Constitution Party focuses on supporting Ramos and Compean

Ramos and Compean take front and center stage at ConstitutionParty.org today. The largest section of the front page “above the fold” is Latest News and Commentary, and two out of three articles are devoted to the case of Ramos and Compean.

According to wikipedia,

Ignacio Ramos is a former United States Border Patrol Agent, who shot an allegedly unarmed illegal alien and drug smuggler on the United States–Mexico border. He was convicted of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation.

Ramos was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 11 years and one day in prison for shooting and wounding an unarmed person named Osvaldo Aldrete Dávila near the Fabens settlement of unincorporated El Paso County, Texas, at about 1 PM on February 17, 2005. Fellow agent Jose Compean was sentenced to 12 years. Aldrete Dávila had been found with nearly 800 pounds of marijuana in the back of his van. Following the incident, Aldrete Dávila was granted a temporary conditional visitors visa in exchange for giving his testimony against Ramos and Compean. Ramos and his partner were incarcerated January 17, 2007.

The first article is Border Patrol Agents Face Lonely Christmas:

Please send cards and letters to the two Border Patrol agents sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for shooting at an armed, convicted drug smuggler they believed was going to shoot them.

As it stands now, agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos lost their final appeal. It is our hope that the men, who languish in solitary confinement cells for 23 hours out of every day, will be pardoned or exonerated on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Please pray for these men and letters to:

Ignacio Ramos #58079-180
FCI Phoenix
Federal Correctional Institution
37910- N 45th Ave
Phoenix, Az 85086

Jose Compean #58080-180
FCI Elkton
PO Box 10
Lisbon, OH 44432

The second is President Bush thinking of border agent pardons? and is reprinted from World Net Daily. The portion that appears on the Constitution Party web page is

President Bush thinking of border agent pardons?

by Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily.com

Families tearfully put hope in clemency during last days

Monica Ramos embraces her husband, former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times)

As president, George W. Bush has pardoned or commuted sentences for 32 drug dealers, 12 thieves, seven embezzlers, an arsonist, an armed bank robber and eight Thanksgiving turkeys, among others – but U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean remain in prison this Christmas, praying for their release.

“It’s pretty much salt in the wound,” Ramos’ wife, Monica, told WND. “But we have a lot of hope. My husband has quite a bit of faith, and we pray a lot. We are hoping the outpouring of support that we have here from people all over the nation is going to help us.”

Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for shooting at a fleeing illegal alien drug dealer while he smuggled nearly 750 pounds of marijuana across the border. They were convicted of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence, tampering with an official proceeding and deprivation of civil rights.

The full WND article is here.

34 thoughts on “Constitution Party focuses on supporting Ramos and Compean

  1. Trent Hill

    Paulie, take out the parentheses in the title, the article itself explains both sides of the Ramos/Compean controversy.

  2. johncjackson

    The CP is opposed to drugs and guns and supports shooting people due to their immigration status. Cool.

  3. G.E.

    I normally don’t have much sympathy for Thugs of the State like Ramos and Campeon, but them rotting in one of the state’s animal cages isn’t doing anyone any good. Let them pay restitution to the peaceful entrepreneur they assaulted and then let these two welfarist parasites get REAL jobs in the private sector.

  4. G.E.

    I’m not saying they should be “pardoned.” I’m saying they should be released — so long as they’re made to pay restitution and get real jobs. I won’t demand the release of “more deserving” prisoners before the release of “less deserving” ones.

  5. LibertarianGirl

    I’m not saying they should be “pardoned.” I’m saying they should be released

    let these two welfarist parasites get REAL jobs in the private sector.—————–

    so they can join some police-security job in the private sector like Blackwater where they can shoot innocent people, or maybe a guard at a private prison where their livelyhood depends on keeping people incarcerated .either one would allow them to exercise their need to be in power over others.

    They are where they belong . Its safer for the rest of us.

  6. LibertarianGirl

    I normally don’t have much sympathy for Thugs of the State like Ramos and Campeon, but them rotting in one of the state’s animal cages isn’t doing anyone any good.——————–

    Were not talking about two farmers or two accountants . We are talking about two men who MADE THEIR LIVING PUTTING PEOPLE IN ANIMAL CAGES.

  7. LibertarianGirl

    State , Federal , Private , who friggin cares .
    Cops , border control , prison gaurds etc are all cut from the same cloth.
    I dont care what sector you come from , an asshole is still an asshole .
    as usual LJ you are way off base

  8. G.E.

    They are where they belong . Its safer for the rest of us.

    Are you sure your name isn’t AuthoritarianGirl?

