View Full Version : BREAKING NEWS. commutes two border agents.
stephanie
01-19-2009, 01:05 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/
:beer:
Mr. P
01-19-2009, 01:07 PM
I was hoping for this!! :dance:
stephanie
01-19-2009, 01:08 PM
I was hoping for this!! :dance:
my mistake, it was commuted, not pardon..
still good news..
Little-Acorn
01-19-2009, 01:16 PM
my mistake, it was commuted, not pardon..
still good news..
Excellent.
Note the bolded line in the article below.
After the shooting of the smuggler, the US govt gave the smuggler a pass to get across the border as often as he wanted. The purpose was so that he could come into court and testify against the two Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean.
While the smuggler had the pass, he used it to bring at least two more loads of marijuana into the US. He was caught with at least one, but never prosecuted.
This all happened before the trial of the two border patrol agents. When the prosecutor stated in court that there was no evidence to connect the smuggler to the van full of marijuana found during his encoounter with the border patrol agents, he was fully aware of the smuggler's bringing in the two subsequent loads. He worked hard to make sure the truth about the smuggler, was never placed before the jury.
These facts were not admitted in court, and the jury never heard about them until after the trial was over. Several of the jurors, when told about the subsequent smugglings after the trial, said that they would never have voted to convict the Border Patrol agents, had they known of the smuggler's record of repeated smugglings. They had thought he was a simple, lone border-crosser who was assaulted by the Border Patrol agents for no particular reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95QC5OO0&show_article=1
Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents
Jan 19 01:03 PM US/Eastern
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration.
Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.
Rancor over their convictions, sentencing and firings has simmered ever since the shooting occurred in 2005.
Ramos and Compean became a rallying point among conservatives and on talk shows where their supporters called them heroes. Nearly the entire bipartisan congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.
Bush didn't pardon the men for their crimes, but decided instead to commute their prison sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations, a senior administration official said.
The action by the president, who believes the border agents received fair trials and that the verdicts were just, does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes, the official said.
Compean and Ramos, who have served about two years of their sentences, are expected to be released from prison within the next two months.
They were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. The border agents argued during their trials that they believed the smuggler was armed and that they shot him in self defense. The prosecutor in the case said there was no evidence linking the smuggler to the van of marijuana. The prosecutor also said the border agents didn't report the shooting and tampered with evidence by picking up several spent shell casings.
Nukeman
01-19-2009, 01:17 PM
ABOUT FUCKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!:dance:
Little-Acorn
01-19-2009, 01:34 PM
Looks like Half a Loaf time again. Bush should have pardoned them. As it is, he leaves them as bankrupt, unemployed Federal felons. Which they absolutely do not deserve.
BTW, the smuggler is still free, having never spent a day in prison.
why did he wait till the last few days? If he, and others, thoght they should he free then why wait?
And it is kinda weird that bush agreed they had committed a crime, and that they had a fair trail were they were justly fond guilty, it is a very weird power that allows the pres. To pardon or shorten the sentance, and I think it sends the wrong message, that the pres. Is above the law. But while I think it's a daft power I do not begrudge bush for using it, as it is his prerogative.
5stringJeff
01-19-2009, 03:32 PM
why did he wait till the last few days? If he, and others, thoght they should he free then why wait?
It's somewhat of an American tradition for Presidents to wait and issue their pardons towards the end of their terms.
It's somewhat of an American tradition for Presidents to wait and issue their pardons towards the end of their terms.
But does it not just feel wrong? That in a time when basicly nothing can be done to the pres. he can void the judicial system? Again I'm not talking about this specific case as I don't know the whole story to it.
stephanie
01-19-2009, 03:45 PM
But does it not just feel wrong? That in a time when basicly nohng can be done I he pres. he can void the judicial system? Again I'm no talking about this specific case as I don't know the whole story to it.
even a Governor of a state can commute or pardon a prisoner, if he feels they didn't get justice.
So in this case, President Bush was right to do it..you'd have to know the whole case to understand.
5stringJeff
01-19-2009, 03:47 PM
But does it not just feel wrong? That in a time when basicly nothing can be done to the pres. he can void the judicial system? Again I'm not talking about this specific case as I don't know the whole story to it.
I understand what you're getting at, but as the Chief Executive, he's got the power to do this any time he wants. It's just that many of them wait.
