by Josh Meyer
In perhaps his final act of clemency, President George Bush has just 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 his van with 743 pounds of marijuana.
The Justice Department announced at 1 p.m. 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 Justice Department statement included no explanation, and the White House has not immediately responded to a request for comment.
In a case that ignited a fierce debate about illegal immigration, the two men were sentenced to 12 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 following the prison term and a $2,000 fine as well.
According to the Justice Department, Bush's executive grant of clemency means that the mens' prison sentences will ``expire'' on March 20, 2009, leaving intact and in effect the three year term of supervised release with all its conditions and the fine.
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.
There was no immediate comment from Republican lawmakers in Congress, many of whom 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 senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, wrote to Bush to personally 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 hard-immigration policies have argued that the prosecution 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 decried the commutations Monday, saying that Bush appeared to be granting them for political gain among conservatives and Republican lawmakers, especially in his home state of Texas.
``This is President Bush putting his thumb in the eye of the entire justice system,'' said the former Justice official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of criticizing the President. ``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.''
Bush's commutations come on his last full day in office, when rumors continued to fly that the president also would grant clemency to some other high-profile figures as well.
They include convicted ``junk bond'' financier Michael Milken and Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice in the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
Bush already has commuted Libby's 2 1/2 -year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time.
The border agents case has tested the powers of Congress on the issue of clemency, which remains solely vested in the President to issue 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 President 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.
Comments
The last gasp of the "Shoot first and never get around to asking questions" Administration.
Posted by: Marcus | January 19, 2009 2:43 PM
That's nice I guess, but...
Bush can't admit his mistakes or misdeeds, not implicitly with pardons, that is if he even believes he has done wrong. He is a sociopath.
If Bush grants pardons to his fellow Republican criminals he will be admitting their guilt, that's why it won't happen.
Posted by: Big Orange Satan | January 19, 2009 2:51 PM
Let them rot. They shot a unarmed man in the back and covered it up. They violated their oath and violated their obligation to the public. They are worse than the common criminal. They don't deserve any sympathy what so ever.
Posted by: nell | January 19, 2009 2:55 PM
Bush’s “clemency” amounts to cutting the proverbial baby in half. Either those men are guilty of crimes and should be punished according to the law, or they are heroes in a cultural and political war and should go free. Leave it up to Bush to exercise just enough executive action to disappoint everyone.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Why did it take so long?
Posted by: bill r. | January 19, 2009 3:45 PM
Build the fence...
We have a 2000 mile long wide open shipping port for violence and illegal drug trafficking- This "border" is patroled by border agents who are fighting a losing battle with extremely violent drug cartels who have almost unlimited resources and weapons- all purchased with the money earned selling drugs to us-
Posted by: heartburn | January 19, 2009 4:00 PM
Thank God!
Officers Compean and Ramos will be released from prison in 51 days.
Should have been pardoned, but at least they will be with their families soon.
Thank you Mr. Compean and Ramos for trying to keep the illegal drugs out of our country. I appreciate your efforts and say I am sorry you have been unjustly inprisoned.
I can't wait to see pictures of you and your families reunited.
Posted by: Speckledbird | January 19, 2009 4:32 PM
WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congressto monitor the Federal Bailout says, THE GOVT STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.. Instead the govt seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. The overall impression is one of confusion by a leadership(?) that does not know what it is doing.
One of the reasons for Ms. Warrens observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. As Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. If you dont know where you are going you may not get there.
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the development of a economic strategy is critical.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. Each candidate during the election presented a set of disconnected policy proposals for their political appeal. Each approached the economy with long held ideologies and policy positions, many of which no longer fit with todays reality. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Where does the US really stand? Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths. 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies. 2) US Entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world. 3) The US has the worlds best institutions of .higher learning . 4) The US has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. 5) The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. This decentralization maybe the US greatest competitive strength. 6) The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation. This especially true of risk capital. 7) The US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.
Prof Porter warns us that what has driven our success is starting to erode.
TO BE DISCUSSED IN OUR NEXT BLOG.
Posted by: robert diogenes | January 19, 2009 4:41 PM
I'm sure these thugs will have no problem getting future work. Blackwater will be perfect for them. They'd also fit in well as enforcers for the drug cartels.
Posted by: Kendle | January 19, 2009 4:59 PM
or they are heroes in a cultural and political war and should go free. Leave it up to Bush to exercise just enough executive action to disappoint everyone.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Let me guess which side you fall on. You think these guys are heros, after all they shot a bad guy right? Who needs judges and juries in a "cultural war"? We need to defend ourselves against the evil ,brown hordes trying to destroy our white, protestant anglo culture, right Johnny? I bet you really admire those guys for getting the guy in the back. That'll show him that what America is all about, won't it? Johnny, I'm sure you're rarin' to do your part in the Great Cultural War, armed and ready to shoot the first "illegal" ( don't worry about papers or anything, you can tell a bad guy by his looks) you see in the name of the American Way.
Posted by: Luis | January 19, 2009 5:24 PM
Marcus:
Ditto
Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 19, 2009 6:33 PM
If you shot a drug smuggler in the butt, where I live, you wouldn't get a prison sentence. One of your relatives would take you to a Cracker Barrel for a celebratory meal.
The Intellectual Redneck
Posted by: The Intellectual Redneck | January 19, 2009 8:24 PM
Let me guess which side you fall on. You think these guys are heros, after all they shot a bad guy right? Who needs judges and juries in a "cultural war"? We need to defend ourselves against the evil ,brown hordes trying to destroy our white, protestant anglo culture, right Johnny? I bet you really admire those guys for getting the guy in the back. That'll show him that what America is all about, won't it? Johnny, I'm sure you're rarin' to do your part in the Great Cultural War, armed and ready to shoot the first "illegal" ( don't worry about papers or anything, you can tell a bad guy by his looks) you see in the name of the American Way.
