The Border Patrol Commutations
President Bush did the right thing today when he commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who were found guilty of violating the civil rights of an illegal alien who was attempting to smuggle drugs. The Republican Party of Texas found the event important enough to send out a news release over Tina Benkiser’s signature. The commutation is NOT a pardon, and the agents should not have been pardoned. They did not report the shooting, which amounted to a cover-up. They should have been prosecuted. They were guilty. The problem here is that the federal sentencing guidelines are too inflexible, and the trial judge sentenced the two agents to eleven and twelve years. This punishment was far too harsh. A commutation of the sentence, to take effect on March 20, is the proper remedy. Bush got this one right. It’s been a long time since I have written that.
Anonymous says:
He got it right, because it’s okay to shoot people in the back and then cover it up, as long as they’re drug dealers? Um, yeah. OK.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
It’s not OK, but it is worthy of a commutation if the sentence is too harsh.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I did not take you for one of those Anti-Immigration people… I guess you fooled, me.. if what happened to that illegal happened to you, I guess it would be ok right.. yeah I thought so. Just another redneck with a platform, I think thats Lou Dobs on the phone.
Reply »
Yuck says:
Two federal agents shot a man in the back, covered it up, and served less time in prison than my clients convicted of simple possession of cocaine, which Bush never did anything about.
And you say he got this right?
Stick to the legislature.
Reply »
paulburka says:
They pursued and attempted to apprehend a drug smuggler and broke the law doing so. I don’t believe that their crimes justified 11- and 12-year sentences, and neither did Bush. I don’t agree with the lengthy sentences for cocaine either, or the variation in sentencing for crack and ordinary cocaine.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Hey redneck, he was un armed… as in her was running but posed no threat to them, you shoot people when deadly force is necessary, not when they are running. Honestly he was running away, maybe in Texas that plays but they are law enforcement not just a public citizen.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
He says he was unarmed.. the agents say he had a gun and was firing at them. I say both statements are self serving and neither can be trusted. 8:40 conferring martyr status on this scumbag because he was fleeing a law enforcement is laughable. Under your “don’t pursue or defend yourself policy” I suppose we should issue DPS troopers radar equipment, a cap gun and a sign that says “Pull over, pretty please?” on it.
Reply »
sa says:
I preface these comments by stating that I’m not familiar with the facts of this case…
the federal sentencing guidelines apply to everybody — at least those tried in fed court. I see absolutely no reason no reduce the sentence of these guys just because the punishment seems harsh. judges have a little bit of discretion to adjust up or down. there are a set of established factors that justify doing so.
now if Bush revisited every sentence handed down in federal courts and commuted all sentences that seemed “too harsh,” that would be one thing…this is another. seems like these criminals got preferential treatment because of their former employer. don’t seem right to me.
really…what’s worse? selling drugs, illegally entering a country or killing someone and trying to cover it up? one man paid with his life and the other two go home to their wives and families a couple years later.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
January 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Read up on the subject sa. The illegal was fleeing from the two agents and was shot in the butt. He did not die. He was, if I’m not mistaken, involved in another drug deal on our side of the border a short time later. The sentence did not fit the crime.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Ok but does that mean you get to be his executioner, so he did not die, do you think the guy that shot him is such a good shot her was aiming for his ass, what if it had been his head.. this guy would be in some shallow grave on the boarder… it makes you wounded how offended these officers kill peope and cover it up.
Reply »
Burka's Research Assistant says:
Since when did Bush ever care about doing the right thing? See, eg, Scooter Libby.
Reply »
jim says:
Like Bush, you have no reason to support this commutation. But unlike Bush you’re supposed to be an independent arbiter of the facts. Much to your discredit, you’ve fallen in with a bunch of anti-immigrant howlers who have made martyrs of these two criminals. Let’s recall the actual facts surrounding this case: First, federal prosecutors thought the agents actions serious enough to charg them with 16 counts – between the two – including intent to commit murder. Indisputably, the two agents shot at an unarmed man as he was fleeing 15 times. One bullet struck the man in his buttocks. It goes without saying that the man is lucky to not have been killed.
