The Ramos and Campean Case: A lesson in Demagoguery
March 2nd, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |On a February afternoon on the lonely Texas/Mexico border, two border patrol agents fired 15 times on an unarmed marijuana smuggler as he ran for his life. The two agents then attempted to cover up what had happened. Hit in the buttocks, the smuggler limped back home to Mexico, where he told his mother what had happened. Small world that it is, it just so happens that the smuggler’s mother was a friend of the mother-in-law of the DHS Inspector General in El Paso. Two weeks after the shooting, the smuggler’s mother called the Inspector General’s mother-in-law and a Pandora’s Box of demagoguery was opened. I’m anxiously waiting for the Bob Dylan song.
Two years later, following the arrest, conviction and incarceration of the two border patrol agents (one of whom was apparently assaulted in prison) a movement borne of that event continues to tumbleweed out of the Texas desert. FOX News, WorldNetDaily, the Washington Times, GOPUSA, the John Birch Society, the New American, Free Market News Network, The Conservative Voice, and so on, have devoted endless coverage of this movement and it’s impetus, though not much about the event that led to it. And what are they reporting?
FOXNews.com, March 1, 2007
The Mexican drug runner whose testimony sent two Border Patrol agents to prison for shooting him in the buttocks brought drugs into the United States more than once, thereby diminishing his credibility as a witness in the investigation, according to a California congressman.
It’s an interesting story, no doubt, but how this pulls the bullet out of the smuggler’s behind is beyond me. And we are, after all, only talkng about marijuana, as opposed to say guns or cocaine or slaves. Smuggling weed is not, and should not be, a capital offense.
The Washington Times, February 10, 2007
False allegations in border case
…During the course of the investigation, the officials claimed, the agents had stated that at no point during the incident were they in fear for their lives and that they were out “to shoot a Mexican.”
…But neither charge against Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean is supported by the DHS inspector general’s report, released this week after four months and numerous congressional requests.
…DHS officials should have taken more care not to mislead.
But from the trial, as reported in the Washington Post…
Compean did tell at least two other agents that he fired at the driver. One was Art Vasquez, who testified that Compean asked him to look for additional shell casings. Vasquez testified that he found five and tossed them into the murky ditch, then called Compean to tell him he’d thrown them away.
“So you destroyed the scene for someone that you worked with?” prosecutor Debra Kanof asked him at trial.
“Yes, ma’am.”
Vasquez, the two supervisors and other agents on scene all testified that neither Compean nor Ramos ever told them that the suspect pulled a gun or had something that looked like a gun. If Aldrete had been armed, the others testified, Compean and Ramos should have called out a warning.
The feds did, however, retract the assertion, for lack of evidence, that the two border patrolmen were out “to shoot a Mexican,” a rumor that has been floating around since the shooting.
Now, the Main Stream Conservative Media may be playing a little fast and loose with the facts, but that’s nothing compared to what’s going on among the lunatic fringe on the blogosphere…
“Persecuted because they were doing their jobs.”
“The two Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Campean, have been framed by the Department of Homeland Security.”
“(They’re going for the bottom of the scum bucket, hoping the sheeples will take the bait. IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH and his GESTAPO HEAD ALBERTO GONZALES!)”
Yes, they’re even talking impeachment. Dana Rohrabacher, the staunch anti-immigration Republican congressman from California, said, “I tell you, Mr. President, if these men — especially after this assault — are murdered in prison, if one of them lose their lives, there’s going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill,…”
An entire psuedo-grassroots movement has sprung from this case. Fed by the rightwing media (ex-lib David Horowitz’ FrontPage magazine named the two patrolmen “People of the Year,” this past January), and rightwing pols like Rohrabacher, Ted “and that’s the way it is” Poe, and other professional immigrant bashers, it continues to gather angry steam. And though Ramos and Campean were duly tried and convicted in an American court by a jury of their peers, in the comic book universe of the American Right, this case has nothing to do with attempted homocide, and everything to do with illegal immigration.