And yes, some of the pardons do seem a bit wrong, like Bill Clinton's pardon of those Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000.
even a Governor of a state can commute or pardon a prisoner, if he feels they didn't get justice.
So in this case, President Bush was right to do it..you'd have to know the whole case to understand.
But does it not trash the justice system? If you have a problem with unjust sentences being handed out then it should be the judges in the line of fire, it should not be left to govenors or the pres. To deal with it, I could only imagin the uproar if our PM tried to pardon someone.
stephanie
01-19-2009, 03:58 PM
But does it not trash the justice system? If you have a problem with unjust sentences being handed out then it should be the judges in the line of fire, it should not be left to govenors or the pres. To deal with it, I could only imagin the uproar if our PM tried to pardon someone.
that is done also..if they can prove to a judge they didn't get a fair trail, the judge can find that they get a new one.
it's just how our system is set up..most of the time it's used wisely..
Joe Steel
01-19-2009, 05:12 PM
But does it not just feel wrong? That in a time when basicly nothing can be done to the pres. he can void the judicial system? Again I'm not talking about this specific case as I don't know the whole story to it.
Ultimately, America is all politics all the time. The President is elected. Congress is elected. The Courts are filled with judges who either are elected or who are appointed by elected officials.
Cutting through all the red tape and releasing someone for political reasons is no big surprise.
Abbey Marie
01-19-2009, 05:29 PM
Ultimately, America is all politics all the time. The President is elected. Congress is elected. The Courts are filled with judges who either are elected or who are appointed by elected officials.
Cutting through all the red tape and releasing someone for political reasons is no big surprise.
Well, Joe, it looks like we agree on something.
But whatever the reason they were pardoned, it's about time.
Little-Acorn
01-19-2009, 05:50 PM
But does it not just feel wrong? That in a time when basicly nothing can be done to the pres. he can void the judicial system? Again I'm not talking about this specific case as I don't know the whole story to it.
Start a petition and write to your congressman. Ask him to start a process to amend the Constitution and remove that power it gives the President. If what Bush did "feels wrong" to enough people, as it does to you, you should be able to get it done.
And if most people tell you to pound sand, that they don't feel that way, then maybe the answer to your question is "No".
Little-Acorn
01-19-2009, 05:53 PM
Ultimately, America is all politics all the time.
There speaks the ultimate liberal viewpoint. Government is all, politics is all, and we, the people, exist only to serve them.
Little joesteal continuously forgets that half the people who vote, do it to get government off their backs. Slightly less than half recently, unfortunately. But still a huge number.
And nearly half the people eligible to vote, don't bother voting at all. Is America "all politics, all the time" to them?
:lol:
Sorry, joey. America is "all politics, all the time" only to a tiny, disgruntled minority who see government as a weapon they can use to force the country to do things they way they want.
Start a petition and write to your congressman. Ask him to start a process to amend the Constitution and remove that power it gives the President. If what Bush did "feels wrong" to enough people, as it does to you, you should be able to get it done.
And if most people tell you to pound sand, that they don't feel that way, then maybe the answer to your question is "No".
Indeed I would Sir, however, I have no congressman as I live in the UK, but if I was in the US I would, the more I look into it the weirder it seems, the system has a 'get out of jail free card' (no pun intended) with no accountability, crazy!
Little-Acorn
01-19-2009, 06:23 PM
Indeed I would Sir, however, I have no congressman as I live in the UK, but if I was in the US I would, the more I look into it the weirder it seems, the system has a 'get out of jail free card' (no pun intended) with no accountability, crazy!
Oops, sorry, Noir. I keep forgetting you're not from here.
The President (and most state governors) has the power to pardon or commute, so that a law that wasn't really intended to apply to a certain situation, gets applied anyway. Think of it as a hangover from the time way back when America was a "rule of law" country, and laws were expected to be obeyed, not flouted as they are so often today, and enforced whether judges liked a particular law or not.
An example of this came up a few years ago, when John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. A lot of people immediately started screaming that he hated children, or something like that, because he had found a young girl guilty of reating a French fry in a subway station in Washington DC, when Roberts was on the bench of a DC court.
