Bush Commutes Ramos & Compean

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Bush commutes former Border Patrol agents' prison terms
The two ex-lawmen had been convicted of shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler. The case has been a cause celebre among illegal-immigration foes.
By Josh Meyer
12:54 PM PST, January 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- In perhaps his final acts of clemency, President Bush today commuted the prison terms of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler who fled across the Rio Grande after they stopped a van with 743 pounds of marijuana.

The Justice Department announced that Bush has granted clemency to former Texas-based agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos. As is usually the case in such executive grants, the announcement included no explanation, and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


In a case that ignited a fierce debate about illegal immigration, the two men were sentenced to prison terms of 12 years and 11 years, respectively, after being found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, defacing a crime scene and violating the smuggler's rights. The men, who tried to cover up the 2005 shooting, were given three years of supervised release after their prison terms and a $2,000 fine each.

According to the Justice Department, Bush's grant of clemency means that the men's prison sentences will "expire" on March 20, leaving intact the three-year terms of supervised release with all conditions and the fines.

The case has become a cause celebre among illegal-immigration foes. Lawmakers, led by some Republicans from California and other border states, have demanded a review of the prosecution, and tens of thousands of people signed a petition in support of the former agents.


Republican lawmakers in Congress have also pushed aggressively for prison commutations and even outright pardons for the former agents. They have argued that it was irresponsible to punish the men with jail time, that their prosecution demoralized the nation's Border Patrol agents and that it sent a clear message that Washington was not serious about protecting its borders and enforcing its immigration laws.

Just last week, members of the Texas congressional delegation, including Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, wrote to Bush to ask him to commute the men's sentences. Some Democrats have also supported clemency, saying the agents were just trying to do their jobs.

Compean and Ramos were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled an abandoned van full of marijuana. They argued at trial that they thought Davila was armed and that they shot in self-defense, but the prosecutor said no evidence linked the van to Davila and that the agents didn't report the shooting and tampered with evidence by picking up several spent shell casings.

They were fired after their convictions, and all charges but obstruction of justice were upheld on appeal.

Since the two men were incarcerated in January 2007, Ramos has been assaulted, and both men have been placed in solitary confinement "because of the danger they face as a result of their law enforcement backgrounds,"' the lawmakers wrote.

"Many of us have written to you over the past few years with concerns about this case," the Texas lawmakers wrote. "We appeal to your good reason and sound judgment as fellow Texans and ask that you correct this injustice."

Critics of tough immigration policies have argued that the prosecution of and prison sentences for the two former agents were justified and that Bush should not even consider granting clemency for them.

Bush could have pardoned Compean and Ramos, which essentially would have wiped away their underlying convictions. Instead, he chose to commute their prison terms, which keeps their underlying convictions intact.

Even so, one former Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of criticizing the president, decried the commutations today. "These men were totally unrepentant, there was obstruction of justice, they shot a man in the back. I am speechless. These are terrible clemency cases," he said.

The commutations come on Bush's last full day in office. The case has tested the powers of Congress on the issue of clemency, which remains solely vested in the president to use at his discretion, with input from the Justice Department and its Office of the Pardon Attorney. The Constitution is silent on whether Congress has that authority.

But Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) introduced a bill two years ago to pardon the two men. Although that legislation did not succeed, it did prompt Bush to say that clemency -- perhaps even a pardon -- was being considered for the men.

"People need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as the judge. And I will do the same thing," Bush said in an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3945952.story


I'm on the fence how I feel about this, as I have always had mixed feelings about the overall situation. I'm happy for these guys that they got out. Shitty situation, but they were IDIOTS about what they did after the fact. If they didn't not report it, then lie and try to cover it up at first, everything would have been fine.

I like the fact that Bush did not pardon them. They will always have the convictions on their records. I do think 11 & 12 year sentences were pretty harsh in the first place though.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Why do we give the president this power?

How is it a benefit to allow him to override the will of the people and undermine the judicial system?

[Ugly Bastard]

I don't mind it. All part of the give-and-take, checks-and-balances system we have set up. I like knowing that a jury's decision isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all decider of someone's outcome. People are stupid.