I do agree with this bunch on two points, however. 1 - The sentences were awfully harsh. Yes, they could have killed the man, but they did not. A few years, as opposed to more than a decade, would have sufficed. 2 - The government had better make sure these two men are safe, especially from certain convicted aliens of certain ethnicities. If these men are assualted, or even come close to being assaulted again, then perhaps Bush should pardon them afterall. But let’s remember this, Ramos and Campean shot an unarmed marijuana smuggler fleeing for his life and then covered it up. If the smuggler was armed, they should have said something at the time. But the smuggler was shot in the bum. He was obviously running away. And, as no gun was ever found, the likelyhood of his being armed at the time is negligible.
And as for “just doing their jobs,” one of the jurors summed that up rather well…
“This thing, `They were just doing their job.’ Well, what kind of job were they doing?”
The Right is oft heard decrying illegal immigration because the immigrants should not be “rewarded” for breaking the law. They remind us that we are “a nation of laws.” They say that we are founded by “truths” with freedoms given by “God.” They say we should strictly observe the laws and the Constitution. They say that if we don’t like a law, we should change it, not break it. They tell us that “morality” and “values” should govern our actions, and that we should be “consistent” in our actions and words . Well, there was nothing lawful, truthful, Godly, Constitutional, moral, valuable, or consistent about what these two border patrolmen did. They made a terrible mistake and they are serving the draconian sentences that were insisted by the America Right for everyone. If you don’t like what has happened to these men, you have only your paranoid, jingoist, anti-marijuana, authoritarian, xenophobic selves to blame.
JMJ
23 Responses to “The Ramos and Campean Case: A lesson in Demagoguery”
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
It does appear as though the border patrol agents inappropriately discharged their weapons and their taking steps to cover up the shooting shows knowledge on the agents’ part that the shooting was inappropriate. I don’t second guess the jury’s finding of guilt in the case.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
And what’s with crazy ol “lou Dobbs jumping on this thing. I mean, I can see Hannity et al, but Lou? Wierd. This immigration thing is like Israel - ya’ just can’t makes sense out of the melees.
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Been following this since I first heard about it last summer. A few comments I’d like to make-
1- Drug smugglers who sneak across the border are likely to be armed with some type of weapon.
2- The place of entry was one used by previous drug smugglers. Indeed, the person shot in the ass was smuggling drugs, And was caught doing so again before the trial of the agents. The government decided to ignore all charges to secure his testimony against the agents.
3- Reports that I have heard say that as the man was fleeing back to cross the border, he did have something in his hand that the agents mistook for a weapon, and that the smuggler turned slightly towards them as he ran off.
4- Prior drug smuggling across the border in Texas has erupted into gun fights between BP and Mexican drug smugglers.
Were these agents right to fear for their safety? I think so. Did they try to “cover up” the actions? It seems so. However, after the sentencing, several government claims have been refuted by the government itself, even admitting to a congressional panel that lies were told.
It seems that BP policy doesn’t actually permit agents to chase an illegal entrant. That these guys did was a breaking of that rule. But they felt threatened and they shot.
JMJ says, “If you don’t like what has happened to these men, you have only your paranoid, jingoist, anti-marijuana, authoritarian, xenophobic selves to blame.”
Well JMJ, I am not paranoid or xenophobic or authoritarian. I am against the marijuana prohibition. And I still don’t like whwat happened to these agents. I think they were railroaded by the Bush Justice Dept. to send a message to all BP agents that the border is not to be protected, that open borders are the desire of Bush and his right coalition of corporations, and that defending the border will get you in a lot of trouble. This case and this sentence has sent shock waves through the BP so that agents are very wary of what they can even do. I must ask, if this is the state of border security, why even bother?
By REB 84 on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
“Reports that I have heard …” Would that sort of statement hold up in a jury trial?
