View Full Version : Bush commutes sentences of former Border Patrol agents
President Bush commutes sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/19/bush.commute/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On his final full day in office, President Bush issued commutations for two former border patrol agents convicted in 2006 of shooting an undocumented immigrant who was smuggling drugs at the time.
The prison sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean will now end March 20.
Ramos had received an 11-year prison sentence; Campean had received a 12-year sentence.
That is wonderful news! Thank you for posting it.
John_Wayne777
01-19-09, 12:52
If Bush was going to do this he should have nutted up and done it earlier. Either it was a railroad job or it wasn't. If it wasn't, let them rot. If it was, pardon them.
Took a little too long, but better late than never I suppose.
If Bush was going to do this he should have nutted up and done it earlier. Either it was a railroad job or it wasn't. If it wasn't, let them rot. If it was, pardon them.
I agree John, I can't remember the difference between a commutation and a pardon but these guys deserved to be pardoned and to have an apology as well.
Buckaroo
If Bush was going to do this he should have nutted up and done it earlier. Either it was a railroad job or it wasn't. If it wasn't, let them rot. If it was, pardon them.
Agreed. I'm glad that Bush finally did it though...even though they deserve a pardon I'm glad that they at least don't have to rot away in solitary for the next decade and that they can go home.
Good job! These guys may have screwed up, but they were trying to protect our borders. Unfortunately, they will have to live their lives as convicted felons. At least they can be with their families again.
My humble opinion is that this was too grey an area for the pardon. I see it viewed as "While they did shoot an unarmed man in the back, it was a dangerous and confusing situation for the for the officers. Their decisions after the incident were flawed, but possibly somewhat understandable due to the stress and frustration of the job. Let's just take the middle ground and commute."
Something like that, anyway.
John_Wayne777
01-19-09, 13:12
I agree John, I can't remember the difference between a commutation and a pardon but these guys deserved to be pardoned and to have an apology as well.
Buckaroo
Commutation: sentence is removed, as in they are let out of jail and do not have to serve the rest of their sentence.
Pardon: wipes out their conviction and gives them a clean record.
I'm happy for the guys. Better late than never... Even thought it never should have happened in the first place...
Shoulda Pardoned. Bush is pissing me off!
This is great news! I just wish that Bush would have done it sooner. I wonder what made President Bush change his mind as I remember reading somewhere that he was not planning on pardoning these two men. Either way I am happy for this two men and their families.
TUNNEL RAT 33
01-19-09, 13:33
its about time !!
This is simply outstanding news.
I wonder what made President Bush change his mind as I remember reading somewhere that he was not planning on pardoning these two men.
They were not pardoned, their sentences were commuted. They are still convicted felons.
Wow, that's the first good headline in a long time that starts with , "George Bush to..."
They were not pardoned, their sentences were commuted. They are still convicted felons.
Oops thats what I meant. In the article I read a few months ago (believe it was in the Wall Street Journal) it said that Bush would not pardon or commute their sentence because he felt that the punishment fits the crime. IMO it should have been a pardon but at least these guys are going home early to their families.
Mr.Goodtimes
01-19-09, 14:04
atleast their still outta jail but it sucks these poor guys are convicted felons still
No more voting or RKBA for doing their job...
They were not pardoned, their sentences were commuted. They are still convicted felons.
So, their lives as they knew it are still over. But at least they don't have to end in prison.
M4tographer
01-19-09, 15:18
No more voting or RKBA for doing their job...
You know they tried to cover it up, right? They still did something wrong, but the punishment did not fit the crime.
This was right. They did wrong, but not 11 and 12 years worth of wrong.
the fact that POS wasn't buried in the sand is testament enough to the honor of the officers. its too bad they got scared and tried to lie about it- they might not have been prosecuted if they'd told it like it was.
someone educate me: since when do non-citizens illegally crossing into the US have 4th ammendment rights?
