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 ...
Sutton added on 10 years because he claimed a gun was used in the commission of a crime?! What rubbish. Every law enforcement officer should have walked off the job the day he proposed that and stayed off until Sutton rescinded that ill conceived charge.
The bible implies we will be judged on how we treat the “least of us”. Well, this Administration has failed that principle miserably.
Facts about what? Libby? The definition of "Pardon"? Give me a break!
Because frankly (using the more extreme example), arguing that Ramos and Compean should be pardoned because Clinton pardoned Rich is pathetic.
What is pathetic is to suggest that anyone here argued that. Nice try.
And you were answered: LIBBY
I cant think of anyone myself, and I thought someone might share their knowledge.
READ thread above--AND links.
That is all. Sinister motives and all that . . . you know people like me, ask a question and everyone runs, terrified.
ROFL! Terrified? Don't flatter yourself.
Forgot your comment #62 already? That must be some sort of a record.
Please, I have faith in FR. Don't fail me.
Thanks for the ping.
wonder why some posters can’t speak directly to the argument instead they are in displacement mode.
My argument is clear. “Displacement” mode? LOL That’s clear language.
I DO question your motives.....I have all along when you’ve been on these threads.
You suggested that others had not been pardoned while an appeal was pending.
A prior poster suggested a pardon should not be granted prior to an appeal or conviction.
My response in #62 responds to those circumstances.
It does NOT argue that R&C should be pardoned because Clinton pardoned Rich.
If you can't comprehend the difference, so be it.
Of course you question my motives, because you don’t have the intellectual capacity to address my argument(s). That’s ok, the world needs idiots also.
" Every law enforcement officer should have walked off the job the day he proposed that and stayed off until Sutton rescinded that ill conceived charge. "
Cool comeback there......
Of course. Marc Rich just accidentally typed itself onto your keyboard. Why did you bring him up, anyway?
A little give and take is normal on these threads, but a little civility will go a long way to winning over advocates to your point of view.
Hey BG, you can usual tell the folks on a thread who have run out of their RX for that blue pill
Sounds like you two are doing just fine without me, so this Grandpa is off to bed.
Good night.
Lips. Zipped. Shut.
REAL tight.
I’m hungry but too lazy to go out and make something. I sure wish Togo’s would deliver!!! :)
Nite! Sleep WELL! :)
(do YOU wanna run over to Togo’s for me?)
:)
KIDDING!!!!!
Here’s something you may not have heard before. I treat people the same way they treat me on this website. When someone attacks me personally, they get the same. You question my motives, I call you an idiot. Get it?
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.