    The victim of their crime doesn’t get anything out of them being in an inhumane cage. You and I pay taxes to support their incarceration. These men are not threats to society — you have a sick, vindictive kink of some kind, I guess.

    Libertarians believe in restitution, not punishment. You are a statist.

  9. Steven R Linnabary

    had been found with nearly 800 pounds of marijuana in the back of his van…while he smuggled nearly 750 pounds of marijuana across the border.

    Ok. Somebody is shot because his government travel papers aren’t in order.

    This entrepreneur then has his goods stolen from him. There appears to be a discrepancy between what was reported stolen, then how much was turned in by these jack boots.

    Now I’ve heard cohorts of these jack boots claim that you can get a thousand “joints” out of a pound. And a “joint” will sometimes sell for approximately $10 on the street. Of course, *I* don’t know anything about all this, I’m just taking their word for it. 😉

    I would say that appropriate restitution would be for the families of these jack boots (who have been profiting from the activities of the jack boots) to pay the victim at least a half mill. ($10 x 1000 x 50#).

    Until they agree to at least this minor restitution, they can rot at taxpayer expense. Maybe the jack boots will think twice before they try pulling this scam again.

    Pacem en Terris

  10. paulie cannoli Post author

    And a “joint” will sometimes sell for approximately $10 on the street.

    WTF? Prices have gone up way faster than inflation. I don’t know how y’all do it these days.

  11. JimDavidson

    @4 GE is correct that having these aggressive and violent men compensate their victim would be better than having them rot in a cage. I also agree with him that they don’t deserve presidential pardons. I do not regard them as “not threats to society” since they have shot an unarmed person in the back.

    The ethics of a compensatory justice system are certainly better than what we have. There is, however, a factor that Libertarian Girl brings up, which is that these guys would likely harm others again. In the Somali culture, that is handled by the fact that the clan insures against the liabilities of its own, so the clan members would watch these hot heads to be sure they didn’t hurt again. I suppose in a free market compensatory justice milieu, there would be an insurance company that would stand in for the clan.

    I think this issue is illustrative of the differences between libertarians and Constitution Party members. It has also shown up on a number of conservative sites, including Ron Paul forums.

    I’m against the state on the matter of heavy handed border security. I’m against the drug war. I’m against the border patrol agents in this case. I have to imagine that they would not have been prosecuted if they were not extraordinarily unrepentant jerks, given how much emphasis the Bush administration gives to spending on Heimatlandsicherheitsdienst.

    It seems to me they were convicted by a jury in a reasonably fair trial. As LG notes, they are the sort of men who put other men and women in cages, so they don’t deserve much regard, in my opinion. I would be very surprised if they had exhausted all options for appeal. And I think pardoning them would be a slap in the face to each of those jurors for convicting these men of criminal wrongdoing.

    Such pardons would also send the signal that there are two classes of people. There are those in government who are always protected and allowed to commit crimes with impunity. Then there are the rest of us, who are a herd of animals being fed upon by vampire bats.

    I do not understand the Constitution Party members who fawn over these thugs. Does anyone from the Constitution Party care to take a crack at making a convincing case for these jerks?

  12. JimDavidson

    @10 Joseph, please read what LG wrote in 8. She is not in favor of Blackwater, nor is she in favor of releasing these thugs. She does not want them to get jobs in the pseudo-private sector hurting others. She is clearly not taking a statist position. Calling her a statist is an error, and an insult.

    You might do well to read more carefully before insulting people. Not that I mind, as I find you very colorful and bizarre.

  13. G.E.

    These men are not threats to society

    What makes you say that?

    They shot a guy in the ass because they were drunk on state power in their role as State Border Nazis. Take that away from them and I don’t see them committing armed robberies and whatnot.

  14. G.E.

    They would probably get a job as police officers, military contractors or security guards of some sort.

    As President, I have set the requirement that they get REAL (non-taxpayer funded) jobs as a term of their release. They can be private security guards — the firm that hires them would bear the responsibility. If they acted aggressively again, then the firm that empowered them to do so would be held recklessly liable.

    Either that or write books, go on the lecture circuit, talk radio

    So what?

    maybe run for office.

    I have the solution for this: abolish elections and government.

  15. paulie cannoli Post author

    I agree, as you know. I’m talking about what is likely to happen in the real world if they are pardoned, not what we would ideally like to see in utopia or eutopia.

  16. G.E.

    Well, I don’t support them being pardoned. I support them being released (having their sentences commuted) with certain stipulations. Okay, the government isn’t going to bar them from having a government job, but here’s a realistic proposal: “sentence commuted to lifetime suspended sentence wherein they shall not be allowed to use a firearm as part of their profession.” That’s reasonable and it makes sense. Some sort of civil judgment against them is also appropriate and not entirely unrealistic.