Mr.Goodtimes
01-19-09, 17:58
i understand they tried covering it up, and in todays climate, i dont blame them. i think either way they were gonna get rail roaded. honestly, if i was super rich, id cut em both a check for a couple mil for them to live their lives out on. illegal immigrant is running across the boarder with drugs, doesn't stop, they shoot said drug smuggler... awesome! thats one less i gotta worry about sellin drugs to my little sister.
they were offered an 18-month plea deal, they rejected it. They had some other Border Patrol Agents testify about this incident. Read the appeal (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf) and ask yourself if what they did was right? Personally, I think they thought since they had a badge it would protect them. This kind of thinking is detrimental to a society based on an equality of the law. Basically with their case 'who polices the police'?
Remember, our Constitution is founded on Natural Law. According to Natural Law the rights we enjoy are entitled to EVERYONE, not just U.S citizens. That it is un-natural to deny these rights to ANY man, woman or child.
The moment they picked up their brass and tossed it into an irrigation ditch it became a crime. If they left the brass, called their supervisor's etc and follow established procedure they would NOT have been charged with anything. Credibility is important with a witness and doing what they did shot ALL of theirs down.
I am glad they are out, and certainly don't think they deserved the time they got, BUT they knew going in this was what they could get since there offenses had mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.
I know this is a firearms board, which generally means conservative as well. But we also need to remember that these 2 tried to cover up a shooting. WTF, over?
Because it was over a piece of shit oxygen thief does not matter. If this was exactly the same but in your backyard most would be screaming about dirty cops. It's an integrity issue. I couldn't care less if the dope smuggler was dead. Good riddance.
They tried to cover up a shooting. I'm glad the sentence was commuted but they do not deserve the privilege of being a cop anymore.
I too have a copy of the report. They were offside and attempted to cover it up. Pretty dumb. And pretty detrimental to your career, too.
GWB and his US Attorney obviously intended to make an example out of these guys, and succeeded. There was sufficient overkill here to rile a LOT of people who thought it was an injustice, and at the 11th hour Bush commuted their sentences.
BTW, anyone on US soil, legally or illegally, US citizen or alien, has the same rights under the US constitution.
Only substantive difference is that illegal aliens are subject to arrest and deportation under the immigration law, and even there due process applies.
GWB failed to enforce the immigration laws in his 8 years, and for that I fault him. Truth is that he was simply "following tradition" as NO administration (much less Congress) has had any interest in enforcing them since 1952.
Glad Ramos and Compean are getting out (in March!) ; I wish them and their families well.
they were offered an 18-month plea deal, they rejected it.
there offenses had mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.
Sutton tried to pressure them to taking the plea. He then added on 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) (with the mandatory decade in FPMITA Prison). That charge does not fit with the facts of this case.
Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., has on record a letter written to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Oct.11, 2006, charging that Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were charged under a statute that did not apply to the facts of the case. As previously reported by WND, the interview I conducted on Friday, Jan. 17, 2007 with the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, adds strong support to Rep. Jones’s contention.
Jones notes that Ramos and Compean were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). This statute was written to increase the penalties when a violent criminal, such as a drug trafficker or a rapist, carries or uses a weapon during the commission of the crime. Law enforcement officers, including Border Patrol agents, are issued weapons by the Border Patrol to carry in the normal pursuit of their duties.
Ironically, Ramos and Compean were trying to apprehend an escaping suspect who was a drug smuggler. How is it that a law meant to punish armed drug smugglers is applied to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents who attempted to apprehend a person U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton properly characterizes as a drug-dealing ”dirt-bag?”
Jones notes that 18 U.S.C. Section 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) has only been applied to law enforcement officers who themselves commit heinous crimes, such as sexual assault, outside the scope of their official duties. As Jones writes, ”Ramos and Compean were within the scope of their official duties when they fired at an illegal drug smuggler they believe to be armed and dangerous.”
Besides, Sutton never argues that Ramos and Compean were committing a crime they aggravated by discharging weapons. Sutton’s contention is that Ramos and Compean’s crime was that they discharged weapons at all. This is a distinct fact situation from the one 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) was passed to involve.
The more I read about this case, the more I think that people are taking talking points from Johnny Sutton at face value and nothing more. There is far more to this case then press releases from the US Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas.
http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/ramos-compean-convicted-under-wrong-law-to-johnny-sutton-well-duh/
I'm very glad they are getting out of jail. They made some serious mistakes , but the sentence ( although mandatory ) was out of proportion.
This is great news! I just wish that Bush would have done it sooner. I wonder what made President Bush change his mind as I remember reading somewhere that he was not planning on pardoning these two men. Either way I am happy for this two men and their families.
