Editorial by John Ziegler

Questions to Ponder About the Ramos and Compean Saga


Every rational person agrees that the case of former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, who are now serving sentences of eleven and twelve years respectively for actions related to their confronting an illegal alien drug smuggler, is full of gross injustice. After that, it seems almost everything about the case that we think we know is murky and disputed at best. It seems each side has picked and chosen their own set of 'facts' and interpretations to suit what they already wanted to believe about everything from our immigration policy to the personal character (or lack thereof) of President Bush.

While I do not claim to know exactly what the exact 'truth' is regarding this case (nor do I think anyone else does either) I do think that there are some questions that those who believe that Ramos and Compean are railroaded heroes ought to consider.

For instance:

Why did at least three other Border Patrol agents who witnessed most if not all of the incident testify against them and say that they saw no reason for anyone to feel endangered? (Yes, they received immunity, but does that mean they are lying or had any more incentive to lie about what happened than Ramos and Compean did?).

Why did they fire 15 shots (15??!!) at a guy who never shot at them and against whom the only evidence that he was carrying a gun is the testimony of the former agents who had an obvious incentive to claim that he was?

Why did they pick up the shells casings from their gun shots if they did nothing wrong?

If the Feds were so out to 'get' and 'make an example' out of Ramos and Compean why did they offer them a one-year plea bargain deal SIX different times?

If the three jurors who have said they felt rushed into the verdict and that they MAY have voted Not Guilty on SOME of the charges if they had more time feel that this was SUCH an injustice, why is it that they have either stopped doing interviews or have stopped being asked by those who want to raise doubts about the verdict?

Why is it that this case is not even considered that big a deal in El Paso where it actually happened?

Why is it that the same mainstream media and Democratic Party which use anything they possibly can to bash President Bush on things had nothing to do with (Katrina, UAE Port Deal, etc.) have been almost totally silent on this issue, even when it could make them look good and tough on the border?

Why is it that some of those fueling the outrage over this case have suddenly decided that Jerome Corsi (of John Kerry "Swift Boat" fame) who they derided then as not being credible is now suddenly Edward R. Morrow?

Why won't those same people tell you that the "Out to kill Mexicans" claim that it now appears Homeland Security lied about having information to back it up, was never an issue or even presented in the trial?

Why is it that the details of the prison beating of Ramos are so sketchy and is it just a coincidence that this happens just before a devastating report that concluded (independent of the trial) that the two former Border Patrol agents did in fact fail to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators?

I am as outraged as anyone that an illegal alien drug smuggler is benefiting greatly from his actions and that a horrible and chilling message has been sent to our Border Patrol agents, but there has always been something about the reaction to this case that has not made sense to me. Even though I have received a lot of heat for raising these legitimate questions I am doing so only because I wish to get to some understanding of the truth.

Return to Editorials >>

Search JohnZiegler.com