Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents

[subdjoe]

I see New Guy beat me to it. I saw the new post and was going to suggest that this thread get wrapped up, it has wound down to the Oh, yeah! Well what about (blank) stage. But at least the vulgarities have been taken out.

[ferrous]

Jesus H. Christ... Finally a debate with teeth and TNG and now Subdjoe want to pull the plug.

Maybe we should "can" this argument and talk about how to baste a turkey or how Martha can decorate a soup can.

TBD writes: ”Prove that he was... no one can. Or at least has not been able to yet. And unless it can be proven that he was, then for the purpose of law he has to be presumed to have been unarmed.”

In that court, evidence was surpressed, in this court of public opinion, there still exist a question whether Davilia was armed or turning in a threatening manner.

TBD writes”
You are forgetting that Agent Juarez was present during the entire confrontation. He knows exactly what happened as well and testified at trial.”

“It is important to understand that only three individuals were eyewitnesses to the crucial
events of that day: the two accused Border Patrol agents and the drug smuggler. The other Border
Patrol agents who responded to the scene remained on the north side of a steep and wide drainage
canal, and their view of the levee channel south of them was completely obscured by the levee
access road, which is about 12 feet higher than the road on which they stood, and about 8 feet higher
than the spot on the other side of levee where Agents Compean and Ramos knelt and stood, respectively, when they fired their pistols in self-defense as the drug smuggler pointed a gun at them.”

Seems there’s a different version or perspective

TBD writes: “That which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in any criminal action) is what is presumed to be fact. Am I to presume you have a problem with that too?”

“It is also significant that three of the twelve jurors later submitted sworn affidavits alleging that they
had been misled into believing that there could be no dissent in the decision of the jury, and that the
minority would have to accede to the will of the majority. Despite this cloud over the propriety of
the process, the judge refused to overturn the verdict.”

There seems to be some question about reasonable doubt…

TBD writes : And it's mighty hard to be throwing shots back over your shoulder when in full flight.”

According to the affidavit of the Office of Inspector General investigator who accompanied the drug smuggler to William Beaumont Army Medical Center for treatment, the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler “advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh.” At the trial, the Army doctor testified that the drug smuggler’s body was “bladed” away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backward, causing the body to twist”
________________________

Now let’s talk about the commutation of their sentence from now ex-president Bush.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to over 10 years, most of the time to serve the conviction of being found guilty of section 924(c) of the U.S. code, which requires a 10-year sentence for using or carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence.

[July 17, 2007: After presiding over a Senate hearing today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has decided to ask President Bush to commute the sentences of former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, …

Sen. Feinstein, during questioning of Sutton, argued the statute did not apply to Ramos and Compean in their pursuit of a drug smuggler at the Mexican border, because there was no underlying crime.

Feinstein has concluded the use of 924(c) was "prosecutorial overreach."]
_______________________

Now, how about the Mexican Consulate involvement?

Insert:

The Mexican consul's role in revealing the identity of Aldrete-Davila also conflicts with prosecutor Debra Kanof's opening statement to the jury in the Ramos-Compean trial.

According to a copy of the statement obtained by WND, Kanof explained the following to the jury Feb. 21, 2006:

Rene Sanchez is stationed in Willcox, Arizona. He's actually from El Paso. And sometime in the last couple of days of February he got a phone call from his mother-in-law. And his mother-in-law lives in Mexico, in a little town on the outskirts of Juarez. And she told him that she had been talking to a friend of hers, a girlfriend of hers, and that that girlfriend had told her that her son, the girlfriend's son, had been shot in back by a Border Patrol agent outside of El Paso, Texas, somewhere near San Elizario.

From there, Kanof explained how Rene Sanchez investigated.

So Rene Sanchez investigated. He made some phone calls to people he knew in El Paso and asked if there was a shooting.

First he needed to find out, however, when that occurred and approximately where it occurred. So he immediately reported it to his supervisor in Willcox, Arizona, who told him to get more information, which he did by calling his mother-in-law. And he instructed his mother-in-law to take a cell phone – his mother-in-law actually lives in El Paso – to take a cell phone to Mexico, give that cell phone to the individual who was shot, and have them call me, so I can get some facts. And that, he did.

