be clarified so it won't apply to LEO's using their weapons in the normal course of their duties, even if it is a mistake and not premeditated or part of some larger conspiracy or corruption.

I'll stop the "personal atatcks" when you stop playing the fool.

[Bob J]

BTW...

“I’d certainly be interested in hearing how they could do that because it seems to violate everything I’ve read.”

I played your game now it’s your turn. Show us where you’ve read this is not possible...and no World Nut Daily articles or rantings from Andrew or the new world order nutcakes.

Legitimate sources only.

[Bob J]

One more. Passing this type of legislation would immediately protect ALL LEO's, past present and future, while you're appeal might take years, has no guarantee of success and only affects Ramos and Compean.

Maybe you should go ask all your pardon and/or appeal buddies why this option has never been considered. I say this because from the beginning all this wailing and knashing of teeth over R&C seemed overdone and had the distinct fetid odor of agenda attached to it.

Which is sad because it means Ramos and Compean were only tools in a larger yet hidden media effort.

[AndrewC]

First, I was wrong on the depth of the ditch. I stated that the depth was at least twenty feet deep. It was 16 feet deep. I should have stated that it appeared 20 feet deep at night. Which it certainly did.

Second, Happy New Year!

Third, my calibrated eyes are calibrated. My eyes at night said twenty feet and they were right, but my feet were 16 feet from the water. At night with the dimness, the ditch is much more treacherous appearing than in full daylight. In any case, the ditch is 16 feet deep by two types of measurements.

The first method I used involved a rope. I attached a bag with rocks on the end of a 40 ft rope I had marked at 3 foot intervals out to eighteen feet. At nine and eighteen feet I put small knots that would indicate those lengths. I hammer threw the bag as best I could but because I had to make sure the rope would not go flying out of reach I had to hold the rope back from full extension. This resulted in the bag falling almost exactly half way up the slope on the other side instead of the top as I had hoped. I did not want to risk the rope falling in the stench pool so I lived with what I got.

I measured the length of the rope from that location and it was 28 ft 3 inches. I also measured vertical drop versus horizontal travel(the angle of the rope). The angle resulted in 10 inches of drop for 34 inches of horizontal distance(I had a yardstick). That is a 16 degree down angle. From this information I could calculate the horizontal distance as 27 feet. The long and the short of it is that the ditch is 30 feet wide at the top.

The next measurement was along the near slope. I dropped the bag into the near edge of the water and pulled it just out of the water. I assume it was out no more than a few inches but if it was out farther the depth would be calculated to more than the 16 feet. The length of the rope was 17 feet. The drop was 20 inches to 7 inches or about a 70.7 degree angle(my calibrated eyeballs at night measured 75 degrees). The result is that the ditch is 16 feet deep. Further calculations show that the water is 18 feet across. The depth of the water was not measured but appears to be about two to three feet deep. The tire that I saw the first time was in the ditch fully under water.

The second method of measuring the depth of the ditch was simply throwing a rock and timing its fall(kerplunk). I threw a rock out as level as I could and used at stop watch to time its fall. I did this four times and chose the fastest time. This was measured at 1.15 seconds. The calculated distance is around 21 feet. That is close to calibrated eyeball height.

Now, what does this all mean? It means that I was just as close at night as Bob's references were during the day(10-12) feet. It means that Davila even lied about the depth of the ditch since 16 feet is certainly a heck of a lot deeper than just slightly above a 6 foot wader. The angles verify that Juarez was lying about(or someone was) Compean falling face first into the ditch. In fact, I slipped as I measured the slope. I was sideways so I was quickly able to stop the slide by leaning on my solid footing. I can see how Compean slipped if he stepped down into the ditch. He would have gone to one knee as he testified.

On the way to the ditch, I again drove the distance at the posted speed limits and reached the ditch in 5 minutes and 31 seconds. Still no schools on the road.

An interesting thing happened this time however, when I arrived at the ditch, there was a BP truck located on the levee in what I believe would have been where Compean was stopped. I went about my business but one or two other BP trucks buzzed by while I was there. After my first measurement, an agent come down and asked what I was doing. I politely answered, but the agent replied he was not familiar with the Ramos and Compean case. Towards the end of my stay all trucks left but another one appeared and drove down on the side of the levee. A lady agent got out and asked about what I was doing and politely asked for my name. I gave it to her.