TheAgitator.com
A Final Bit of Ignominy
Tuesday, January 20th, 2009President Bush has been the stingiest president in modern history when it comes to his use of presidential pardon and commutation powers. Yeseterday, he threw a bone to the Lou Dobbs wing of the GOP by commuting the sentences of the two border agents who shot an unarmed man in the back, then lied and attempted to cover it up.
I don’t often agree with NRO’s Andy McCarthy, but his 2007 column on these two thugs was spot on. Of all the people in federal prison who actually deserve a commutation or pardon, Bush picks these two.
This was expected (at least by me). They fundy whackos were in a mail barrage mode over it. Of course, to those loons these two just shot a drug smuggler and should be rewarded not punished. They apparently have no concept of human rights or police integrity.
You’re forgetting that, by definition, cops are the good guys and the guys they shoot are the bad guys. They don’t just go around shooting good guys, you know.
Also, as a side note, those agents were punished way too harshly. The standard penalty when the cops shoot someone and cover it up doesn’t involve jail time. Usually they’re just forced to suffer the indignity of being paid to stay home. Jails are for ordinary people who engage in illegal acts for personal profit rather than heroically trying to protect the country from drugs (which they will do if they have to kill every man woman and child in the process).
This is a side of the story I haven’t heard much. Good link.
http://www.rightklik.net/
I talk about this with my family, and there is a major disconnect. I don’t understand how anyone can continue supporting these two after being presented with the fact that they shot an unarmed man in the back and left him there to cover it up. I don’t say it to them, but there is something seriously wrong with the values of a person are willing to promote that as heroism and what we expect of our border patrol.
It’s noteworthy that in recent statements, their union reps take the commutation for granted (although complain these “heroes” have to sit in prison until March) and insist that they won’t be satisfied until both men are fully reinstated with the Border Patrol. Sick.
Don’t stick this on the GOP, those 2 bums have full bipartisan support.
At least ,it was shown that bad cops can be prosecuted successfully. That the “nitwit” would commute them, was a given.
They won’t work the border again, but can probably get a private guard job.
it was interesting how the union’s so strong, instead of disciplining and firing an employee, the only way they feel they can get rid of a cop is to prosecute- that’s scary stuff.
#6
Isn’t it more fun to pretend like there are differences between the two parties than to acknowledge that they are one party racing to the bottom hand in hand.
I feel so sorry for you people. You take one little bit of info, that they “shot an unarmed man” and run with it. Why don’t you take the time to review all the facts of the case, the trial, the aftermath, and then make your opinion on what happened.
and we all know that the hundreds and hundred of thousands of first time offenders mired in the bureaucratic morass called our criminal justice system have access to the same bi-partisan support these two lying, disgrace-to-the-badge, slime do. Hey, if you don’t like the mandatory sentence enhancements that lead to ridiculous sentences then repeal them. Oh wait, you need them because we can’t keep judges accountable. Oh, this judge was accountable? He just applied the law to talk radio heroes? Bad judge! Bad, bad!!
As grandma used to say, Listen to what I mean, not what I say.
I absolutely agree that these two agents should be punished for what they did and that the pardons were inappropriate. Law enforcement officers must be held accountable for hurting innocent people in the course of their jobs.
However, I noticed that the reason they were given the sentences they got was because of a sentencing enhancement related to their use of firearms. I oppose mandatory minimums, especially those based on arbitrary factors, such as carrying a weapon. These agents should be punished because they hurt someone, not because they happened to do it with a disfavored weapon.
Okay, so any residual goodwill I had about Bush’s attempt at liberalizing immigration is gone. Now all he has to do is give a Presidential Medal of Freedom to the human immunodeficiency virus and he’ll be all set.
Geoff #9
Not only are they racing to the bottom, but they’re dragging us all with them. At least those of us they don’t shoot first.
Who is Jim Bell?
Like you, I am against mandatory minimums, but I don’t have much sympathy for those who found them acceptable up until they were applied to one of their so-called “good guys”. I think a lot of people who support these border agents didn’t give mandatory minimums a second thought until now. Now, all of a sudden, they’re screaming about the injustice of it. And, I suspect, when all is said and done, they’ll still support mandatory minimums when applied to the “bad guys”.
@#1: What is a “fundy,” and why do I bristle every time I read the word?
On his way out the door, with this commutation Bush endorses official misconduct, criminal violence, incompetence, and obstruction of justice.