The individual who shot is an individual by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. And Rene Sanchez spoke with him on the phone, and he gave him information about what occurred that day.

Kanof said nothing to the jury suggesting the information about Aldrete-Davila actually came from the Mexican consul, who contacted the American Consulate in Mexico, who in turn contacted DHS and prosecutor Sutton's office.

While Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, Aldrete-Davila has found an American lawyer and plans to sue the Border Patrol for $5 million for allegedly violating his civil rights.
___________________

So much for Justice being fair or right. The scales were tipped in favor of the prosecution right from opening words of Debra Kanof, and I feel that Ramos and Compean were denied a fair and balanced trail. Take away being found guilty of section 924(c) of the U.S. code and the agents would have been given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way.

Overreach by Sutton’s prosecutors, possible involvement with the Mexican Government, a president that refused to stand up to the border issues and we had to agents sentenced to more than 10 years.

A limited pardon from Bush would have been in order if only for them not being guilty of section 924(c), the most serious of their convictions.

[subdjoe]

OK, you gotta point. Them as don't like it don't have to read this thread.

Please keep the "asshole" "dipshit" etc. comment toned down. Make sure that any eyeballs gouged out are handed back at the end. Enjoy your beers. Thanks.

[The Big Dog]

The trial transcripts are here.... scroll to the bottom of the page.

Here is the appellate decision.

TBD writes: ”Prove that he was... no one can. Or at least has not been able to yet. And unless it can be proven that he was, then for the purpose of law he has to be presumed to have been unarmed.”

In that court, evidence was surpressed, in this court of public opinion, there still exist a question whether Davilia was armed or turning in a threatening manner.

What specific evidence was suppressed? What proof do you offer that evidence was suppressed? Please show in the record specifically.

TBD writes”
You are forgetting that Agent Juarez was present during the entire confrontation. He knows exactly what happened as well and testified at trial.”

“It is important to understand that only three individuals were eyewitnesses to the crucial
events of that day: the two accused Border Patrol agents and the drug smuggler. The other Border Patrol agents who responded to the scene remained on the north side of a steep and wide drainage canal, and their view of the levee channel south of them was completely obscured by the levee access road, which is about 12 feet higher than the road on which they stood, and about 8 feet higher than the spot on the other side of levee where Agents Compean and Ramos knelt and stood, respectively, when they fired their pistols in self-defense as the drug smuggler pointed a gun at them.”

Seems there’s a different version or perspective

Sure seems to be. Agent Juarez was present when the suspect first climbed out of the van and was confronted... in fact; Juarez testified that Aldrete’s hands were visible and empty as Aldrete approached Compean. Vol. VIII, pp. 175-176; Vol. IX, p. 155. Ramos testified that he did not see anything in Aldrete’s hands as Aldrete moved through the ditch. Vol. XIII, p. 43. Compean testified that Aldrete’s hands were empty as he went through the ditch and later, that Aldrete had no weapon in his hands. Vol. XIII, pp. 154-155; Vol. XIV, pp. 66-68, 71-72. In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to
surrender with both hands open and in the air. In their sworn testimony, Agents Juarez and Compean both confirmed that Aldrete had his hands in the air, Vol. VIII, p. 175; Vol. IX, pp. 155-156; Vol. XIII, pp. 154-155; Vol. XIV, pp. 66-68, 71-72, in an apparent effort to surrender.

But go read those parts of the testimony for yourself and make your own mind up.

TBD writes : And it's mighty hard to be throwing shots back over your shoulder when in full flight.”

According to the affidavit of the Office of Inspector General investigator who accompanied the drug smuggler to William Beaumont Army Medical Center for treatment, the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler “advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh.” At the trial, the Army doctor testified that the drug smuggler’s body was “bladed” away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backward, causing the body to twist”

And it is, perhaps, just as easy to make an assertion that while he was being shot at the suspect may well have been dodging back and forth, zig zagging if you will. I know that I sure would have been. And if his body is turned in such a way while he zigs and zags, there goes the argument.


As to the assertion that the prosecution was overreaching... if, for the sake of discussion we stipulate that there was no legal or moral justification for Ramos and Compean to fire, then what, exactly would you charge them with? The law in that respect is clear... and here is the operative section...

(c)(1) Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to life imprisonment without release. (FOOTNOTE 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was used or carried.