By Jersey McJones on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
1 - “Likely” to be armed isn’t actually being armed.
2 - Immunizing witnesses is nothing new. It’s common, in fact. And obviously, this is hwat the man does for a living. We may not like it, but that’s the way it goes. Look at “The Bull” Gravano. He was caught making meth in his FBI hide out! How’s that for flaunting the law! But, in the end, it is not really relevent to the story, Ken. If you read some of the better synopses of this, you’d see that Alvete could well have been killed and the story could well have come out anyway and the other BP witnesses backed his story.
3 - If they thought they saw a weapon, why didn’t they warn the other agents? These guys were veteran agents. They well knew the procedure for shouting a warning when they see a weapon. On top of that, the other agenst heard nothing about possibly seeing a weapon until well after the event.
4 - It does happen, true. And Ramos and Campean have both engaged in shootings, 4 of them fatal, in the past. All of them were “good shoots.” So why did they cover this one up?
The only “lie” that I heard was the unsubstantiated rumor that had been around for some time that the two agents were out “to shoot a Mexican” that day. The government retracted that “evidence.” All the other “lies” I have seen are spurrious semtantic critiques.
When a man gets shot in the ass at a distance, that’s enough proof for me, and any sane jury, that the shooter was not, and did not feel, they were in any danger.
If you think murdering aliens just for running away is okay, then I just don’t know what to say to you, Ken. First of all, they didn’t know, at the time, that this guy was even “illegal!” He could have been anyone! Look, if you think what they did is justifiable, then why not send the agents out and shoot all the people that hire these aliens to mow their lawns if they try to run away?
JMJ
By SteveIL on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know REB. Do you think that an investigation due to a hunch is warranted, or are you willing to let Border Patrol agents rot in prison if it turns out they were wrongly sentenced, or even wrongly convicted? I don’t think Ken was making his statement as if he believed it was going to hold up in court.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, if you have read a lot about the story, you tell me - do you think it’s warrented?
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
JMJ- I’m not sure how you take my comments and turn them into “If you think murdering aliens just for running away is okay, then I just don’t know what to say to you, Ken.”
I never once said that murdering anyone is okay. I am only positing that perhaps these agents felt threatened enough for whatever reason to do what they did. And your note that “they didn’t even know if the guy was illegal” is a bit of a out there too for me. I mean c’mon JMJ, what would you have assumed in that position? Probably that he was an illegal smuggler. Regardless of that bit of data, this was clearly a person breaking a law and told to stop by BP agents. The rest stems from there. Do not BP agents have a duty to enforce laws along the border? An illegal crossing is an illegal crossing regardless of who does it.
1- Likely to be armed is just that- likely. If a hundren people come to your house and throw rocks at your windows, and then #101 comes up holding what looks to be a rock, might you not assume that they are ‘likely’ to throw that rock and perhaps take action to stop them?
2- I’m not saying that these guys didn’t try to hide this action initially, only that these are both decorated BP agents, one of them was BP Agent of the Year, and yet the gov’t chooses to take the word of a convicted felon over theirs. Sure, good people do bad things- but I question the zeal of the Justice Dept to send these guys down for a long term. What is the real message being sent here, and to whom?
3-These two agents were not in a group of agents, to my knowledge. They were tracking a suspect and even (I think) got separated themselves. Who were they supposed to ‘alert’? The trees? Were they supposed to stop pursuit in order to inform all agents in the vicinity that this suspect may have a weapon? Oh wait…BP isn’t even supposed to pursue. Silly job they have, no?
4-This was ‘covered up’ by these men because (1) the smuggler was not apprehended and they couldn’t have known they even hit him, and (2) because they broke a rule by pursuing and discharged a weapon but had no proof to back up their story. It was wrong to hide the actions, as they would probably have received little reprimand had they told the truth.
