2024
Posted on 11/30/2008 8:20:08 PM PST by Publius804
Whatever the agendas (of all involved), there would be little downside to Bush just issuing the pardon.
It would certainly do a lot, toward rebuilding Republican unity. That alone, given how vague and questionable the “facts” in the cases are — justifies him just doing it.
As it stands, it’s starting to look like a vandetta, by someone.
Do you support law enforcement officers who lie under oath?
I take “t broaden its appeal” to mean “market yourself better” not change policy.
As regards to the Hispanic population there is not really a choice. Most of them are Catholic and have lots of kids.
Did part of your oath, include protecting us (thanks by the way) from “enemies, foreign and domestic”?...
Just wondering.
So your argument is that President Bush should pardon Ramos and Compean just to make (some) people happy? And you think you stand in judgment of him, how laughable. In case you haven’t noticed, President Bush does what he thinks is right not what is “popular” or would win him favors with the iPod or disgruntled crowd.
From your link, this was an interesting read.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf
I’m not sure I trust Sutton. Any pro-Compean-Ramos want to present (or direct me to) the other side on this issue?
I see a clear difference between the power to prosecute, and the power to pardon.
One must be deliberate, or or system stands for nothing.
The other should be just.
Those two men shot a foreign drug dealer INVADING America.
I’m not real familiar with the case.
They deserved to be fired but I don’t think they should spend 11 or 12 years in prison for shooting a drug dealer in the ass. That’s pretty ridiculous.
Circumstance should always be considered, beyond the letter of the law.
Of course it did. It also included being truthful and honest about anything I do/did in my duties. You do realize that any bad situation involves enemies, right? That doesn’t mean I can lie and shoot whoever I want.
You’re really an LEO?
Were you going to answer my question, about whether part of your oath included protecting us from “enemies, foreign and domestic”?
I’m interested to hear, you explain how that’s not evidently important to consider.
“Do you support law enforcement officers who lie under oath?”
Do you support drug dealers that lie under oath?
Oh sorry you just answered.
Thanks.
But I think they’re getting a raw deal.
I understand, and respect the fact you’re arguing on the side of police being held accountable. That’s admirable.
But in this case, you should cut them the same slack you might sometimes do, to some sleazeball who deserved to be cut a break a lot less than they do.
Just my opinion.
But it sure seems like they’re getting the shaft.
And I sure don’t like it. In fact, I’m infuriated by it.
It simply never ceases to amaze me that people can live through 8 years of GWB’s near utter incompetence, utter failure to see the hand writing on the wall blaring the economic collapse, attempts to flood our nation with wetbacks, mismanagement of the War in Iraq, and on and on and on ( we all know the huge list) ...
and then make idiotic statements like yours below:
****And you think you stand in judgment of him, how laughable. In case you haven’t noticed, President Bush does what he thinks is right not what is “popular” or would win him favors with the iPod or disgruntled crowd.****
You’re mad. Or delusional. George Bush is a complete BOOB. Lower order boob. He couldn’t spell right let alone do it. The man couldn’t run a hot dog stand without bankrupting it and poisoning his clientele. George Bush is a traitor to the Reagan Revolution just as I told everybody nine years ago.
You are correct! I apologize - how could I forget about how embarrassed I am that GHW Bush also signed the energy bill that takes away liberty in the free market, dictating what is available to consumers in automobiles and light bulbs.
Phew! I hope that restores my credibility!
Yes, I am a LEO.
We take an oath, which includes not lying about what happened. Is that hard to understand? Apparently so, for you. It doesn’t mean we can’t take lethal action, it just means we have to be honest about what happened. Get it? Probably not. I would heartily recommend that you do a ride-a-long in a border state, especially CA. You might get a clue.
That is the stupidest thing I’ve been asked all night. Get some rest.
I think Ramos and Compean deserve to be treated like illegals. Cut them loose so they will be free to do, whatever it is they did, again.
The problem I see with this case is that some scumbag was allowed to testify against agents and the fact that he was a scumbag was kept from jurors.
How do you do a good job concerning national security and the WOT and not secure the borders? We need the military down there and not border agents. The rules and laws need to be changed so that our sovereignty is not trampled by invaders with impunity. A law was passed for a fence and for some reason Bush didn’t feel the law applied to him. That was okay though, his gal Kay Bailey put the fence in the hands of old Janet from Arizona under cover of the Omnibus Bill. I suppose it is a matter of semantics in the end. Do the thousands of US citizens killed by illegals feel any terror? If so, that is going to put a dent in the “Bush was great on the WOT” meme.
Let’s agree, to disagree on this.
Thanks for your service.
I support our border agents shooting illegal alien drug runners with intent to kill. For Ramos/Compean lying about the circumstances surrounding the shooting they deserved to be fired, not given hard time.
I don't support DAs (like Johnny Sutton) who give prosecutorial immunity to drug smugglers (like Aldrete-Davila), and who lie their corrupt asses off in attempts to cover up the truth.
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.