Posted on 07/19/2007 6:39:50 PM PDT by Rodney King
No Pardon Promise for Ex-Border Patrol Agents By Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Staff Writer July 19, 2007
(1st Add: Adds background.)
(CNSNews.com) - President George W. Bush Thursday praised the federal prosecutor who was grilled two days earlier by a Senate panel for his role in the conviction of two U.S. Border Patrol agents for the shooting a drug dealer.
Taking questions from members of the Nashville, Tenn., Chamber of Commerce after a speech, Bush declined to promise to pardon the two agents, as a growing number of lawmakers are urging.
"I'm not going to make that kind of promise in a forum like this," Bush said. "Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy."
Sutton has a long association with the president. Between 1995 and 2000, he served as then Texas Gov. George W. Bush's criminal justice policy director.
Before he was appointed to the post of U.S. attorney, Sutton served as a policy coordinator in the Bush-Cheney transition team when the president was first elected.
Bush spoke for the first time in months regarding the controversial case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively in federal prison for shooting a fleeing drug smuggler in the buttocks in February 2005 and then trying to cover up the shooting. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, was attempting to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana into the country.
On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) sent Bush a letter asking him to commute the sentence. A bill in the House, with more than 100 co-sponsors, is calling for a congressional pardon.
Bush gave no sign Thursday that he was feeling the heat over the episode.
"I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts," he said. "These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them. But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise."
Sutton, who has borne the brunt of public anger over the Ramos-Compean case, offered Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution for trying to smuggle the drugs into the U.S., in return for the Mexican's testimony against the two border agents.
In an interview with Cybercast News Service early this year, Sutton attributed public sentiment to distorted media coverage of the affair.
He faced fire from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday during a hearing examining the case.
Senators criticized him specifically for bringing a firearms charge that has a mandatory 10-year-minimum sentence, while also asking why Aldrete-Davila had been given immunity. Sutton was also asked why the jury in the agents' trial was not told about an alleged subsequent drug-smuggling offense by Aldrete-Davila.
Sutton has held firm that the prosecution was about upholding the rule of law. He stressed that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed and that the two agents had attempted to cover up the shooting.
In their letter to the president, Feinstein and Cornyn - both Judiciary Committee members - said the hearing had "confirmed the concerns raised by many members of the public: that this penalty levied on these agents is excessive and that they deserve the immediate exercise of your executive clemency powers."
"Ramos and Compean have now been in prison for more than six months," the letter continued. "Agent Ramos has been physically assaulted while serving his term and the agents' request to remain out of prison while their appeal was pending was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Both agents will remain incarcerated for many more months, even if their conviction is ultimately thrown out - unless action is taken quickly."
The woman who asked the president about the agents at the Nashville gathering said, "The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate, asking our Tennessee delegation … to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were tried, where information was … kept back from their trial.
"And there's also a resolution in the House, H.R. 40, with a number of our Tennessee delegation signed on to that," the woman added. "Will you pardon these men that are unjustly imprisoned?"
Bush replied, "You've got a nice smile, but you can't entice me into making a public statement."
I'm as tired of his smart ass attitude as I am of his border policies.
It's good to finally see people waking up around here about Bush. I voted for him in 2000 but he lost my support the following year when he granted federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research. He showed his true colors then and there. I voted for Peroutka in 2004 since he was the only choice that I didn't have to hold my nose to vote for. There is no sense in voting for someone just because they are the lesser of two evils. Evil is still evil and will bite you in the butt in the long run.
These two BP agents are LE officers. They shot a man in the back and tried to cover it up.Being a Drug dealer and being illegal is a fact, true, but cops shouldn’t shoot an unarmed man and then lie about it.We held clinton to the same standard, he was impeached for lying and trying to cover it up. I have had it with cops who think can do whatever they want with impunity.
Your intellect speaks loudly about your ability to make the statements herein.
How do you know he was an unarmed man? Did he say so? LOL!
So, you think Bush is evil? I do not agree with everything he does either but he is a long way from being evil, get a grip.
The BP agents even said he was unarmed.Yes he was running away, the BP agents shot him and tried to cover it up, is that what you want from LE?
I don't think he is evil, I know he is evil.
Bush can’t be described as evil.
He is determined, stubborn, persistent, and for the decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, those are great traits.
But he is hopelessly naive, and lacks a coherent worldview.
If supporting our troops defending our freedom, what about defending our border agents defending our homeland?
If America fighting terrorism is a good thing, why condemn Israel for the same?
If protecting America is the rationale for the WOT, what about our porous borders? 6 years after 9/11 and no progress?
If cutting taxes to support our economy, what about cutting spending?
The list is just too long.
Bush ain’t it, by a mile.
There is the answer. We have POLITICAL PRISONERS. Case closed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have studied and pondered your post for almost two full seconds. After due consideration I reached the conclusion that your are spot on. I used the “spot on” phrase in hopes that it would carry a heavier literary weight than simply saying “correct”.
His disconnect has led us to squander the opportunity to engage the country directly by talking around the democrats and sycophants of the media.
His lack of popularity with even his own base speaks to his communication breakdown.
How would they know he was unarmed? Did they check him?
If a border patrol agent can't shoot somebody, then all they have to do is run on by, and your rule will keep the border patrol from stopping anyone. Of course they tried to cover it up, they didn't want to go to jail for stopping a drug dealer from invading our country.
Never thought of that before.
Perhaps toxic environment existed at the border patrol before this incident.
The suspicion that politicians would sell you out seems plausible, given this outcome.
Keep smiling Jorge knowing you set free a drug dealing scumbag and jailed America’s Defenders.
“Johnnie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
“Bush suffers from ‘my friend’ syndrome”
Contrast that with Great Leaders in history.
You’ll find that they were great men because it didn’t matter if you were a friend, family or what have you. The job, the mission or the law was the same for you as everyone else.
This is almost typical southern “good old boyism”. I’m a southernor and it pisses me off.
The only reason right now I’m glad this man is in the whitehouse is that it prevented someone like Kerry being in it. But day by day I’m really beginning to wonder if there is really much difference.
The same kind of cronyism happens with the Libs daily.
So you think we should do away with civil liberties all together or just for those not born here. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a border fence, but, shooting people in the back is not my idea of border security. There are some on this forum that would advocate putting up machine gun bunkers and mining the border killing anyone who dared to come accross, thats not what this country or our constitution is about.
When you enter any other country in the world, and are ordered to stop by border patrol but refuse and instead attempt to flee, what do you believe would happen?
Why do you think it incorrect or unconstitutional to use any means necessary to prevent the unauthorized breach of the American border?
No, but when a fleeing drug dealer is shot, I don't think that the people who shot him should get longer in jail than the dealer would have gotten, and I don't think the dealer should get a humanitaria visa to come back into the country.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a border fence, but, shooting people in the back is not my idea of border security.
Fair enough, but there is a priority problem here. I am not saying that these border agents should have done what they did, but when the Feds basically don't prosecute or do anything about the dealers, and then go after the guys who shoot at the dealers as hard as possible, it sends a certain message.
There are some on this forum that would advocate putting up machine gun bunkers and mining the border killing anyone who dared to come accross, thats not what this country or our constitution is about.
Agreed.
Because even though they are illegal they still have civil rights once in this country and one of those rights is not to be shot in the back. Is it your opinion it should be open season on all hispanics that happen to be north of the border?Did you ever stop and think what you might be advocating?
I am advocating the protection of our borders from foreign invaders, and in particular those that would cause harm, such as drug dealers or terrorists.
No illegal alien has or deserves the protection of America’s civil rights, because they are not American and are not legally in the country.
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.