Posted by: Luis | January 19, 2009 5:24 PM
The guy gets stopped with over a million dollars worth of dope hes smuggling into the U.S. and hes the victom... He was not allowed to come into the country. The officers were doing their job by trying to stop him. Way to turn this into a racial debate. You did catch the names of the two officers correct?
Posted by: Tom | January 19, 2009 9:42 PM
Posted by: Tom | January 19, 2009 9:42 PM
I didn't make the unjust shooting a racial debate, I made John W.'s "Cultural war" statement a racial debate.
Bur answer me this, is getting caught with drugs now cause for an indivudual to be executed by police without trial? Is being in this coujntry illegally cause to be shot by police on sight? If thwe cops think you are a drug smuggler, should they just shoot you in the back?
Posted by: Luis | January 19, 2009 10:07 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Luis | January 19, 2009 5:24 PM
.
Luis,
.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
.
My views happen to be the opposite of that which you guessed. Shooting an unarmed man in the back as he is running away is never a constitutionally valid use of force - regardless of victim’s skin color or national origin. Were it otherwise, there is no principled reason why police might not simply shoot anyone regardless of whether they pose a threat.
.
My comment was a criticism of the fact that Bush’s decision was tepid in the face of a furious debate on the issue. You correctly surmised that I hadn’t voiced my support for either side of the debate. You should have either left it alone or asked about my view rather than assuming the worst.
.
BTW: All my Mexican clients here in California - whom I defend for a living - would be very surprised to know that I think of them as part of an evil, brown horde.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 10:49 PM
This case points up the hollowness of the Bush Adm. talking point that "prosecutorial discretaion" will mitigate the very harsh changes the Repuglicans instituted in the immigration laws in 1996.
Obviously if "prosecutorial discretion" meant anything to them, these guys would not have been prosecuted and the smuggler would not have been granted immunity.
Do the Repuglicans wonder why the other side got 66% of the Hispanic vote??
Because every Hispanic family has someone in it who has been abused by the pathetically harsh and disproportionate, punitive changes they made in 1996.
Enjoy your exile, Repuglicans.
Probably the main reason Georgie Boy commuted these guys is: he's going back to Texas to live, and didn't want to alienate further law enforcement there. After all, he might need their protection.
Posted by: ornery | January 20, 2009 12:51 AM
Once again you leftys turn to praise and support for a criminal, the underdog, and rail against the border agents, the big bad government. It occurs to me that if Davila had not been engaged in criminal activity there would not be this problem. But, you leftys rally to support a drug smuggler, check that, a poor Mexican trying desperately to support his family, who contributes to untold exponential misery within the U.S. I wasn't there, but they have a difficult job with extreme circumstances under rapidly changing conditions requiring split second decisions. It was wrong to alter the facts after the incident, the agents screwed up. Davia was arrested again for smuggling before his testimony, which the jury did not know, as he was portrayed as the poor victim. The whole clusterf**k would have been avoided if Davila would have obeyed the law. The penalty did not fit the agents crime. Bush made the right decision. 152 U.S. Congressmen could not be wrong. At least they did not buy it for 500K as Rich did from Clinton and Holder . Some of you leftys are hypocrites, always a racial aspect, get real.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 20, 2009 9:03 AM
And the hate goes on! These men should not have been in prison at all,Illegal Drugs are the scourge of the world.If it had been me there the drug smuggler would be dead. And there would be a lot of good that would come out because of it. Like he could not smuggle any longer, he could not file a law suit,it would be one less drug dealer on the street Its all good.
Posted by: Paul | January 20, 2009 9:58 AM
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 20, 2009 9:03 AM
Once again you angry hatefilled righties show your contempt for the rule of law, and your love of violence. A righty is never happier than when looking down on a bleeding dyin body. Death and destruction is all they have to offer the world, the only thing they truly love. They are willing to subvert the laws and the Constitution as much as it takes to kill as many as possible to try to satisfy their blood lust.
Posted by: Kendle | January 20, 2009 10:49 AM
Kendle, you speak about the "rule of law" and the "Consitution." The rule of law is that entering this country ILLEGALLY is against the law, hence the word, "Illegally." Coming into this country illegally and trying to ILLEGALLY SMUGGLE drugs also is against the law, hence the word "illegally." Davila was breaking the law in two different ways. Perhaps the border agents over-reacted.
Anyway, Bush commuted their sentences not because he disagreed or overruled the verdict, but because he thought the sentence was too harsh for the actions of the border guard agents trying to defend this country against an illegal alien and drug smuggler. I myself would have preferred a pardon for these two Hispanic-Americans, but I'll take the commutation.
As usual, the Left gets into a clueless rabid blather. What new?
Posted by: John D | January 20, 2009 11:06 AM
Posted by: John D | January 20, 2009 11:06 AM
Yes John, entering the country illergal is against the law. However, the Constitution does not give the grovernment the right to shoot law breakers at will. Violating the law does not give the cops, or anyone else, free reign to shoot you. There's this thing called a jury trial, perhaps you've heard of it? Cops aren't judges, they aren't juries, they don't get to find someone guilty and pass an immediate death sentence. I know you in the angry right would like it to be thqat way. I know you hate the concept of a fair trial and would much prefer street "justice" but that's not how this country works.
Posted by: Kendle | January 20, 2009 12:10 PM