I’m not angry. I approve. This is a fitting capstone to his presidency.
http://patterico.com/2008/04/17/aldrete-davila-pleads-guilty-to-drug-smuggling/
4/17/2008
Aldrete-Davila Pleads Guilty to Drug Smuggling
Filed under: Crime, Immigration, Law — DRJ @ 9:23 pm
[Guest post by DRJ]
My first post here (or anywhere) concerned the Ramos-Compean trial in El Paso. The prosecution’s chief witness was Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila who admitted he had smuggled drugs into the US in February 2005. It was during that incident that Aldrete-Davila was shot by Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos.
Just for starters, DRJ went through the entire court transcript and posted it. Go read the 5 days of stuff.
C&R did not follow strict procedure, but they did not deserve the sentence they got.
Um… the fact that he was or wasn’t smuggling drugs isn’t the issue. Smuggling drugs is not a death penalty offense in the US. If you want that, go to east Asia or the Middle East. As it is, it’s not one in the US. And it certainly doesn’t give them the right to shoot him in the back and then cover it up.
This case got a hell of a lot of airplay in California, particularly on talk radio stations.
The drug smuggler in question was carrying 700 pounds of marijuana.
I’m sorry but I have grave doubts about a drug smuggler carrying that much dope in a drug corridor know for gang violence and competition being unarmed.
I’ve heard both officers speak on their side of the story, and I have to say I believe that the dealer fired on them first and his weapon wasn’t found.
I’m a big fan of Radley and hate seeing instances of police abuse, but I believe the cops this time. It’s a rarity for me.
The drug smuggler in question was carrying 700 pounds of marijuana.
Wait, so they shot and killed Bruce Banner? I guess they really didn’t like him when he was angry.
My apologies… the agents never claimed the smuggler fired on them but that pointed something shiny at them during the pursuit.
@David the drugs were in the van. You don’t stop pursuit of a suspect just because he ditches what he’s carrying.
I think drugs should be legal and that the whole drug war is pointless but if the police are pursuing a criminal and think that they are about to be shot, then initiating fire is self defense.
The agents say they saw something they thought was a weapon. Since the suspect got away and only came back to complain of the gunshot wound to his buttocks after the fact, I can’t beyond a reasonable doubt think that the smuggler was armed.
If they thought he was armed they would’ve claimed so from the beginning. After all, who would doubt them? The fact that the coverup began almost instantaneously from the time they shot tells me a lot.
Max D.
Fundy = fundamentalist religious nut (usually of the christian variety here in the US). You know the “My religion should be your law” type.
If Christians actually pushed for their law, it would be to love your neighbor (as yourself!) Many have not even read their Bible, let a lone, actually practice what it says. I happen to be one. But, I hope, I have been clear on how I stand with the libertarian views. Generalizations are akin to racism. “Christians” should not be lumped together any more than all black people should! It is degrading, to me!
And I do feel, after reading the accounts, that the cops got what they deserved! It was about time someone came down on illegal actions taken by “peace officers”! The guy was scum, but did not deserve being shot and left in the desert to die! True Christian teaching tells me the guy is no worse than anyone else, even the pope! The drug war is just crazy!
Why should government agents who target bad people be punished more harshly than those who target good people? Perhaps Compean and Ramos should be sent to prison, but only after many other agents whose actions are worse.
I think Radley is wrong on this one. Their convictions, which I feel never would have happened if not for prosecutorial misconduct and aggravated perjury, at the bequest of the Bush administration, (pressure from his disgraced AG) as a favor to his Corrupt friends in the Mexican Government, will be overturned in the Supreme Court. Sutton had an “ethical responsibility” too see those agents got a fair trial.
I respect those agents for trying to protect our borders even though out President wasn’t.
TEXAS MONTHLY wrote about these agents last year, detailed all the mistakes theymade, and basically said “they made their bed–they should lie in it.” Some of their readers disagreed, but TM has never been about popularity contests, just good, solid journalism.
@ Michael #27,
I’m sorry, is there a book about how to be a black person? Because there is one for Christians. The two (race/religion) aren’t comparable in the way your statement implies. Religion is different from race and you can assign some characteristics based on religion (I SAID SOME!). Religion, unlike race, has inherent value systems and value systems play heavily in state oppression. Now, if you’re calling yourself a Christian and not following stated “rules” (like believing in Jesus H. Christ), well then you just aren’t really a Christian.