Next, the two agents – indisputably – attempted to cover up their crime. They never reported teh shooting.
They were only caught because someone heard about it through the border grapevine and reported it to DHS.
Fellow agents at the trial testified against Ramos and Compean. A jury found the men guilty of all charges except assault with intent to commit murder. A judge sentenced them to 11 and 12 years.
Those are the facts as they can be found in the public record. Everything else – the mythology, hagiography, and outright lies that have grown up around this case like kudzu – can be traced directly to the fevered imaginations of anti-immigrants protesters and the unwillingness of the media to challenge a good martrydom narrative.
In any case, Burka, you haven’t leg to stand on. These men were guilty, guilty, guilty. They abused their office, they violated the public trust, they nearly killed someone without justification. Isn’t that enough?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I said they were guilty. Their sentence was too harsh. That’s what pardons and commutations are for. Bush could have issued a lot of self-serving pardons and commutations. To his credit, he didn’t.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am
burka you have blood on your hands, you condone this kind of nazi behavior, I guess we should shoot every one you dont agree with…
Reply »
jim Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Their sentence was too harsh.” Why? No explanation, no justification, just a bald assertion that – wouldn’t ya know? – happens to square exactly with the Lou Dobbs-Minutemen-GOP line about Ramos and Compean.
No, I guess Bush didn’t issue a bunch of self-serving pardons and commutation. Just this one.
Reply »
heytriallawyer says:
Yuck,
By the way, thank you so much for defending coke heads. I just hope next time they are doped up they hit you or someone you love, instead of me and mine.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Go to bed you bums.
Reply »
Bill O. Right says:
The guidelines apply to everyone. Maybe the sentencing commission wanted to give a large incentive for the police not to lie. A lying cop can destroy the justice system faster than anyone else. Bush has thwarted that incentive. If the guidelines are good enough for those apprehended by the Border Patrol then they ought to be good enough for the Border Patrol themselves. This is just more of the same.
Reply »
TxSkirt says:
I think Bush did the right thing in this instance. And I think you are brave to say so. The article you did on this was spot on. Nice to see us agree on something.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
Again, the vitriol on the left is amazing. If Bush said tomorrow the sun would rise in the east, 80% of the Democrat primary voters would argue.
The 2 agents were guilty. They shot a drug dealer who was smuggling drugs into this country illegally. (His immigration status is irrelevant to this issue.) The Drug dealer says he wasn’t armed, the agents say he was. lets call that a push, both are self serving. The agents did shoot the scumbag. When he didn;t stop, they made the mistake (crime) of trying to cover it up. The prosecution offered these two a 1 year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. They didn’t take it (bad move on their part). They have now been in prison, for the crime they committed, for 2 years. Bush, at the urging of all but 2 members of the Texas congressional delegation, commuted the sentence. It would seem, in this case, that the system works.
I am left to wonder what you folks will have to complain about now that your personal Satan has left the White House? You life must seem quite empty without a convenient vessel for your bitter vitriol. Here’s hoping you will find a new boogie man so your life will still have meaning. Either that, or i hope you find a good 12 step program to help you quit your victimization addiction.
Reply »
Shoot him he is illegal Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I don’t get it… Should we start blowing away every and anyone who breaks the law… I always thought the courts decided on punishments not the people who are in charge of enforcing laws. I guess a badge gives people the right to be judge jury and executioner.
I was not on the boarder when the agents were having target practice but honestly you don’t get shot in that ass when you are not running away.. As big as PB is I am sure they would have hit him more than once, this guys was skinny…
Moral of this whole story… work on being a better shot and leave no witnesses. There biggest mistake is they did not follow him across the boarder and hunt him down like the dog he is and kill him, they let him go and they went to jail.
Reply »
Zachary says:
The Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v Garner that officers are authorized to use lethal force in the event of a fleeing suspect that they believe poses a threat to public safety.