If the government knowingly lied about that bit of ‘evidence’ isn’t the whole case suspect? And if the jury heard that ‘evidence’ and it was a primal cause towards the verdict, then shouldn’t a new trial be given at the very least? As for the spurious semantic lies, that is the way Team Bush operates. It is odd to me how you can side with them in this case while railing against their other ’semantic’ errors. Can we just wash away the lies about Iraq as semantic errors now too?
We disagree on this issue- fine. I still think well of you and agree with you frequently. But let’s don’t get all crazy with the back and forth here. I hardly support wanton killing of anyone.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Ken, I don’t think what I said was any more of a leap than ” I think they were railroaded by the Bush Justice Dept. to send a message to all BP agents that the border is not to be protected,” which sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and if there’s one thing about the Bushes - they are not good at keeping things like that secret. The point I was making was that we can’t have a free society if we allow law enforcement to get too trigger-happy.
The BP’s in question did not enforce the law. They broke the law. And now they are in prison, sent there by a jury of their peers. If they had followed the law, they’d have been honest and filled out a report that showed what they did. Instead, they chose to cover it up. They knew they broke the law. Do you?
1 - The number of shootings per immigrant is very small. But there is danger, yes. But to use 100/101 is ridiculous.
2 - Ken, I don;t think you’ve read much about the case. There was a lot more evidence than just the word of Alvete - including the words of other agents. And the gov’t didn’t “chose” anything. The men were convicted by a jury of their peers.
3 - Before we continue with this, I would seriously advise you to read more about it.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Immunizing witnesses may be common practice, but that doesn’t mean we need to like it. I do think the border patrol agents acted improperly, as evidenced by their actions to cover up the shooting, but that doesn’t mean that I like the fact that a drug-runner was not prosecuted for his illegal activities. Whatever one thinks of the drug laws, the fact that they are currently the law made driving that truck full of mj illegal and he should have been prosecuted, not immunized.
By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Well Jersey, I wrote initially on this last August, here.
And most of my reference comes from information fro a reporter in texas who has been digging into this for some time. Here is one of her initial articles, along with a time line of other developments.
Here is an article about how jurors in the case say they were misled. At least three jurors were not so sure about handing down a guilty verdict. Not exactly a slam dunk verdict after all.
Here is an quote from a letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to AG Gonzales regarding the matter:
“I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme given the criminal background of Mr. Aldrete-Davila and his possession of large quantities of drugs, and given the fact that Mr. Aldrete-Davila had physically resisted at least one attempt by agents Ramos and Compean to bring him into custody,” Feinstein wrote in her letter to Gonzales.
“In addition, to my knowledge, neither of the agents had prior convictions or any other aggravating circumstances to warrant particularly harsh treatment under the law. Yet these men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn’t receive.”
Just because we’re reading different things doesn’t mean I’m clueless about this situation.
And no, I’m asserting no particular conspiracy theory about this having a chilling effect on the BP- several of them have said so in radio interviews I’ve heard. And it is pretty hard to claim that Bush has taken few efforts to make border security effective. That they broke the rules of the BP policy is not in doubt. But these are not career criminals here or even corrupt politicians. They are not racist Mexican hunters or PTSD wracked troops who go berserk in a war zone. They certainly aren’t deserving of a decade in prison where they are beaten up by illegal immigrant criminals bent on vengeance against the BP.
The number of shootings by non-criminal illegal immigrants is small, yes. The number of shootings by drug crime smugglers is not so small. And these agents had good reason to suspect drug smuggling and danger. And those other agents who testified? Two have been fired for changing their story several times. In fact, it seems that all the agents at the scene may have been engaged in the cover-up, including the two on site supervisors. Why are they not charged as well?
BTW- the smuggler’s name is Aldrete-Davila, not Alvete.
Maybe you should do some more reading too.
By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
And for the record, I do think that the drug laws (especially with regard to cannabis) are stupid and need to be revoked/revised so that this kind of crap (worrying about armed smugglers) isn’t even an issue at all.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Craig, if they didn’t immunize him, he’d never have returned, and two BPs who were acting beyond the law may well have continued to break the law.
