Border Patrol Agents’ Sentence Commuted by Bush
On his last full day in office, President George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of two former patrol agents found guilty of shooting an illegal immigrant. Or, as CNN describes the man, an “undocumented immigrant,” which probably means the exact same thing albeit in more politically correct terms (“no human being can be illegal!“).
Not only did the man enter the United States illegally, he was also smuggling drugs into the country when he was shot by agents Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean. The case was high profile, with many conservative immigration hawks pleading on Bush to pardon the two men at the end of his presidency if they were convicted. Bush delivered.
Partially, that is. He did not pardon them but commuted their sentence. A White House spokesman explained that the president believes the two are guilty of a crime, but that they and their families have suffered enough now. The two will be released March 20; they were originally convicted to 11 years (Ramos) and 12 years in prison (Compean).
”Commuting their sentences does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes. Ramos and Compean are convicted felons who violated their oaths to uphold the law and have been severely punished,” the official stated.
“This commutation gives them an opportunity to return to their families and communities, but both men will have to carry the burden of being convicted felons and the shame of violating their oaths for the rest of their lives.”
Immigration hawks may not be satisfied, but they can’t be too disappointed either. Bush did the right thing; pardoning them wasn’t truly an option.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
The last statement is interesting. “… pardoning them wasn’t truly an option.” Why not?
Perhaps the part about them lying to their superiors and cleaning up the scene? They did actually commit a crime. Protecting the homeland doesn’t mean you break the law to do it.
The sentence was way overblown. A commutation is proper.
In any case, pardons are (usually) granted after sentences have been served.
If they committed a crime is pretty much debatable. In the courts opinion they did, and that’s what matters in the eyes of the law.
Reality wise, stupid yeah, suspect yeah – criminal – no.
the prosecution tagged on a – using a firearm onto the charge bringing a mandatory 10 year sentence. Suspension yeah, Firing sure, jail – no.