A look at the opinion he wrote, gives the lie to such screams, not unexpectedly. Roberts wrote that he hated to see a law that put 14-year-old girls in jail for eating a French fry in the wrong place, and that the law was a very bad law. But he also pointed out that the law was enacted by the DC City Council, which was empowered to do so, and correctly applied by the police in this case. So he, Roberts, could do nothing but find her guilty. (The law was hastily changed by the DC city council shortly after that).
Governors and the President, have the power to pardon or commute, to take care of bad laws that unexpectedly lower the boom on people the law clearly wasn't inteded to hit. The fact that this power is frequently abused by govs or Presidents (See Clinton's last-minute pardons of Marc Rich and of murderous Puerto Rican terrorists, etc.), does not change the fact that the Prez etc. have this power and that it is intended for good.
Kathianne
01-19-2009, 07:05 PM
Oops, sorry, Noir. I keep forgetting you're not from here.
The President (and most state governors) has the power to pardon or commute, so that a law that wasn't really intended to apply to a certain situation, gets applied anyway. Think of it as a hangover from the time way back when America was a "rule of law" country, and laws were expected to be obeyed, not flouted as they are so often today, and enforced whether judges liked a particular law or not.
An example of this came up a few years ago, when John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. A lot of people immediately started screaming that he hated children, or something like that, because he had found a young girl guilty of reating a French fry in a subway station in Washington DC, when Roberts was on the bench of a DC court.
A look at the opinion he wrote, gives the lie to such screams, not unexpectedly. Roberts wrote that he hated to see a law that put 14-year-old girls in jail for eating a French fry in the wrong place, and that the law was a very bad law. But he also pointed out that the law was enacted by the DC City Council, which was empowered to do so, and correctly applied by the police in this case. So he, Roberts, could do nothing but find her guilty. (The law was hastily changed by the DC city council shortly after that).
Governors and the President, have the power to pardon or commute, to take care of bad laws that unexpectedly lower the boom on people the law clearly wasn't inteded to hit. The fact that this power is frequently abused by govs or Presidents (See Clinton's last-minute pardons of Marc Rich and of murderous Puerto Rican terrorists, etc.), does not change the fact that the Prez etc. have this power and that it is intended for good.
Indeed, so far I'm heartened to see he has not pardoned or commuted George Ryan's sentence.
manu1959
01-19-2009, 07:27 PM
Indeed I would Sir, however, I have no congressman as I live in the UK, but if I was in the US I would, the more I look into it the weirder it seems, the system has a 'get out of jail free card' (no pun intended) with no accountability, crazy!
seems you lot invented it.....so to speak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon#United_Kingdom
[edit] United Kingdom
The power to grant pardons and reprieves is a royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon and release an individual who had been convicted of a crime from that conviction and its intended penalty. Pardons were granted to many in the 18th century on condition that the convicted felons accept transportation overseas, such as to Australia. The first General Pardon in England was issued in celebration of the coronation of Edward III in 1327. In 2006 all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions. (See Armed Forces Act 2006, [1].)
There are significant procedural differences in the present use of the royal pardon, however. Today the monarch may only grant a pardon on the advice of the Home Secretary or the First Minister of Scotland (or the Defence Secretary in military justice cases), and the policy of the Home Office and Scottish Executive is only to grant pardons to those who are "morally" innocent of the offence (as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by misapplication of the law). Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to conviction, but only after conviction. A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed. Use of the prerogative is now rare, particularly since the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which provide a statutory remedy for miscarriages of justice.
To this end, the granting of pardons is very rare and the vast majority of recognised miscarriages of justice were decided upon by the courts. During the Birmingham Six controversy, then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd stressed that he could only make the decision for a pardon if he was "convinced of innocence", which at the time he was not[1].
One notorious recent case was that of the drug smugglers John Haase and Paul Bennett. They were pardoned in July 1996 from 18-year sentences, having served ten months, by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard[2]. This was intended to reward them for information they gave to the authorities, but there was speculation about Howard’s motives[3]. In 2008, they were given 20 and 22-year sentences after it was found that their information was unreliable.
According to the Act of Settlement a pardon can not prevent a person from being impeached by Parliament, but may rescind the penalty following conviction. In England and Wales nobody may be pardoned for an offence under section 11 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales). [2]
i read libby wasn't going to get a pardon
pardon me if i'm wrong though
manu1959
01-19-2009, 07:39 PM
i read libby wasn't going to get a pardon
pardon me if i'm wrong though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._Lewis_%22Scooter%22_Libby
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.