Ken, I agree that the sentences were draconian, as I wrote above, though I also pointed out the irony that such draconian sentencing comes from the whims of the very types of people that are demagoging this story.
Yes, it’s Aldrete. That’s what happens when I write off the top of my head. I try to do that, though, intentionally, so as to be as honest and forthright as possible and to avoid the common charge of plagiarism.
Ken, I’m sure you’re familiar with the case, and lord knows it’s a touchy one. But the law was broken, the act was covered up, other agents were dragged into it, and the very foundations of our liberty as Americans is to be safe from abuse from our government - especially when it comes to life and death. That this man was a smuggler, or an “illegal,” is not relevent to any of this. The only thing that is relevent is that these two men shot an unarmed man who was fleeing for his life. That’s all the jury needed to know.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Sounds to me like there was plenty of evidence that these guys had exceeded their authority, surely enough to see to it that they did not continue to break the law. As for the guy with the bullet in his bum, those are the risks one takes when illegally entering our country with a truck load of an illegal substance. Did what he did deserve a bullet? No. Did that have to be something he had to consider might happen if he got caught with a truck full of Marijuana and then fled custody? You bet. If it keeps him in his own country and discourages him from trying it again, good. But what are the chances that immunizing him from prosecution and providing him healthcare in US hospitals (and, how much do you want to bet, giving him a large law suit settlement from these two agents and the US federal government) to boot will discourage him or others from trying it again? It’s almost as if we really aren’t serious about discouraging illegal drug trafficking.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, remember. This guy was in custody. It was running that got him shot, rightly or wrongly. Criminals don’t have a right to flee custody.
By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
“It’s almost as if we really aren’t serious about discouraging illegal drug trafficking.”
LMAO Craig.
let’s add that we’re not serious about reducing illegal immigration either.
I would also add to this thread that the evidence is not without flaws in this case- agents have given contradicting accounts…government witness assertions have been shown false, jurors were unclear about whether they could have a hung verdict, etc.
Rules were broken by the BP guys-but the rules are pretty strange to begin with- BP can’t pursue border violators? Why have them there at all then?
This was not a malicious shooting IMO, and should not have been treated as such.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
Certainly not this administration.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
Well, at least here on BIO we were able to have an honest debate without going insane as we’ve seen with this subject most everywhere else!
JMJ
By manapp99 on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
Craig:
“Certainly not this administration”
Not any administration.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Yeh. That’s one of the great things about BIO! About the only topic that routinely brings out nutzoids and hate-mongers is Zionism.
Manapp99,
That was my first thought but I don’t know that that’s the case so I didn’t say it.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
Guys, there’s not going to be an administration that pushes back against illegal immigration until we have an immigration policy that is realistic.
JMJ
By Matt on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
The border agent thought he had a gun, and for good reason, most drug runners in that area do carry guns. The agent had every reason in the world to think he did and if he turned and the agent saw something, he should be allowed to shoot. After all, he is a foreign national who forced his way into another country. And we have thousands doing it and maybe half are coming to work. The rest are bringing drugs and crime with them. Why on earth would an American want to subject their own country and children to that? America is the only place on earth where this is permitted and even provide services and education for your kids if you can make it but we get no credit for that. Why some people think that letting 15 million more in will make people like us, I don’t know. I hasen’t in the past and history is bound to repeat itself. If we put as much pressure on Mexico to reform it’s corrupt government as the left does, trying to convince us that income tax on $8/hr makes up for schooling and other stuff, EVERYBODY would be better off. Well I guess it’s all for not anyway because GWB is happy to have people like Sutton force all that extra strain on the country on all of us, white/black, democrat/republican and women/men. Open wide America, it’ll hurt less. You’ve collectively voted for the government shove it down your throat.