I do agree that many people dont realize their mistake on an issue till the principles are applied to their own selves. So far, I believe you follow me. I do agree that the sentence is long, however, I dont believe that anything can be done about it by the courts, the legislature having taken the issue away from the judge’s discretion. Whether everyone is agreement on this issue or not, there is nothing any court can do about it. If you are suggesting that courts should ignore the law and look to popular opinion in passing sentences, I disagree with you.

As to Presidential pardons, of the tens of thousands of federal convictions each year, the President usually pardons only a small handful. I doubt if the President will pardon, though it is certainly within his discretion to do so. If he does pardon R&C I would disagree with him because I oppose the idea of a Presidential pardon in principle for anyone. This power is a holdover from the era of sovreign kings, and does not belong in a democratic republic.

You have a good point in that both liberals and conservatives have supported mandatory sentencing in firearms cases. Liberals do this because they dont like guns, and conservatives do this because they worry that bleeding heart judges may be too soft on criminals. So in this particular matter of firearm use its true that the liberals and conservatives are on the same side. My point, however, is that the chickens have not come to roost for the liberals in this case, since they support the result. The chickens have come to roost for the conservatives, since they dont support the result. So, I am hopeful that conservative legislators will be more reluctant to take away judges’ discretion as a result of this case. Perhaps, a future case which the liberals dont like will convince liberal legislators likewise. I would like to see more discretion restored, and less mandatory sentencing. That would prevent a future situation where a BP agent who commits a crime gets a disproportionate sentence.

So as to our agreements or disagreements, I can see the following: We both agree that the sentence is too long. I trust the jury to have found facts correctly (with the knowledge that a few juries will err, it being human to do so), and support the convictions of R&C. To the best of my understanding, you are doubtful about the jury’s verdict.

Second point I’d like to make: Your point is predicated on the letter of the law. Well, the letter of the law also says the President has the authority to commute the sentence or to grant a full pardon. So not only should he do so — but you should be in agreement with me, that that’s what he should do. In short, I’m afraid I’ve lost track of what the point of disagreement is, and I don’t think there should be any.

Third: Enhanced sentences for possession and use of a firearm, are not a conservative idea. Look at the gorgeous young lady grinning away in the masthead — what’s in her hands? Conservatives like guns. Liberals hate ‘em. So your “chickens” argument, in a way, doesn’t wash. Liberals don’t like guns. They prefer anarchy over law and order. They hate borders. So far, this situation has served the liberal agenda just fine. It hasn’t done bubkes for conservatives, at any point.

I believe that mandatory sentences are a bad idea, since in specific circumstances there may be good reason to deviate from a suggested sentence. Traditionally, in criminal sentencing, judges have discretion within a range. The process is not arbitrary, judges have to follow sentencing guidelines which lay down how discretion can be used here.

However, once manadatory terms are set down in a statute, they have to be followed, judges dont have a choice, they cannot ignore the law. That’s why R&C were handed down what almost all agree are excessive sentences.

The folks in Congress who support mandatory sentences (and taking away discretion from judges) are largely conservatives. It is precisely these conservatives in Congress who are now howling that R&C got excessive sentences for the crimes that the jury found them guilty of. In that sense, the chickens have come home to roost for the conservative supporters of mandatory sentences.

Hope that makes my position clear.

OK, so the issue is one of facts. Facts are for a jury to decide, per our long-established common law tradition. This is not a perfect procedure. Juries can make mistakes, and even the common law procedure is not guaranteed to produce the exactly correct result each and every time. It is simply the best system so far produced by man to render justice on a mass scale, and we should always be open to ideas to keep improving this system. With all those caveats, the jury decided against Ramos and Compean.

As to the 11 and 12 years (as you likely know), 10 years of these are because the mandatory sentence which accompanies a firearm use in a crime. Most folks agree that this is excessive (I also agree that it is a lot). However, those in Congress howling loudest about the injustice to R&C are exactly the same folks who want lengthy mandatory sentences since they believe that liberal judges will otherwise be too lenient. Well their conservative chickens have come home to roost. If the law is revised to allow for a bit of discretion within a range, then that is all to the good. However, it wont do anything for R&C since a retroactive application to them will not likely be politically feasible.

Possible. I’d bet against it, but it’s still possible.

However, it should be noted that sound logic, plus sincere and honest motivations, plus errant facts equals an errant conclusion. A rotten fact-apple in the logic barrel spoils the whole logic barrel. Homeland Security was caught, by their own IG, putting out false information and it was false information that damaged the defense of Ramons and Compean.

What ELSE was not correct?

As I said, “nothing” is one possible answer. But I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it. I don’t know why I should choose to bet 11 and 12 years of these guys’ lives on it.

You have broadened the context far beyond my original point. All I see is that there was a crime committed by two BP officers who went way over the line, and that crime was found by the jury and punished by the court. I dont see any conspiracy theory at work here.

The BP has grown rapidly to a massive size. Lots of folks in the public are clamoring for action against the “illegals”, so many people in BP feel that they can be a bit harder on discretionary decisions in enforcement. Its not surprising that in this climate a couple of rotten apples go way beyond the line. That’s all I see.

I dont see any conspiracy theory where any group of people can make sacrifical lambs out of a couple of BP folks, and along the way force a DA to indict and prosecute, fool a jury and judge, and somehow bamboozle 3 judges on the 5th circuit court of appeals to look the other way.

Mein Fuhrer.

But this isn’t about which of us can Godwin the other first & last. This is about which climate can be created. Powerful, well-funded political forces want to create an environment in which, once it is simply suggested you were up to shenanigans, you’ll have to anticipate the authorities will believe it was so — IF you are a border patrol officer — so that our borders will not be patrolled.

Let’s be honest: That is what it is really all about. We KNOW there is a campaign to drum up false statements about Ramos and Compean. We know this. They’ve been caught red handed doing it. So it’s settled. It’s about which climate is to be created down by the border; law and order, or anarchy.

Unless you want to continue with the human-rights argument, in which case I’d have to respectfully ask you to provide a better substantiation of how the human rights of Ramos and Compean were respected and protected in this matter. Because I’m not seeing it. Big important people have a political desire for cheap and illegal labor, and R&C seem to be the sacrificial lambs to make it happen, unless you can provide a rugged, durable argument why I shouldn’t see it that way.

You say: “What kind of law is this that acts as a shelter for an illegal immigrant, trucking in hundreds of pounds of an illegal substance, multiple times?” The law is simple – you dont shoot at an unarmed fleeing man, law enforcement can only use deadly force when there is a direct threat to their lives or to others lives, there has to be justification to firing a weapon at a human being – the law does not permit law enforcement officers to shoot just because the whim struck them. But I guess for you anyone in uniform is always right, right Mein Fuhrer?