Posted on 05/01/2008 5:14:19 PM PDT by dynachrome
The two former U.S. Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to prison terms of more than a decade each for shooting at a drug smuggler who dumped a load in the United States, then fled on foot back into Mexico rather than be arrested, must ask if they want clemency in their cases, according to the White House.
"There is a process under which anyone can apply for a pardon or a commutation. And if they want to take advantage of that process, they're absolutely welcome to," Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, told WND today.
She was responding to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, about the case involving Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. It has been a subject of dispute among border control advocates ever since the two were arrested.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You should be in my neighborhood.
Am walking distance to over 60 restaurants
WHAT??????
Now that would be worth the DRIVE just to spend a week there ..... and well, waddle on back north...
Ha!
David Udall.
Here ya go.
gnite pops! ;-)
Ha! definitely.
The President's power of pardon and/or commutation under the Constitution is absolute. There is no "process" which he is required to observe or follow. He can issue pardons or commutations whenever he wants, and for whatever reasons he wants.
In any case, I am not aware of anyone getting a pardon while their appeal is running, perhaps a historian can help me out.
While off-hand I'm not aware of a case where a pardon was granted during the actual appeal process either, your raising of this point as an objection to President Bush pardoning these two agents does not even rate the "interesting argument" assessment you so "generously" accorded to doc1019 - yours is simply an irrelevant argument.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before he was even indicted for anything.
Bush 41 pardoned Casper Weinberger immediately after he was indicted, before he even went to trial.
To reiterate: the President is not bound by any "process" with regard to pardons or commutations.
The actual issue at hand in this thread is that President Bush is hiding behind a false procedural argument to avoid and excuse himself from pardoning these men. Worse, the supercilious, backed-handed slap manner in which he chose to have his spokesman deliver the statement, when distilled to its essence, was nothing more than a press-corps version of the celebrated Bush smirk...
Thank you for your insight. I will use these arguments in my letter to the White House, as I’m sure many others will.
Scooter Libby ya maroon!
Good points.
Why am I not surprised that you would prefer that these two men stay in jail?
What difference does it make if they are appealing? Bush wants them in jail. If he had any commitment to justice, honor and the sovereignty of the U.S. he would have pardoned them the day they were convicted. Better yet, he would have ordered Sutton to drop the case.
But no. You want to protect a drug smuggler before you want to protect two men who were trying to protect you.
I am not surprised.
Exactly. Except the "rude one" wants them in jail. They were probably interfering with some of his "free trade".
Why am I not surprised that folks like you are falling over yourselves to explain to me what my argument actually is, instead of responding it?
Thank you. My faith in FR is restored. I had no idea what the process was, which is why I asked about history. That was the answer I was looking for, not personal attacks from idiots who have lost arguments to me on other threads.
Now, I don't want to get back into that whole commutation vs. pardon thing, and took the correction regarding Scooter.
Why would you bring up Marc Rich? Was his appeal still running? I don't think so. What was the point of throwing out just a list of names without checking?
Then why did you even ask the question about someone's opinion on the subject? Do you only expect answers from mentalists?
Your post 14
That would come up during the appeal, wouldn’t it? If it doesn’t, what’s your guess why it didn’t?
Well, I believe people are upset with the apparent favoritism Bush has displayed in his treatment of Libby when compared to his treatment of Ramos and Compean. It seems that Bush is being a stickler for procedure in the case of Ramos and Compean and was not in the case of Libby.
Here is evidence.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/
Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence
Clemency petitions are normally reviewed by the Justice Department, which investigates the case and seeks input from the federal prosecutor who brought the case before issuing a recommendation to the president. A government official said that Bush did not consult with the Justice Department before rendering his decision.
According to that statement, the Justice Department would have sought the input from prosecuter Fitzgerald who stated:
In a statement issued Monday night, Fitzgerald took issue with Bush's description of the sentence as "excessive," saying it was "imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country."
"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," Fitzgerald said. "That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."
Fitzgerald was not a friendly prosecutor. The prosecutor for Ramos and Compean is Bush's friend, Johnny Sutton. You draw your own conclusion.
BTW FWIW, I believe Libby, Ramos, and Compean are all innocent.
I agree that Bush should respond to the allegation of favoritism, and not send his press secretary out to mumble something about procedure, if there’s no such thing as procedure in cases like this.
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.