By David Neiwert Monday Jan 19, 2009 12:01pm
In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration.
Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.
At trial in the federal courthouse in El Paso, Border Patrol agents from the Fabens station took the stand to testify against Ramos and Compean. Fellow agents, including one who had observed the shooting, contradicted Compean's story about where he was and how he was positioned when he fired his weapon. The agent who had helped Compean hide shell casings admitted it under oath. Prosecutors showed that Compean had repeatedly changed his story about the shooting and that it didn't match Ramos' account. They were also able to show that although Compean had discussed the shooting with other agents after it happened, it wasn't until his arrest that he began claiming that Aldrete-Davila had had a gun.
The prosecution's version of events was convincing enough for the jury, in March 2006, to find Ramos and Compean guilty of all but assault with intent to commit murder. Most media coverage of the case was local, and it comported with the jury's verdict: a bad shooting, a coverup and damning testimony from fellow agents that led to an uncontroversial conviction. Seven months later, a judge sentenced Ramos and Compean to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively.
But by the time of their sentencing, the right wing had discovered the agents and begun constructing a new narrative. Ramos and Compean's newfound supporters soon settled on a radically different version of the shooting, cobbled together from speculation, rumors, misstatements of fact and various unproven assertions cherry-picked from the case the defense presented at trial.
As with nearly every myth emerging from the mists of Greater Wingnuttia, this one involved a familiar cast of media characters. Jerome Corsi of Swiftboating and "Obama Nation" infamy -- you know, the guy who never met a fact he couldn't falsify -- and Lou Dobbs played key roles in mainstreaming the Ramos/Compean story as a case of the Bush administration kowtowing to Mexican interests.
Then, of course, you had guys like Glenn Beck promoting the story as evidence of the return of the New World Order -- not to mention an opportunity to promote membership in the John Birch Society.
Incidentally, the White House is saying that these are the last pardons or commutations that Bush is planning. I guess this means that Politico list of 10 pardons to watch for -- which does include Ramos/Compean at No. 7 -- is probably defunct.
ARCH: While I will not lie and say that I have a clue about all the facts of this case; I still believed the sentence was harsh myself. I am glad they were commuted. I do believe that they were probably guilty of not following protocol, and taking matters into their own hands; which, like any job, warrants disciplinary action of some kind. My 2c....Arch.
|
|
| 
|
|
Of course all of this is moot. Obama was sworn into office today. There will be no more crime, there will be no more poverty, the drug war will end, the world loves us again.
I know several police officers her in my town and they are all good men. Putting all of the police officers in America in one catagory and saying they all think they are above the law is a little over the top. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do on a daily basis. YOu go into some of the bad hoods in KC at night and you better be ready to shoot to kill or you will be killed. The thugs down there are quoted saying they want to run up the murder count. These two men deserve the commutation. I would have given them a full pardon.
If you consider that a good reason to kill someone Ica, then I don't know what to tell you. If they didn't act like they were above the law, they would probably get more support.
Do you want to know why officers shoot to kill? I'll tell you in simple terms. Because in 90% of the cases, the person who was shot will sue. In 90% of those cases, a liberal judge sides with the criminals (even if those criminals shot at police officers). Look at the cases where criminals hurt themselves breaking into another person's home, and won. If you want kinder, gentler police you (and the law) has to back them up.
They even get carried away with tasers. Didn't you see the airport security in Canada kill a guy with a taser because they couldn't understand what he was saying. He was distraught because he couldn't find his mother and he ended up dead.
There is a reason for that, berni. There are few things more dangerous than a wounded violent criminal with nothing left to lose. For those cases that can be safely subdued, there are tasers and pepper spray, though I don't know whether border patrol carries either.
But when they shoot, they don't shoot to stop them, they shoot to kill because that is what they are taught.
I will agree that example is a bit excessive.
I was not implying that they kill him; just shoot him to get him to comply with the order to stop.
Some of these shooting sprees that have been going on recently have been getting worse and worse with no rhyme or reason to them. Shooting at a car and leaving 128 (as an example) bullet holes by 30 police officers when the victim didn't even have a gun tells me these guys are out of control.
They can chase them down Progress. They don't shoot and kill a running victim.
Just one observation, Berni. When a police officer aims a gun at someone and tells them to "freeze," and they refuse, then what is the acceptable course of action? I mean, if they can not shoot them; why even aim the gun? If a person refuses to comply w/ an officer's request to stop what they are doing; then some consequence must be available to them. I am not trying to justify the shooting of a 16-year-old boy by any means. More or less, I am playing devil's advocate here; because this is clearly not a clear-cut issue.
But these people with the right to carry guns should have to wait until actually threatened and there is no doubt whether the person has a gun or not before they can shoot. The fact that they feel they can shoot at anyone and anything and get away with it is injustice and should not be condoned. Since the guy was running away, he was no threat to them and they should have no right to be shooting at him. The Pittsburgh police killed a 16 year old car thief the same way. There is no justice in this and I don't care who says otherwise. They should be trained to shoot only when actually beyond a shadow of a doubt it's self-defense. The fact that they do this on a regular basis and then get away with it by covering it up with lies is unconscionable and they should have to go to jail when they do. I'm tired of law enforcement believing they are above the law. Just because you wear a badge to uphold the law, doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you too.
he was running away and he wasnt killed lol
This is really all a moot point. Bush, as our elected president, has the privilege of pardoning or commuting almost anyone he wants. He chose Ramos and Compean. The rest is history.
Also, he's alive and well. He even got a temporary visa after the incident in exchange for his testimony at the trial.
If a private civilian was to shoot an unarmed person in the back, there will be about as much of a chance my sentence will be commuted as Ahmadinejad winning a humanitarian award given by the Israeli Knesset.
Also, was he a drug dealer or a mule, there is a difference.
Mad, that may be why it was commuted and not pardoned.
maditude,,,, they were "defending" our safety
Here is my problem about this case: I was unaware that the person shot and killed was 1)shot in the back and 2)unarmed. Why is it OK for government officials to do this to people?
|
|
<< Home