Granted, these two used poor judgement (or were even ill-motivated). I think a decade in prison is a sharp punishment for poor judgement.
Most importantly, the victim in this particular case WAS NOT INNOCENT! It’s not like the border patrol agents strolled down the street firing into day cares and nursing homes.
Reply »
jim says:
Ah, yes, when Ramos and Compean went about covering up their deed, they were simply hiding poor judgment, not the fact that they tried to kill someone.
Reply »
Real Voter says:
if you do not want to get shot in the ass to not break into the USA with a van load of illegal drugs used to poison our children… Pretty simple.
Reply »
illegal alien who votes Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
You act like kids are the only ones who smoke pot, lots of Real Americans smoke pot and other harder drugs, and the black market is supported by Real Americans, if it was not then the business would dry up and Frito-Lay and little Debbie would go out of business.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yes, Jim, I’m sure if Ramos and Compean had just let the Boy Scout drug dealer run away, he would never to try to return and hunt down these guys. Just couldn’t happen, could it Jim?
“The scrawny young man at the defense table was only 17, and had only a peach-fuzz mustache in his mugshot. But authorities say he was already a seasoned assassin in the U.S. for some of Mexico’s drug lords.
The trial last month of American citizen Rosalio “Bart” Reta, combined with the case against a co-defendant and interviews with law enforcement officials, has cast a spotlight on a new danger along the border.
Mexican drug lords locked in a bloody fight for control of a pipeline that runs from Mexico to Dallas and up through middle America have brazenly stationed hit squads and reconnaissance teams in Laredo. “That river does not stop these people,” said Webb County Sheriff’s Maj. Doyle Holdridge. “These days, if they have a problem, they kill it,” Holdridge said. “If they have to hose down a car full of five people, they’ll do it.”
Gone also is the grudging respect once accorded U.S. law enforcement. Holdridge said he and his wife have occasionally been followed by suspected cartel members as they drive around town. In fact, Reta had the make, model and plates of a law officer’s personal car, Guillen said.”
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Mexican.drug.lords.2.505995.html
Reply »
jim Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
No one ever said The Drug Dealer was a Boy Scout. Frankly, that he was trafficking drugs is more or less irrelevant to the prosecution of Ramos and Compean. I find it fascinating that you have implicitly justified the firing of 15 bullets at an unarmed man by wildly speculating that that man may have at some point come back to kill the BP agents. That’s a novel defense… but a fitting one on the last day of the Bush era: We ought to let public servants off the hook when they preempt future crimes through violence. It certainly worked in Iraq.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
My God Burka, you have got some absolute left wing nut jobs that post on here. I don’t agree with alot of your posts, but you at least are reasonable person and not filled with such hate. Some of these people hating on the BORDER(not boarder) Patrol Agents are just SICK.
The two guys screwed up, they got punished, more than the prosecutors initially sought. Those who are so hateful towards the border patrol agents should shut the hell up and go down to the valley and see what drugs are doing to the communities down there. Killing this drug dealer would have done the world a favor. The real mistake they made was the cover-up, that should not have happened. They paid a price for it in prison and they’ll continue to pay for it the rest of their lives as they will always be convicted felons now. Don’t worry those who hate the border patrol agents so much, the drug dealer they shot didn’t die and can go back to trying to destroy our society. Burka this was a good post.
Reply »
illegal alien who votes Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Who the duck made you god.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Evan Smith. He changed my job description from serious political writer to blogger.
Reply »
What does Evan know? Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Why do people always want to put labels on things, if you want to be called “Serious Political Writer” or “Blogger” you own it Paul Burka but just don’t let people call you anything you don’t want to be called, if they do you shoot them as they are running away from you and then pick up all the shell casings and cover up the incident and hope B. H. Obama gives you a pardon, like a Real American.
jim says:
Why is that ANTI-IMMIGRANT xenophobes always use ALL-CAPS to make their POINT. It’s almost as if they only know how to argue by SHOUTING.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
How is being opposed to drug dealers and the terrible harm they have brought to some of our border towns xenophobic?
