Posted on 12/18/2007 3:35:08 PM PST by T.L.Sink
Rep. Tom Tancredo today blasted Democrats after a Congressional panel stripped language from the Omnibus Appropriations bill that sought to reverse the conviction of two border patrol agents and release them from federal custody. Agents Ramos and Compean were wrongfully imprisoned in 2006 and are serving 11 and 12 years, respectively. Tancredo's language would have prevented the expenditure of any federal funds to carry out the sentences imposed on the two men, effectively freeing them. "The House passed this bill overwhelmingly - but unfortunately the open borders crowd and their Democrat friends on Capital Hill decided to play Grinch this Christmas and stripped it from this bill," Tancredo said. "Because of the actions of the Democrat leadership in Congress, two of America's finest will be locked up in federal prison over the holidays while members of Congress are home with their families carving the Christmas turkeys," said Tancredo. "It is disgraceful that Nancy Pelosi has chosen to put the interests of an illegal alien drug smuggler and the open-borders lobby before the interests of these two men."
(Excerpt) Read more at tancredo.house.gov ...
Do you mean Sen’or Jorge’ Bush
Tanc and Hunter are 2% in the polls. The GOP has lost its soul.
They were not wrongfully convicted. However, I think the President should commute the sentance.
I have a problem with the Congress acting as a “jury” bestowing guilt or innocence on people.
This is more non-constitutional garbage from our Congress.
The Constitution gives the courts the power to convict, and the president the power to pardon. Any attempt by Congress to free someone who has been duly convicted is plainly unconstitutional.
They would have been acquitted if the jury had been informed of three key pieces of information. Several of the jurors have already said so. And it only would have taken one.
a) The perp (avila) was NOT just doing a onesie drug run to get medicine for his sick mama as the prosecutors claimed falsely.
b) the perp re-offended prior to trial, and it was witheld from the jury. It would have destroyed his credibility.
c) The jury was not told that a conviction included the grossly missaplied law for felons that mandated 10 year sentences.
No commutation. A full pardon is in order. And Sutton needs to be sent to prison.
Absolutely.
Congress should not be getting into the pardon business.
What a horrible idea!
Kind of a reverse bill of attainder.
“The Constitution gives the courts the power to convict, and the president the power to pardon. Any attempt by Congress to free someone who has been duly convicted is plainly unconstitutional.”
Congress controls the purse. They can prevent money from being spent for some certain purpose.
“they were not wrongfully convicted”
If the evidence had been allowed to be introduced as to the scumbag drugdealers doings, do you really think they would have been convicted? I’d rather see Sutton doing time for nifonging them.
Howe come Tancredo is spending time on this hogwash instead of offering legislation that would remove LEO’s from exposure to the 10 year mandatory law that put them there in the first place?
They could make it retroactive and not only save Ramos and Conpean but any other LEO whose actions fall under this law.
ANSWER - Cause legislation don’t make for good photo ops.
The prosecutor hiding evidence and facts in the case is clear grounds to declare a mistrial.
So Congress could pass a bill saying no federal funds shall be used for the President vetoing any bill passed by Congress?
No kidding. Just look at the GOP front runners, Rudy, Mitt, Huck and McCain.
What a horrible idea!
Kind of a reverse bill of attainder.
A Bill of Attainder is when a legislature passes legislation that declares someone guilty of a criminal act. No where does the Constitution ban legislation declaring someone innocent. As for the Congress "getting into the pardon buisness," if the Congress makes legal that which was illegal the Congress can apply that legalization retroactivity (this has occured in the past).
As for spending, the Congress controls the purse strings. If the Congress does not want federal money spent for any reason, it can prohibit such spending. Under this scenario, these men's convictions would not be affected. They simple would be released despite the convictions.
Congress is not in the pardon business. Any congressional bill demanding a pardon would require the President signing it.