The info I saw said that the 2 Border Agents' advocates realized that they weren't going to get a pardon, so they changed tactics and went for the commutation instead.
The info I saw said that the 2 Border Agents' advocates realized that they weren't going to get a pardon, so they changed tactics and went for the commutation instead.
That is also what I have heard.
Actually, it does.
(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 moment they started to sanitize the crime scene of a drug offense where they admit to firing their weapons USC 18 USC 924 is in fact applicable.
Since this was a jury trial they jury in fact could have acquitted them of this charge, and the fact they didn't means the prosecutor did a better job of arguing and proving this charge than the defense attorney did to prove this not applicable/false.
As I said before, LEO's should be held to a much higher code of conduct than us. They have NO excuse for cleaning the crime scene the way they did, and then trying to cover up the shooting. LEO's need a reminder that they are NOT above the law.
To be clear, I am not talking about those in uniform who perform their job with integrity that brings honor and respect to their profession. I am talking about those who wear a badge and expect it to save them from criminal prosecution and punishment.
Drug offense? I don't think so.
We can debate the conviction all day long and not change each other's minds. That's fine. But at the end of the day this is the first time that this charge has been applied in this manner, and it was not the intent of the law.
Yep, it's apparent that Sutton did a better job than the defense. No argument there. He is still a douche.
Drug offense? I don't think so.
We can debate the conviction all day long and not change each other's minds. That's fine. But at the end of the day this is the first time that this charge has been applied in this manner, and it was not the intent of the law.
Yep, it's apparent that Sutton did a better job than the defense. No argument there. He is still a douche.
Where in the statute that says it has to be a drug offense and only a drug offense. The way it is worded is what counts, not what we think it means. We see this mindset today with Liberals and gun-control.
Letting these two go with a slap on the wrists, knowing what I know now about the case, would infuriate me as a private citizen. The perceived notion of no-one is above the law would be shattered and there would be 2 sets of laws. One for the 'peons', another for LEO's and yet a third set for the 'aristocracy'.
The biggest question I have about this case now is WHY would these two agents clean up a crime scene the way they did, AND get other agents involved in this cover-up. The more I think about the possible punishment for not letting the supervisor know that your in pursuit and a gunfight after the fact to cleaning up a crime scene of any evidence of what actually went down. Reprimand, probably a suspension and ABSOLUTE worst your fired from your job compared to loss of job, loss of rights, and Federal Jail Time as a convicted felon.
Well let's not forget this while we are at it. There were several field supervisors who were well aware of the incident and what was done was done with their knowledge and approval and NOTHING happened to them.
Also, the douche bag in question was subsequently busted again for smuggling drugs (IIRC) and I believe it was while he was in possession of the blanket visa that was given to him by Suttons' office.
Where in the statute that says it has to be a drug offense and only a drug offense. The way it is worded is what counts, not what we think it means. We see this mindset today with Liberals and gun-control.
Letting these two go with a slap on the wrists, knowing what I know now about the case, would infuriate me as a private citizen. The perceived notion of no-one is above the law would be shattered and there would be 2 sets of laws. One for the 'peons', another for LEO's and yet a third set for the 'aristocracy'.
The biggest question I have about this case now is WHY would these two agents clean up a crime scene the way they did, AND get other agents involved in this cover-up. The more I think about the possible punishment for not letting the supervisor know that your in pursuit and a gunfight after the fact to cleaning up a crime scene of any evidence of what actually went down. Reprimand, probably a suspension and ABSOLUTE worst your fired from your job compared to loss of job, loss of rights, and Federal Jail Time as a convicted felon.
You said drug offense first, not me. As I've said before in this thread, and as Iraq just said, it appears that their supervisor was informed of the incident. As far as the wording of the statute, like I said, this is uncharted territory. This law has never been applied to a situation like this. Was it a clean shoot? There is ballistic evidence to support the claims of Ramos and Compean that the drug smuggler was partially facing them when he was shot. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the smuggler was armed. It's a stretch to call their actions a "crime of violence". As such, 18 USC 924c shouldn't apply.
