Posted on 01/17/2007 4:24:55 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) - As two U.S. Border Patrol agents surrendered to federal marshals Wednesday afternoon to begin serving more than a decade in jail for shooting an illegal drug smuggler, a federal lawmaker and conservative advocacy group expressed outrage at President Bush for not pardoning the men.
"This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said of the president.
"It's shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party," the California Republican added in comments coinciding with the jailing of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
Rohrabacher said Bush "obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
Ramos and Compean reportedly handed themselves over to the U.S. Marshal's office in El Paso, Texas, early Wednesday afternoon, facing the prospect of 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for a string of offenses including the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.
Steve Elliott, president of the conservative group Grassfire.org, also lashed out at Bush on Wednesday.
The American people "have a vivid picture of where the Bush administration really stands on border security," Elliott charged in a news release.
He described the crimes committed by Ramos and Compean as "so-called civil rights violations against an illegal alien drug smuggler who has been smuggling drugs into this country for years and was smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana at the time of the confrontation."
Elliott also argued that the U.S. attorney's office did not have to pursue the case, prosecute the men, "take the word of an illegal alien drug smuggler over that of our border agents" or give the illegal alien immunity.
"President Bush could have spoken out publicly in support of these agents and how their incarceration could further cripple our border security efforts," he added.
Instead, Elliot said, "when it came time to stand and be counted on the side of our border agents, the president's administration chose to side with a career illegal alien drug smuggler."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Ramos and Compean encountered Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila while on duty on Feb. 17, 2005. When they tried to stop him, he fled and was shot and wounded. Aldrete-Davila was treated at a hospital in El Paso and then returned to Mexico.
After learning of the shooting, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton sought out Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity from prosecution if he would return to the United States to testify against Ramos and Compean.
Sutton later defended the decision, arguing that the agents did not have knowledge of any criminal activity involving Aldrete-Davila at the time they shot him.
Ramos and Compean were charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, willfully violating Aldrete-Davila's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and obstruction of justice for intentionally defacing the crime scene, lying about the incident, and failing to report the truth.
During a press briefing last Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow addressed the case and criticism at some length.
"According to the facts presented in court, you had an incident in which there was an attempt to pull somebody over. He finally got pulled over; somebody holds out a gun. Sort of scuffling ensues," Snow said.
"And what happens is you've got a fellow running away, and a couple of agents eventually in pursuit, firing 14 shots at him - I think 15, actually. Fourteen by one agent missed, one did strike him in the fleshy hindquarters," he added.
"Now, at the time this happened, they did not know if he was an illegal," Snow continued.
"They did not know that there were 700 pounds of marijuana [in Aldrete-Davila's van]. They didn't know any of those things. But instead you had this. They also had received arms training the day before that said if you have an incident like this, you must preserve the evidence and you must report it promptly," he said.
"Instead, according to court documents, they went around and picked up the shell casings. Furthermore, they asked one of their colleagues also to help pick up shell casings. They disposed of them," Snow added.
Snow noted that a jury convicted the agents on 11 out of 12 counts and defended the government's stance.
"This is not the case of the United States saying, we are not going to support people who go after drug dealers. Of course we are ... we also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law," he said.
Even the phrase "rule of law" get ME pukin! How many illegals need to be rounded up and given either jail or a one-way ticket to somewhere? This illegal alien issue is such a mess, there is no black and white and this is not a perfect world.
The less people, the less NEEDED tax base. Much of the taxpayer-funded spending is due to the added burden of the additional freeloading population that illegals represent. Don't ignore that the illegals are predominantly non-taxpayers (but for a small amount of sales tax), but huge tax collectors in terms of using our schools, roads, prisons, and other government services without carrying the costs. And don't forget the huge burden that they place on our medical system.
The Hispanic tide at least is Catholic...not muslim...so in that sense we're better off than much of Europe.
Their alleged religion is of little importance if they are predominantly liberal mindset. And given all the freebies that illegals obtain courtesy of the taxpayer, these are a very liberal people. Like most of the left, they violate one of the underlying premises of the Christian teachings; "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Seems to me that they shout "Catholocism" all the way to the bank.
Therefore, I disagree with your idea of "national interest".
We have much with which to disagree on this particular issue.
America can barely afford to carry our own deadwood - we really don't need to be importing more.
Sounds like there's basically 2 sides on this thread ..
One side is arguing for the rule of law..
The other side is arguing for justice.
I'm all for the rule of law until it becomes obvious that justice has been denied.
In this case I would say justice as been denied, or at least perverted but I still don't get the "Bush's Fault" charge. I think we need to get away from the notion that W is some kind of god who can make all things happen.
Perhaps, given time, he will take a look at this case and pardon these men.
Is the appeals process over?
Has the judicial system run it's course??
