A pardon is granted to someone guilty of wrongdoing. The border agents did nothing wrong. They should be apoligized to and let go, they don't need a "pardon".
You said -- A pardon is granted to someone guilty of wrongdoing. The border agents did nothing wrong. They should be apoligized to and let go, they don't need a "pardon".
Well, while the President *can* pardon, he can't undo a conviction. A court can do that -- but that's (again) *not* the President.
AND, if those border agents *really believe* that they did nothing wrong (and I'm not saying one way or another, here) to the point of thinking that a pardon "indicates" that they *did* do something wrong -- then -- those border agents are free to *reject* the pardon and stay in jail to assuage their conscience.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Any normal interpretation of law says you're wrong.
Border agents responsibilities don't include being judge jury and executioners of drug smugglers.
SUddenly Bush is "on top of" this case, when he risks being made to look REAL bad because of it. As I predicted hours ago on another thread, the WH would evaluate how much political damage might come their way over this, then initiate a offer/counter-offer process , continually running it up the flagpole to assess relative risk here and there. Too little too late. Instead of pardoning the BAs , maybe the first order of business SHOULD be to explain just HOW this thing developed, WHY agents went down to find this criminal creep and OFFER HIM AMNESTY in order to indict the BAs. Just WHAT considerations are operative there? THAT is where he should start,but neither he nor anyone else will start, or end there.