You're quite right and I discovered it in the election of 2002, when they lost me!!! The rank and file didn't drive me out of the Party. It was the leadership at all levels, national, state and local central committee!!!
I continue to vote Republican routinely, but I will not be associated with the direction, or leadership of the Party! I don't like "guilt by association," because it is a very real thing!!! So I quit associating!!!
I got a mailer from Trent Lott asking for money. It was too rough to use as TP, so I tossed it out.
Money for WHAT??? Honest to Pete! These peckerheads have unlimited audacity when asking for money for nuthin, but absolutely no audacity or testosterone when asked by the House Impeachment Managers to try that miserable skunk Bill Clinton in the Senate for deliberately polluting the office of the Presidency of the United States!!!
Besides, the (bleep)-hole is retiring!!! (on a fat pension already!!!) Judas Priest!!!
“a) The perp (avila) was NOT just doing a onesie drug run to get medicine for his sick mama as the prosecutors claimed falsely.”
First, prosecutors alleged no such thing, it was OAD who testified so during the trial. The last time I checked this is how our justice system works...prosecutors and defense attorneys ask questions of witnesses and if they have doubts about the answers they have the right to present further evidence challenging and impeaching that testimony.
Second, any subsequent drug runs would have no bearing on his statement at trial that this was his first and he was doing it to get money for his mothers health bills. Now, personally, this sounds like the bullshit that you would expect someone in his position to say and if I was on the jury I would have paid it no attention, and in fact this was several jurors said, that they placed no weight on what OAD said. So pardon supporters who pin their hopes on this tidbit might be disappointed.
But no matter how you look at it, evidence of a second or third drug mule run doesn’t impeach his primary statement. If the second load was introduced I have no doubt OAD would have said he was forced to make the second run because he didn’t get paid from the first one, which was captured by BP agents. Where does the defense go from there?
Third, it would have seemed a simple effort to verify that OAD’s mother was sick and needed medical care she couldn’t afford. Why wasn’t this pursued and introduced at trial? If the defense wanted to knock OAD’s credibility out of the park, this would have been the simplest way to do it. But they didn’t. One can only wonder why.
“b) the perp re-offended prior to trial, and it was witheld from the jury. It would have destroyed his credibility.”
All the court had was the word of another drug mule that OAD was involved a second time, not evidence, no finger prints, no undercover video. Now subsequent investigation has lead to OAD being arrested on this charge ( good! hope he rots in prison for 20 years) but at the time they didn’t have the kind of specific evidence that would support such a claim, so the judge ruled it inadmissible. Pissant writes that “the perp re-offended prior to trial”...the last time I checked a jury trial is the final arbiter of whether an accused is guilty or not (which hasn’t been adjudicated even at this point) so pissant’s proclamation is nothing more than convicting someone before they have been allowed the constitutional right to a jury trial of their peers. This may make those reticent about this issue angry, but that is the law of the land and if they don’t like it they should work to change it, but please quit whining about it.
“c) The jury was not told that a conviction included the grossly misapplied law for felons that mandated 10 year sentences.”
This may be true, but I wonder if it is right to advise a jury on this. Their job is determining guilt or innocence, not the sentence, which is up the judge. If informing them of the potential sentence would affect whether they rule guilty or innocence, then I say that information is too prejudicial and would result in juries reaching conclusions not based on the evidence but on how they feel the perps should be treated after that decision is made. This should not be a consideration on guilt or innocense for a jury.
Pissant urges a full pardon, but in addition to the 10 year mandatory for using a weapon during the commission of a crime of assault, Ramos and Compean were also convicted of crimes relating to their cover up of the incident, in particular destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.
The 10 year mandatory on the gun charge may have been an incorrect application of that law, as I and many others agree. But actions by Ramos and Compean do not absolve them of other crimes related to this incident and to wave a wand of absolution over them would do a disservice to all other Boarder Patrol agents who execute their duties within the law, and those are the real heroes of the Border Patrol that should be held out as an example to all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.