There is no difference when it comes to folks like this. But then, I don't think it's accurate to describe them as either left or right. They all suffer from the same lack of a rational, logical ability to reason. If things aren't the way they want them to be, facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, reality doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they aren't satisfied and someone needs to pay. In all honesty, my children have a more mature understanding of our world.
Child molesters do much less time than these guys will. Pathetic!
Absolutely not. That's why I'm able to read the factual information listed in post 44 and understand it. You claimed it's full of "weasel words". That implies it creates a picture that isn't accurate. Yet, your two most "glaring" examples happen to be statements of fact that you can't even try to refute. In fact, your comments regarding those statements prove you either did not read all of post 44, or its contents are beyond your comprehension. I'd suggest you have a reading comprehension problem, but that would be like diagnosing a rusted out and seized motor as only needing an oil change.
And for the record "subsequently" means "following" or happening later in a sequence of order. Again, you have posted a statement of fact and called it "weasel words".
Finally, you take the side of law breakers. I take the side of the law. It's as simple as that.
Uh...if it works for Sandy Burglar....so too should it work for me.
You would like to think that Conservatism was more than just a stance against the other guy, a core value that was not swayed by events, but many represent it poorly here in this thread.
My unshakable stance has now been called a soap box, and worse by people claiming the conservative mantle, as if it comes with a tag "you can relax your Conservatism, if someone pisses you off.
When did two guys shooting another human being, regardless of origin, become a referendum on Immigration Policy? I suppose by their logic, should I forget my passport on my next trip to Vancouver B.C, some Mountie is justified in putting a cap in my ass for illegal entry?
My conclusion is that we have a number of phony Conservatives on this forum, folks who like the title, but don't really have a clue as to what it means. Its like a social club, instead of an ideology for them, and it only works when its easy and popular. That goes for the politicians who wrap themselves in the flag, yet think you can excuse one form of law breaking if you don't like how another form is being handled. I wont call these types conservatives anymore, but just your ordinary right wing wacko.
When they cant argue against the shooting, its against the sentencing, yet I bet they applauded when the Republican Congress instituted mandatory minimum sentences to combat activist judges. Careful what you ask for, maybe? I say, keep the sentence, and just don't shoot people in the ass!
We can argue all day on whether or not Bush has done enough about illegal immigration, but a thinking person understands that Bush and Illegal Immigration are not the issue. The issue is whether or not two guys can shoot a man and not report it, hide gun shells, and get away with it.
So, lets see if these 'conservatives' now want to do away with mandatory minimums which would put them in the same boat as Pelosi, Boxer and Feistein, so that these guys can get a lesser sentence?
There is no consistency, and they don't even know it.
I don't believe that's true in a lot of instances.
Infrastructure, Medicare and related benefits for example.
And since the Social Security fund was used as a piggy bank...by both parties...the money that was used must be replaced to keep it solvent.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are using fake SS numbers in their jobs...and no government agency on any level has bothered to check...since it's 'free' income to the feds.
I want to say that the vast majority of immigrants that came to this country during the Industrial Revolution were uneducated and became blue collar laborers...just like the Hispanics today.
My grandfather from Sicily worked for Republic Steel in Buffalo, New York.
His presence wasn't appreciated by large segments of the American population...for a lot of the same reasons you have a problem with illegals today.
Today, his great-grandchildren are business owners and in college. My daughter is in her 2nd year at Yale Law School and her brothers are in Indiana and Emory University respectively.
My point of course is that all immigrants are looked upon as 2nd class people by too much of our fellow countrymen.
My unwarranted advice....pay attention to your own life and family...and demonstrate a love for this great country with which we've been blessed.
There is a personal relationship between the smuggler and a female Border Patrol agent who went to high school with him contributing to her zeal to facilitate the government's case.
One has a sense of yet more Kibuki politics, making an example of these two to woo yet more illegal aliens by demonstrating an illegal-friendly environment.
thanks!
Unsolicited maybe but unwarranted, definitely not.
Good post.
My cat Anna RUNS to me like that whenever I use the facilities.
Have a nice day :)
However, Border Patrol use-of-force guidelines prohibit shooting a fleeing suspect for the purpose of stopping them from running away.
Neither Compean or Ramos knew he was illegal, or a drug smuggler, at the time they started blazing away at him. It could have just as easily been you or me.
These guys wouldn't have covered anything up if we didn't have a government full of illegal alien loving people. PARDON NOW ! Do you remember the scumbags that Willie pardoned. Drugs, embezzlement etc.
Nowhere, not even in Compean and Ramos' testimony, has anyone said that Davila had a gun or fired it at Compean/Ramos. If Davila had fired at either of them, it would have been the central point of their defense, and the shooting would have been ruled most certainly justified.
I conclude you're just making it up.
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.