The elements of the crime, assuming again for the sake of the argument that there was no legal or moral justification to shoot, are met. There is no wiggle room or discretion. The Congress saw to that when they enacted those laws. So if you and Senator Feinstein want to be pissed at anyone, you might try being pissed at the Congress first, as the US Attorney's office was following the law as Congress enacted it.

Don't believe me? How about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

In this prefatory statement we should note that the rather lengthy
sentences imposed on the defendants—eleven years and a day and twelve years
respectively—result primarily from their convictions under § 924(c). Why?
Because Congress directed a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for all
defendants convicted under this statute, i.e., using a gun in relation to the
commission of a crime of violence. The underlying crime of violence with which
the defendants were charged is assault within the special territorial jurisdiction
of the United States. Once the defendants were charged by the government and
convicted by the jury under this statute, the district court had no discretion but
to impose at least a ten-year sentence. Thus, the sentences in this case reflect
the mandatory ten years for violation of § 924(c), and one year and a day and two
years, respectively, for the remaining several convictions.

Again... bear in mind that the three judge appellate panel found only one of the convictions, tampering with an official proceeding, was reversible simply because the court found that the Border Patrol's internal investigation (which the agents stonewalled and lied to) was not an official proceeding within the meaning of the statute.

This case will surely be debated long after we have gone from the scene. Many will take the side of the agents out of blind faith or because of the underlying (red herring) issues of the border and illegal immigration. A competent court found them guilty, and the higher court weighed it all far more deeply than you or I and reached a similar conclusion. That jurors "changed their minds" after the fact is immaterial when measured against the fact that there is no finding by appellate court that there was a reversible exclusion of exculpatory evidence.

If you think they were railroaded, then that's okay. I don't, and that's okay too. Without differences of opinion life would be a lot less fun. I'll leave it at that. My only, and last, word on the subject is that if you want to really understand the case, you should read it.... and not just what is getting printed in the media one way or another.

[saunterelle]

Hopefully we will see a well reasoned response to BigDog's points. I've been waiting to hear a logical justification for this pardon after hearing the Right Wing pundits continue to blather on and on about illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

[moondog]

TBD gave you a justification already. Man, your life must be filled with redundancy.

[saunterelle]

That he feels the sentence was too harsh? That's a matter of opinion with no way to prove it right or wrong.

[moondog]

Then stop your criticizing. It is not like he pardoned the biggest tax cheat in the history of this nation.

[The Big Dog]

Jan 29, 2009 14:16:44 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I've been waiting to hear a logical justification for this pardon after hearing the Right Wing pundits continue to blather on and on about illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

It wasn't a pardon, it was a commutation of sentence to time served, which the President has an unfettered authority to do under the Constitution. They are still convicted felons for what they did, which the President by his actions and statements thinks they should be (as do I). They are just getting out of jail early is all. Which, with an eye to what justice really is, would be about the best outcome all things considered.

The sentences were, IMO, too harsh, and I've agreed with their supporters on that respect since they were first sentenced. But as I pointed out repeatedly there was no room for discretion by the judge in sentencing under the statutes enacted by the Congress that form the sentencing guidelines.

[saunterelle]

You're right, he didn't pardon a tax cheat. Just a couple of cowards who abused the power entrusted to them by trying to shoot a guy in the back while he was running away.

[harpman1]

They need target practice.
The scumbag is still alive.

[The Big Dog]

Jan 29, 2009 16:12:46 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

You're right, he didn't pardon a tax cheat. Just a couple of cowards who abused the power entrusted to them by trying to shoot a guy in the back while he was running away.

Lets put this into clearer perspective. Ramos & Compean were tried and found guilty by a competent court, and the verdict was upheld on appellate review. They were not pardoned, their sentences were commuted.

Marc Rich, the massive tax cheat being referenced (I think) above, was pardoned by President Clinton outright... before any competent court had ever heard the case against him. After his wife bundled up a few million dollars in contributions to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library / Slush Fund. Marc Rich was never tried... Bill Clinton completely subverted justice, but since the Presidential power of pardon is absolute and unchallengeable.......

Comparing Marc Rich's full pardon to the commutation of sentence in the Ramos / Compean case is a wholly fallacious, apples to oranges comparison. They are two seperate and mutually exclusive issues.