  17. LibertarianGirl

    Is there any crimes for which you support prison GE.?
    Murderers , rapists , molesters?

  18. Libertarian Joseph

    LG, in a voluntary society? Sure, prisons could exist.

    example:

    you join a society that says you die if you commit murder

    you commit murder and go through the court process and you are found guilty as charged

    you die

    that’s pretty legitimate.

  19. G.E.

    Is there any crimes for which you support prison GE.?
    Murderers , rapists , molesters?

    First and foremost, I support the private imprisonment of individuals who refuse to pay restitution to their victims.

    Murderers, rapists, and molesters should be made to pay restitution to their victims and their families. If they are threats, then yes, they should be imprisoned while making the payments (of which they’d probably never be able to pay off), but at their own expense — not at mine or the victim’s. And if the victims deems it so, then they should be executed.

    To LJ: You don’t have to be a member of a voluntary society to fall under the criminal jurisdiction of a private defense agency. If you commit an act of aggression, you are liable — whether you consent or not.

  20. TheOriginalAndy

    “Murderers, rapists, and molesters should be made to pay restitution to their victims and their families. If they are threats, then yes, they should be imprisoned while making the payments (of which they’d probably never be able to pay off), but at their own expense — not at mine or the victim’s. And if the victims deems it so, then they should be executed.”

    GE, a few weeks ago you made the comment that rapists should be casterated.

  21. LibertarianGirl

    GE:_First and foremost, I support the private imprisonment of individuals who refuse to pay restitution to their victims.

    so your saying those people who want to commit murder could do so , pay restitution and do it again provided he could pay again.
    and your saying poorer folk who committed the same crime as their rich counterparts would be ‘doin time’ at a seriously higher rate based solely on their inability to pay

    GE:_If they are threats, then yes, they should be imprisoned while making the payments

    Who would decide if the defendants were risks?

    GE:_of which they’d probably never be able to pay off), but at their own expense —

    So your saying one should go to prison for failure to pay a debt but not for murder and rape.
    and what about those ‘risky’ people who cant pay for prison , where do they go?

    when you say executed , for which crimes are you speaking?

  22. G.E.

    LG: In a free society, individuals would pay for anti-aggression insurance. If someone was a victim of a murder, his beneficiaries would be designated by contract. I might take out a $1 million murder policy, for example, which would probably cost me a few pennies a month. Then if I was murdered, my insurance company would pay my heirs. The insurance company would then set out to gain restitution from the perpetrator. They would seek the largest damages possible to make up for all of the murderers who are unable to pay the full value of a murder policy. In practice, the cost of murder would be the murderer’s life. No one could get away with killing again and again unless a jury let them. A billionaire murderer would lose all of his assets and be made to pay even more restitution. His execution would not be out of the question, either, depending on the contractual arrangements made by the murdered party.

    Your notion that the rich would murder more because they’d be able to pay is absurd. The rich get off for murder at a much higher rate NOW. The rich often get off scott free (see OJ, Robert Blake, etc.) under the current system. Still, there isn’t an epidemic of rich thrill killers. What’s more, the price of a life is the murderer’s life; at least, that’s how I voted on a jury.

    Who will decide if the convicted criminals are risks? The defense/insurance agency with whom he’s contracted (who will be liable for his future crimes). If he was uninsured and no one will take him on, then he’d be sentenced to a private prison.

    No, I’m not saying you’d go to prison for failure to pay a debt, and I’m not saying you wouldn’t go for murder or rape.

    Prisoners would be expected to pay for their own incarceration, in addition to damages to their victims (or their beneficiaries, i.e. the insurance firms). If they were unable to pay, they’d have to rely on charity or face the consequences. Why are you so (apparently) soft on crime? Why do you think rape victims should be made to pay for the room and board of their rapists? I don’t.

    Debtors would not be sent to prison unless they refused to pay their debts. Prisons would be refused for these people, or for people that private insurance agencies felt were too risky to insure “on the outside.” The choice of death as a punishment would be up to the victim and his/her family. For example, you could take out a policy that said if you were murdered, you want the perpetrator to be executed. Others, who are anti-death penalty, could go a different rout. The crime would be against an individual and not the state, so it’s up to the individual to decide.

    I also think a good case could be made for the legitimacy of executing serial rapists and child molesters. No insurance company would ever let these perverts on the outside (barring castration), and the victims could make the case that their lives had been destroyed by the criminals, etc.

    The point is: the thrust of justice should be restitution — not punishment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *