As you know, I’ve followed the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos from the gitgo and my opinion, as I have stated here many times has not changed.
As my email has been flooded with links to people DEMANDING pardons for these two, and my disgust at the stupidity of these people rises, I sat here contemplating how to put in my dos centavos.
But someone else has taken the words from my mind and put them on the web. I’m going to use his words en todo, because I could not have said it better.
With full credit to STEPHEN LITTAU at Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds
As the Bush era comes to a close, the list of last minute pardon requests are growing. Perhaps the loudest demand for pardon comes (mostly) from Conservatives who are angry that President Bush has not acted to pardon two Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Those who demand the pardon claim that the agents were railroaded by an “overzealous” U.S. Attorney for “just doing their jobs” when the agents fired 15 shots, one of which hit a fleeing “drug smuggling illegal immigrant” Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks. If you Google “Ramos and Compean” you will find an endless number of articles which make some variation of this argument.
If this were a case of two Border Patrol Agents “just doing their jobs” acting in self defense, then I too would be demanding a pardon for these men. Inconvenient facts which are left out of almost all of these articles point to exactly why Ramos and Compean should NOT be pardoned. A January 29, 2007 article written by Andrew McCarthy for The National Review (not what I would consider a left-leaning or open borders type publication) offers a compelling counterpoint challenging the heroic and mythical image being bandied about of the two Border Patrol Agents:
The preponderance of the evidence established that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. Besides Compean and Ramos, there were several other agents on the scene. None of them believed Aldrete-Davila posed a threat to their safety; none, other than the two defendants drew their weapons; and Compean and Ramos neither took cover nor alerted their fellow agents to do so.
More to the point, Compean admitted to investigators early on that the smuggler had raised his hands, palms open, in an attempt to surrender. This jibed not only with Aldrete-Davila’s account but with that of another Border Patrol agent. Compean opted not to take surrender, not to place the smuggler under arrest so he could be prosecuted.
On that score, for those over-heatedly analogizing the border to a battlefield, it is worth noting that even under the law of war, quarter must be given when it is sought. Compean, to the contrary, tried to strike Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his shotgun. But it turns out the agent was as hapless as he was malevolent. In the assault, he succeeded only in losing his own balance. The smuggler, naturally, took off again, whereupon Compean unleashed an incompetent fuselage — missing Aldrete-Davila with all fourteen shots.
It was only after the surrender attempt that Ramos opened fire as the unarmed smuggler neared the border. Defending his decision to bring the case, U.S. attorney Sutton later explained: “Border Patrol training allows for the use of deadly force when an agent reasonably fears imminent bodily injury or death. An agent is not permitted to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.” The fact that Aldrete-Davila was a drug-dealer — something the agents may have suspected but had not yet confirmed at the time they were shooting at him — did not justify the responsive use of potentially deadly force under standard law-enforcement rules of engagement.
Even Ramos and Compean’s supporters acknowledge that the agents shot at a fleeing suspect rather than a suspect trying to cause injury or death. Do they really want to make every law enforcement officer in the country judge, jury, and executioner and grant the right to use lethal force against a fleeing supect*? After all, forcing law enforcement to obey the law makes their jobs “more difficult”!
McCarthy continues to perhaps the most damning part of Ramos and Compean’s actions – the cover-up:
Once Aldrete-Davila was down from Ramos’s shot to the backside, they decided, for a second time, not to grab him so he could face justice for his crimes. As they well knew, an arrest at that point — after 15 shots at a fleeing, unarmed man who had tried to surrender — would have shone a spotlight on their performance. So instead, they exacerbated the already shameful display.
Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind. But not before trying to conceal the improper discharge of their firearms. Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators. Both agents filed false reports, failing to record the firing of their weapons though they were well aware of regulations requiring that they do so. Because the “heroes” put covering their tracks ahead of doing their duty, Aldrete-Davila was eventually able to limp off to a waiting car and escape into Mexico.
Whaaaat? But I thought this “drug smuggling illegal immigrant” was a threat to national security? If the agents’ actions were justified, why would they not arrest the suspect and why would they feel the need to cover-up their actions? Were they afraid that the “overzealous” Sutton had an axe to grind against the Border Patrol?
Toward the beginning of his article, McCarthy points out that Sutton had an impressive record of prosecuting coyotes and drug smugglers and supporting the efforts of the Border Patrol. There have even been other cases on Sutton’s watch where agents used lethal force which resulted in fatalities. Because these agents responded appropriately in these cases – using deadly force when there were legitimate threats to the lives of others on the part of the suspects, Sutton’s office did not pursue charges.
On January 17, 2007, Sutton published a press release on official U.S. Department of Justice Letterhead in an attempt to separate “Myth vs. Reality” regarding this case. Within this document contains perhaps the best argument for why the president should not pardon these men:
These agents were found guilty by a unanimous jury in a United States District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks.
The two agents were represented by experienced and aggressive trial attorneys, both of whom vigorously challenged the Government’s evidence through cross examination.
Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including the defendants’ claims of self defense. The problem for Agents Compean and Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true.
Being government agents, Ramos and Compean probably received a better legal defense than the average criminal defendant. They had their day in court and they lost. Their legal team appealed the convictions and they lost again. This is hardly the miscarriage of justice that the pro pardon people would have us believe; this is an example of the system actually working the way it’s supposed to!
Ramos and Compean’s supporters do have at least a couple of somewhat legitimate gripes though. One being the length of the sentences (11 and 12 years) and the other being use of testimony on the part of a criminal who has something to gain (in this case, Aldrete-Davila himself). But these complaints should not be directed at Sutton or the trial judge.