Do I claim to know exactly what happened out there? Nope. All I'm saying is that I don't take Sutton's press releases and grandstanding as gospel, as there is evidence out there that this entire case is NOT as he claims it is. Also the way this case was handled by Sutton's office WRT Aldrete-Davila smells very stinky.
http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/ramos-compean-convicted-under-wrong-law-to-johnny-sutton-well-duh/
cavscout82nd
01-20-09, 08:01
no doubt they should have been fired for sanitizing the scene and not telling the truth. However, these guys ended up becoming the "pound of flesch" the Mexican government was demanding from our government for what happened. The should not have been convicted.
This is the one peice of information that brightened my day on Tuesday... bless their families for enduring this as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/17/border.pardons/index.html
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents -- whose cases became flashpoints in the controversy over border security -- were released early from prison Tuesday, one of their attorneys and a congressman said.
The agents were convicted in 2006 of shooting and wounding an unarmed illegal immigrant and then covering it up.
President George W. Bush issued commutations for both men during his final days in office last month. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean had received 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively.
After the commutation, their prison sentences were set to end March 20.
Ramos was released on furlough to travel from prison in Phoenix, Arizona, to his home in El Paso, Texas, where he will serve the remaining portion of his sentence under house arrest, said his attorney, David L. Botsford of Austin, Texas.
After March 20, Ramos will be on "supervised release" -- similar to probation -- for up to three years, Botsford said.
Compean had been incarcerated in Elkton, Ohio, said U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California.
"At last, Ramos and Compean have been rightfully reunited with their families," Rohrabacher said in a statement. "This day is long overdue. I wish the Ramos and Compean families the best as they now try to pick up the pieces and begin to heal from this terrible ordeal."
Both men had requested presidential clemency, and the U.S. Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney was reviewing their requests when Bush made his decision, office spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said.
"The president has reviewed the circumstances of this case as a whole and the conditions of confinement and believes the sentences they received are too harsh and that they, and their families, have suffered enough for their crimes," a senior administration official said.
The official noted that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress had supported a commutation, including President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, in a statement posted on the agency's Web site, confirmed that his staff wrongly told members of Congress last September that Compean had stated he "wanted to shoot a Mexican."
"At the time my staff made that statement, they believed it to be true, although we later learned it was inaccurate," Skinner said. "In fact, Mr. Compean had stated in a sworn statement that 'my intent was to kill the alien ... and I think Nacho [Ramos] was also trying to kill the alien.' "
Critics of U.S. immigration policy have been campaigning for a pardon for the two agents, arguing they were just doing their jobs.
The shooting happened February 17, 2005, on the U.S.-Mexico border southeast of El Paso, Texas.
During their trial, Ramos and Compean said that the illegal immigrant, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, had brandished a gun while actively resisting arrest.
Aldrete-Davila said, however, that he was unarmed and trying to surrender when Compean attempted to beat him with a shotgun.
Aldrete-Davila was shot while fleeing toward the Rio Grande. Ramos and Compean were convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, lying about the incident and violating Aldrete-Davila's Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.
After receiving immunity to testify in the case against the two agents, Aldrete-Davila was arrested in 2007 on charges of bringing more than 750 pounds of marijuana into the United States.
The case became a political flashpoint, with advocates of tighter border controls defending the agents and civil liberties groups saying that the agents had used illegal and excessive force against Aldrete-Davila.
Bush granted 189 pardons and 11 commutations during his eight years in office, far fewer than Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan in their two-term administrations.
A commutation reduces a convict's prison term, but the conviction remains on the person's record. A pardon wipes the slate clean by erasing the record of the conviction.
A president has the sole authority to grant clemency to whomever he chooses, although a Justice Department office usually reviews applications and makes recommendations after considering such standards as a person's degree of remorse and ability to lead a responsible and productive life after release.
Those applying for a pardon through the Justice Department are required to wait at least five years after their conviction or release from confinement.
If Bush was going to do this he should have nutted up and done it earlier. Either it was a railroad job or it wasn't. If it wasn't, let them rot. If it was, pardon them.
Something about this just did not seem right from the start. This is not the only case concerning law enforcement and the illegals in the border areas. I hope that when they are finished working their way through the system they end up with a full pardon. The sad part is we will never know what went on with these cases because there is too much politics involved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.