I remember my roommate got called for jury duty on this trial for a woman who embezzled $30,000 from the business she worked for (which might seem like a lot of money, but frankly is nothing in the grand scheme of the business world). Anyway, when they were going through jury selection, they were asked if they would be comfortable sentencing her to as much as 20 years is she is convicted of the crime. Everyone basically nodded as if to suggest that seems reasonable. My roommate interrupted and was like, "uhh... are you people out of your minds?! 20 years?!? It's not like she stole $30 million." They promptly dismissed him from the jury pool.

[Orgazmo]

Jumping on the "pres shouldn't be able to do that" bandwagon.

People being stupid is built into the judicial branch with appeals and whatnot. A single person being able to say, "just kidding" to the entire process is pretty bullshitty.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I don't mind it. All part of the give-and-take, checks-and-balances system we have set up. I like knowing that a jury's decision isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all decider of someone's outcome. People are stupid.

The judge has the power to override a stupid jury decision if there is reason to.

There is no check on the power of the presidential pardon. It means that all politicians, as long as they suck enough presidential cock, are untouchable by the laws of the courts. That's a travesty.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I remember my roommate got called for jury duty on this trial for a woman who embezzled $30,000 from the business she worked for (which might seem like a lot of money, but frankly is nothing in the grand scheme of the business world). Anyway, when they were going through jury selection, they were asked if they would be comfortable sentencing her to as much as 20 years is she is convicted of the crime. Everyone basically nodded as if to suggest that seems reasonable. My roommate interrupted and was like, "uhh... are you people out of your minds?! 20 years?!? It's not like she stole $30 million." They promptly dismissed him from the jury pool.

Would your roommate agree if it was HIS $30,000 that was stolen? Would 20 years still seem too long or would he be ok with her walking away with 6 months probation?

[Ugly Bastard]

I just think giving someone 20 years for stealing $30,000 is a sub-optimal way of handling the situation. When your dog barks, you don't put a muzzle on it and lock in the garage for 3 days. Call me "compassionate", but I like giving people second chances.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I just think giving someone 20 years for stealing $30,000 is a sub-optimal way of handling the situation. When your dog barks, you don't put a muzzle on it and lock in the garage for 3 days. Call me "compassionate", but I like giving people second chances.

How do you know it was a first offense?

Also, I assume that's the high end limit on the possible sentence, which is why they asked, so it would only be given out if there was a reason to go for the high end, such as being a repeat offender or being completely unrepentant.

They don't usually assign the high end of the sentencing range to a first time offender with no other mitigating factors.

[f3lix]

Which reminds me, I saw a T-Shirt of OJ Simpson and it read, "Hey OJ, What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas."

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

The judge has the power to override a stupid jury decision if there is reason to.

There is no check on the power of the presidential pardon. It means that all politicians, as long as they suck enough presidential cock, are untouchable by the laws of the courts. That's a travesty.

I'm sure the lawyers in the room will know better than I, but I'd much prefer a system which is chock full of false negatives than false positives (IE it's exponentially worse to imprision an innocient man than to let a guilty man walk).

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

I'm sure the lawyers in the room will know better than I, but I'd much prefer a system which is chock full of false negatives than false positives (IE it's exponentially worse to imprision an innocient man than to let a guilty man walk).

True, but should we have some guy with no law background and whose only knowledge of the case is what is fed to him by people with an agenda decide who gets freed? It's not like god talks to him and tells him who is really innocent. If just randomly pardoning people somehow was beneficial, why the hell not just free everyone?

Letting guilty men walk (and in this case they WERE guilty) doesn't make the system any better.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

True, but should we have some guy with no law background and whose only knowledge of the case is what is fed to him by people with an agenda decide who gets freed? It's not like god talks to him and tells him who is really innocent. If just randomly pardoning people somehow was beneficial, why the hell not just free everyone?

Letting guilty men walk (and in this case they WERE guilty) doesn't make the system any better.

I have a serious problem with the pardoning issue as well. It's not even a bandwagon issue -- I'm seriously surprised there isn't more of a public outcry about this. I realize it happens every time new president leaves, but....why? I understand what you mean by checks and balances, but this isn't really fair...its not like anyone can negate his decision. It's not so much checks and balances as it is a "last laugh" kind of situation...I could maybe understand why these things existed a couple hundred years ago but there is absolutely no need to have it in this day and age.