Reply »
Burka Does not Hate Mexicans says:
Some of his best friends are Mexican, the guy who mows his lawn is Mexican, he likes Mexican food, he would never shoot a Mexican in the back for smuggling in a little pot. He is not racist, you guys stop saying her is a xenophobe… he is so not gay.
Reply »
Eileen Smith says:
Pam Colloff (who wrote about this case last fall) reacts to Burka: http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-01-01/webextra13.php
Awwwwwww, SNAP.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
ha ha bit#h you got schooled!
Reply »
jim Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The funny thing is Coloff’s bitchslap won’t do a thing to deter Burka the next time he decides to mouth off.
Reply »
Ben Quick says:
“problem here is that the federal sentencing guidelines are too inflexible, and the trial judge sentenced the two agents to eleven and twelve years.”
I would sympathize with you if it were not for the topic and the times – back in 1966 the penalty for marijuana position was life in prison – I had several 17 year old friends convicted and sentence under those guidelines for position of a joint.
I know that many of your subscribers cannot sympathize with that situation, but I see no difference. Many of your loyal readers harp for and defend “law enforcement” types only because of the name – but the reality is – law enforcement gets paid for arrest and convictions not finding guilt.
If those opposed to this situation (like you) would agree that the sentencing of others (especially those guilty of victimless crimes – without trying to develop a victim) is equal and should be defended I would join with you. But that is not the case. Instead, you choose to created new crimes – abortion for example – and institute the most sever punishment available.
(am I wrong what is you punishment recommendation for a women who gets an illegal abortion – and the recommendation of those of your readers who agree with you?)
Reply »
Pamela Colloff says:
Paul, I couldn’t disagree with you more! You can read my take on this here: http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-01-01/webextra13.php
Reply »
Wise in West Texas says:
Wrong again, Burka! Bush DID NOT get this one right.
What did Jefferson say – a strict observance to the written laws is one of the highest duties of a good citizen? This commutation is right out of Alice in Wonderland: “No! No! Sentence first – Verdict afterwards.”
These were sworn federal law enforcement agents. They did more than “not report the shooting.” They also tampered with evidence. Like Thoreau said, there is no odor so bad like that which arises from goodness tainted.
The U.S. Supreme Court had already held, prior to this case, that the sentencing guidelines insofar as they suggest a mandatory sentencing scheme violate the Sixth Amendment. A sentencing court is required to give respectful consideration to the Guidelines, but the trial court can tailor a sentence to fit other statutory concerns as well.
The severity of the sentence resulted from the presence of an aggravated element, being the use of firearms. So you think corrupt law enforcement ought to get a free pass on using guns?
The agents were offered a plea bargain to far less time, and to lesser charges.
They rejected the plea. They took their chances. They never accepted responsibility, and probably never will as long as they have the rightwing noise machine on their side.
Who is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses?
Is it Judge Cardone who heard the evidence? Or the “decider” guy who claims the ability to look into the eyes of ex-KGB agents and sees their souls.
This is just one more example of how Bush and those around him habitually snicker and give a-wink-and-a-nod at the rule of law, and how you pretty much never call ‘em on it.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
The opinions rendered here run from one end of the spectrum to the other … just like they do in the courtroom. There are hanging judges and “he deserves a third chance” judges. Any position you take, I bet you can find a courtroom example to back up that opinion. Bush reacted to the pleadings of 31 or the 34 members of the Texas congressional delegation …both Repub’s and Dem’s… who asked for full pardon and got a commuted sentence instead. Public perception does make a difference. If it was an innocent local rancher’s son instead of a scumbag drug dealer, you wouldn’t be hearng anymore about it. Also let’s not forget that the letter of the law is twisted and contorted all the time, so all you legal types that are posting here aren’t swaying my opinion one bit. If you were getting paid to support the agents position, it might be surprising what arguments you could come up with.
Reply »