Harsh border agent sentences producing half-truths
The buzz over the border agent case (background here and here) continues to grow. CNN has a new segment about the case, entitled Border outrage, in which there are accusations that federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton has not been fully truthful about granting immunity to the Mexican drug smuggler shot by the border agents. The CNN piece also had various lawmakers suggesting that the government is covering up facts that might exonerate Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
Meanwhile, this news report from McClatchy Newspapers suggests President Bush in now misrepresenting his pardon power. According to the news report, in “an interview on the Fox television network Wednesday, Bush again said he is bound by strict federal guidelines on pardons and cannot immediately grant a pardon to the two agents.” Though the Justice Department has its own internal pardon protocols, there are no legally binding restrictions on the President’s pardon power and he can grant a pardon to any and all federal defendants at any time.
As I have said in post below, I think this case is fundamentally about the sad realities of mandatory minimums. I think there can be a very reasonable debate over whether the agents committed criminal acts justifying some punishment. Beyond debate, at least in my mind, is the notion that they deserve to be lcoked up for over a decade based on their behavior under these circumstances. But, as often happens, a clear sentencing problem is lost in an over-heated debate of other issues.
Related posts on border case injustices: