Monday, July 16, 2007

U.S. House to Hear Compean & Ramos Case

H.R. 563 which requests congressional pardons for agents Compean and Ramos, now has 100 cosponsors. Tomorrow morning at 10am, (Tuesday, July 17th) the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing to “Examine the Prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.”

I'm not sure what it means to be given a "hearing." But it sounds like it would provide some hope for Compean and Ramos to get the pardons they have been seeking without having to wait for their appeals to go to court. I'm also not sure about the connection of this hearing to H.R. 563. Maybe someone more knowledgable will comment.

In any case, a mass email/phone campaign to House members is underway to support the agents. We'll update you Tuesday as we learn more.

9 comments:

Sirocco said...

Info on what a "hearing" is can be found here.

My guess is any hearing held will be mostly information gathering, and unlikely to lea to any immedaite action.

roger said...

A Texas jury convicted them, even in the times we live in where immigrants do not get any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. They shot them in the back as they fled...the did not have a gun...their lives were not in danger. The citizens that convicted them, our courts and judges that followed the law, THEY should be praised, as in the Scooter Libby trial.

They are criminals convicted criminals. They should not get any benefit of doubt aside from an appeal. Let them got to jail like all of the others that this party typically wants tough punishment for.

roger said...

Read the truth about Ramos and Campeon. Be ashamed. They shot 15 times at fleeing suspects that posed no danger to them. They lied about it, covered it up. Even the Border Patrol itself did not defend them for their actions.

We have good people doing this job. The should have the same training as cops do, and they don't. There are a lot of people that want to make heros of these men for some crazy reason. It brings dishonor to the border patrol, to law enforcement, and to the very laws that so many of you hold sacred.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/Sutton%20statement%20re%20compean%20and%20ramos%20conviction.pdf

Framer said...

Roger,

Just curious, have you spoken to any border patrol members about this?

Let me help you:

http://www.nbpc.net/press/testimony_071707.pdf

That is from the President of the Border Patrol's Union.

That looks like a pretty strong defence, but don't let me interrupt your narrative :)

Framer said...

sorry, "defense"

roger said...

The Chief of the Border Patrol doesn't feel the same way. Natural for a border patrol union, like any union, to want to protect its members...and to give them more power.

It doesn't change the fact that our rule of law was broken and that the stiff sentences imposed are part of the sentencing guidelines that the Republican party favors. This is tough on crime...this is what prosecutor does...this is what a jury does. An appeal is something that convicted criminals get to try to undo what the law tells us is right and wrong.

I think if most people read what I posted and think about this, they would not be calling for them to made heroes.

They would see that this is being used to give the border patrol more power to shoot fleeing suspects and that this is being used to further politicize the border.

Framer said...

Roger,

Respectfully, you are full of it.

"Even the Border Patrol itself did not defend them for their actions."

You made this statement without any knowledge at all, based on assumptions. I suppose that you can say that the Border Patrol only includes the top level of appointees, and not the body of agents, but that would be less than honest.

And as far as U.S. Attorney's office goes, we have been down this road with them before. Look up David Sipe. It appears that they were caught withholding evidence, especially in regard to the rewards witnesses were given to testify against our agents. Sutton's case failed to disclose many things that would have harmed the prosecution's case as well.

Don't take my word for it, speak to an agent. It would certainly help your worldview.

roger said...

Framer,

I can't believe you can defend this. Really. You are reasonable and intelligent. This was a clear cut case of abuse of authority and was a clear cut case of overuse of force. It was easy. So easy that in this time and this political climate, a jury in Texas convicted them.

The law is the law, don't you say?

As for what I said about the border patrol, I certainly meant the organization and not the union of employees, which like all unions defend their dues payers and also are clearly using this to get the authority to discharge their weapons against fleeing suspects...not when in danger...but when fleeing.

They can't say that the can't catch people if they don't shoot. In this case, the caught the guy after tracking him down. They didn't need to shoot him...they shot to kill (15 times).

I have to say, there is no way I, or anyone else in America can buy the tough on crime, rule of law is sacred argument unless you respect the judgement of the courts and system that delivers the justice. In this case, unanimously.

roger said...

By the way, the post of the Border patrol union leader is an amazing transcript. He states unequivocally at one point that there was a gun pointed at them and then says there is no evidence that there was "not a gun". That is VERY different. I am not willing to supplement his opinion of the facts when the facts were abundantly clear in the trial.

The fact is they did not even know that the person they were shooting at was a drug dealer until later after the tracked him down. What was in their mind and that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not ONE juror disagreed) was the mens rea and the intent to kill. Against the law. Against regulations of the border patrol. And they were convicted...and others were fired for helping them cover it up...rightly fired...but OUR border patrol.