Get Out Of Jail Cards
I have not followed the case of two border patrol agents accused of killing a drug trafficker then covering it up. I know a lot of people have and are quite upset about the entire thing. But Al Kamen reports on what could be a disastrous move by some in Congress to address what they see as a wrong.
The Constitution, as everyone knows, gives complete, unfettered power to the president to pardon criminals. But now Congress is trying to get into the act, working to issue "Get Out of Jail" cards, good for one year, to people it deems wrongly incarcerated.
The House on Wednesday night passed an amendment to an appropriations bill that would deny any money to "enforce" the conviction and the sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler and covering it up. That would mean the Bureau of Prisons couldn't keep them in prison, where they've been since January pending appeal.
Anti-immigration groups have championed their cause and the amendment, by GOP Reps. Ted Poe (Tex.), Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and Duncan Hunter (Calif.). If passed by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would free the pair for at least the next fiscal year. (The amendment would have to be passed each year thereafter.) The goal, we're told, is to get the agents out of jail pending what the three members hope will be a successful appeal.
The problem isn't the merits of the case against the two agents - as I said I am not familiar with it enough to have a good opinion. The problem here is the possible uses of amendments like this in the future. The Constitution grants the power to pardon strictly to the executive branch. If Congress can get around that and usurp even a portion of that power, there is a whole, ugly can of worms being opened. As Kamen points out:
(Bruce) Fein said he "researched this a bit and can't find a time when Congress tried to nullify the effect of court sentence" and "tried to assume some of the pardon power of the president. The logic [of the amendment] could be extended to allow them to stop investigations into members of Congress, to allow Congress to give itself a special shield."
I have often pointed out that the Democrat's leadership in Congress is guilty of "driving short", or not looking at the future repercussions of their policies. Don't think conservatives can't do the same thing. This is a bad idea, regardless of the good intentions of Poe, Tancredo and Hunter. We should all be worried about Congress being able to issue itself get out of jail cards.
By FedUp, Saturday, 28 July , 2007 @ 9:28 am
I would love to see Bush pardon these two. I want them out! They were railroaded by those who should have been standing up for them! If George can let Libby out, then Rmos and Campeon should be a slam dunk! What I disagree with is Congress sticking their long noses into what they have no authority for. I’m all for having them bring pressure on the White House, but acting in it’s place is another rung done on the slippery slope…
By Jimmy don't play that, Saturday, 28 July , 2007 @ 1:52 pm
NOT KILLED. Shot in the butt. PRP subsequently fled across the border - where our agents are not permitted to pursue. I don’t know the particulars of the alleged cover-up. According to the BP agents…
“Ramos said he had no choice but to protect his partner and himself from Aldrete-Davila, who had what Ramos believed to be a weapon in his hand after ditching the van filled with marijuana.
During the ensuing foot pursuit, as the smuggler reached the Rio Grande, Ramos said Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed what Ramos believed to be a weapon at him. Ramos fired one shot. He hit Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, but the smuggler made his way back into Mexico and fled in a van on the other side.”
Compean and Ramos were found guilty of assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, a civil-rights charge and obstruction of justice in the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. Note that the “discharge of a firearm” enhancement is intended to be used against non-LEOs who commit violent crimes with illegally-employed guns. It is ludicrous to apply that law to enhance the sentence of LEOs who are arguably employing their legal firearms in the line of duty - even if it is subsequently found that their actions were not justifiable. Prosecutors knew they could add 3 to 5 mandatory non-parole years to ANY sentence if they could get this charge to stick. And they did.
There is much to question about the case, the behavior of the prosecution, jury foreman and judge. There is much also to question of the Administration in their hands-off approach towards border enforcement. Whether a causal linkage can be established is doubtful, but the apparent climate of tolerance from the Administration is certainly conducive to scapegoating of any BP agent who actually tries to forcibly interdict known drug criminals who may be (and usually are) armed and dangerous. Not to mention encouraging to smugglers.
I am no LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) but I do not believe that forcible interdiction of known smugglers constitutes prima facie evidence of civil rights violations.
And while Congress should not stick their grubby fingers into this, sometimes one must appeal to one’s representatives to act to correct egregious transgressions of the Administration, if possible. The fact that Congress would consider this at all raises my estimation of them - slightly - very slightly. Congress will not act to correct the root problem (say, enacting very tough legislation to protect the borders) because, perhaps, they believe it to be politically inexpedient at the moment. But they are not above making an exception for these two agents - quite possible because, perhaps, it is politically expedient at the moment.