The blame for the length of the sentence belongs properly to the mandatory minimum sentencing law passed by congress which requires a ten year sentence for unlawful discharge of a firearm while committing a crime (this ten year sentence is in addition to whatever other crimes the defendant is convicted of). While I believe that the sentences are appropriate in this case, I am opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing laws on principle. Judges should have the discretion to decide the appropriate punishment not a one-size-fits-all penalty regardless of any unique circumstances in a unique event.
And allowing Aldrete-Dalvia to testify against Ramos and Compean with full immunity? This is standard operating procedure. Prosecutors use informants who have a motive to testify against defendants every day in this country. Why should we be surprised that Sutton would use Aldrete-Dalvia as his star witness? If this approach is appropriate for the average defendant then it is certainly appropriate when those sworn to serve and protect abuse the public’s trust.
But don’t expect Conservatives to start demanding a repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing laws nor expect them to consider criminal justice reform. To them this case is not about two rogue law enforcement agents but about immigration and drug policy. The facts do not matter because the guys with the badges are always the good guys and their judgment is better than due process of law.
Certainly there are many miscarriages of justice which could be rectified with a presidential pardon but the case of Ramos and Compean is not such a case…no matter where one stands on immigration and drug policy. Hopefully neither President Bush nor President-Elect Barack Obama will give in to the mindless demands of this misguided and vocal mob.
* Think about it: if you surrendered to law enforcement and one of the officers try to hit you with the butt of a shotgun, do you think you might try to run away?
In the final days of his term, should President Bush pardon or commute the sentences of Ramos & Compean
- No (68%)
- It doesn't concern me in the least (17%)
- Yes (15%)
Total Votes: 2,369
Loading ...What Steven doesn’t also mention is the opportunity these two had to plead to an 18 month sentence, which they refused to accept. The thinking was that they would be exonerated. They rolled the dice and lost.
One reason, in my opinion, why these two have been ignored by President Bush is how this has been played in the media. Everyone DEMANDING, he pardon these two criminals. Accusing President Bush and his father of everything from being in bed with the cartels to being the puppets of Mexico. This is a lesson in how not to get the attention for your agenda.
Who will compensate Mexico for false swine flu reports?
Like most of you, I had taken it for granted that the disease started in Mexico. That’s what most press reports said in late April, when we saw the first headlines about this illness. Some radio and cable television presenters called it the “Mexican flu.”
So earlier this week, I found myself scratching my head when I read in a Pan American Health Organization press release that “the new virus, which emerged in Mexico and the United States in April,” has spread to 74 countries.
What do they mean by Mexico AND the United States, I asked myself. Are they saying that the new virus emerged in both countries simultaneously?
Minutes later, I called the Pan American Health Organization to ask whether that “AND” was an editing mistake, or intentional.
Daniel Epstein, a Pan American Health Organization spokesman, said that, “at this time, it’s not clear that this pandemic started in Mexico.” He added that reports that the disease originated in Mexico “are premature.”
At the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spokesman Joe Quimby confirmed that “no geographical location has been determined to be the point of origin of the current pandemic.” He added, “We may never know in which country it started.”
The lack of certainty as to where the pandemic started stems from the fact that hundreds of thousands of people cross the U.S.-Mexico border every day, making it hard to know where the virus came from. In addition, many healthy people without severe H1N1 symptoms may have not gone to a doctor, and their cases may therefore have gone undetected on either side of the border before the first cases were reported, health officials say.
But none of this stopped the usual crowd of hyperventilating anti-immigration — or rather, anti-Hispanic immigration — radio and cable television hotheads from pointing at Mexico as the unequivocal origin of the disease.
According to the Media Matters watchdog group, conservative-nationalist radio talk show host Michael Savage said on April 24, “Make no mistake about it: Illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico.”
In another example of irresponsible journalism cited by the watchdog group, Fox’s contributor Michelle Malkin wrote in her blog on April 25, “Hey, maybe we’ll finally get serious about borders now.” She added, “I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration.”
On April 27, CNN’s Lou Dobbs started his nightly show saying, “We begin with dire new warnings about the worsening outbreak of swine flu. This outbreak is spreading from Mexico to the United States and around the world.”
In the days that followed, many countries — including Cuba, Argentina and Ecuador — suspended all flights from Mexico. The U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory recommending Americans to abstain from non business-related travel to Mexico. China stopped imports of pork from Mexico.
Tourism to Mexico plummeted. A friend told me he paid about $270, taxes included, round-trip from Miami to Mexico City in May, and the plane was half empty. The flu-related decline in tourism and exports will contribute to an officially-projected 5.5 percent drop in Mexico’s gross domestic product this year.
And now, many in the Mexican press are saying that the disease started in the United States. They cite, among other things, a May 2 article in Newsweek by Pulitzer prize-winning author Laurie Garrett.
The article, which says that it is impossible to pinpoint where the pandemic started, reports that there was a case of swine flu in the United States as early as 2005, when a 17-year-old boy who had been working in a Wisconsin pig slaughterhouse fell ill.
My opinion: Perhaps world health authorities will eventually conclude that the pandemic started in Mexico. But what if they don’t? What if they conclude that it started in Wisconsin or in California? Who will compensate the tens of thousands of Mexicans who lost their jobs or saw their incomes nosedive because of the collapse of the tourism industry?
I don’t have an answer for how this story should have been reported early on (although Garrett’s article should have shown us the way). But just as scientists are looking into the history of the H1N1 outbreak to learn how to better handle future pandemics, we in the media should look at how to handle these kinds of stories more responsibly in the future, and expose reckless charlatans for what they are.
By Andrés Oppenheimer, a Latin America correspondent for the Miami Herald, aoppenheimer@miamiherald.com
[Translate]