Weekly Digest: Subscribe/Unsubscribe 

Home / Letters to Editor / Announcements / Columnists / Past Issues / About Us / Contact Us/VivaBeisbol

HispanicVista Columnists

Should Border Patrol agents be exempt from criminal prosecution?

By Patrick Osio, Jr./HispanicVista.com

  March 1, 2007

 

  

Should Border Patrol agents be exempt from criminal prosecution?

By Patrick Osio, Jr

      When the principles, “We must support law enforcement officers,” conflict with, “We are a nation of laws,” which should we turn our backs on? If an officer is accused of committing a crime, should we support the officer, dismissing the accusation or should such officer stand trial in keeping with an obligation to law?

In Iraq we faced the conflict with prison guards who were accused and found guilty of prisoner abuse. We are also facing the same type of conflict with soldiers who are accused of rape and murdering non combatant Iraq civilians. On an almost daily basis in some city throughout the nation, this question is faced, as for instance happened in New York where police officers were accused of beating and sodomizing a prisoner with a broom-stick.

As sad and unsavory the conflict of principles, and as much as we would like to support our protectors, there is a realization that the rule of law must prevail if the nation is to continue its glorious journey.

We are again faced with such a conflict, this time however, there is a different twist, added is the principle, “We must protect our borders,” tied to “We must support law enforcement officers.” 

This new conflict of principles has brought about a bevy of Congressmen, most conservative radio and television program hosts, and conservative news print media and their columnists – all wanting an exception to the “rule of law” for the benefit of  two law enforcement Border Patrol officers accused and convicted by a jury of US citizens of a crime against a suspected drug smuggler and of attempting to cover their crime.

Those wanting an exception demand the officers be released, the conviction set aside, that President Bush grants them a pardon.

There were no cries, no ranting and ravings on networks, no demands to set aside convictions or talk of presidential pardons concerning the convictions of soldiers in Iraq or police officers accused of crimes anywhere.

So what is the difference now?

That difference is that we are now talking about a Mexican. To be sure a Mexican criminal, but there have been many instances where criminals were abused by police enforcement officials without the ferocity of rhetoric demanding the officers be exculpated from their crime. So the only real difference is that the crimes occurred at the US-Mexico border and the “victim” of the crime was Mexican. How else to explain it?

The cries include that false evidence was presented, that the Mexican government demanded the prosecution of the Border Patrol agents, that President Bush is selling out the country’s sovereignty to Mexico, and on an on it goes. So to prove this was wrong nothing short of a pardon is demanded.

As a nation of laws, every accused has the Constitutional right to a trial by jury. The Border Patrol agents were tried by a jury. Defendants enter trial as innocent and it fall on the prosecutor representing the people, in this case the people of the United States, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the innocent defendant are guilty of the crime or crimes accused.

The defendants have a right to legal counsel representing their rights and are able to rebuttal the allegations and impeach the evidence. Attorney for the defense can also question witnesses put on the stand by prosecutors and attempt to prove their testimony faulty, wrong or outright lies, plus the defense can also present evidence to the contrary and call its own witnesses.

The jury hears all the evidence and the defense’s rebuttals and then deliberates. In the case of the two Border Patrol agents, the finding was guilty. The officers were sentenced to jail.

Then all hell broke loose. The rhetoric goes as far as accusing other Border Patrol agents who witnessed the crimes and testified against the two fellow officers of being the guilty, bought off by the federal prosecutors – in other words the two committing the crimes against a Mexican are innocent, but the witnesses are guilty. Is this absurd or what?

Were the attorneys defending the Border Patrol agents incompetent? The grant them pardon crowd does not bring this up. Did the defendants receive a fair trial? According to the screamers, no. And why no? – because they were found guilty. Had they been found innocent, it would have been a fair trial.

Then there are the screams that the Mexican criminal is not being prosecuted and should be. Which is precisely one of the crimes committed by the Border Patrol agents who in covering up their crime, destroyed the evidence which could have been used to try the Mexican smuggler.

“What part of illegal don’t you understand?” along with “We are a nation of laws,” has long been one of the favored end-it-all bottom line mantras of most of those screaming for an exception from "illegal" and "nation of laws" when it comes to a Mexican at the border.

______________________________________________________________________

Patrick Osio, Jr. is the Editor of HispanicVista (www.hispanicvista.com) and columnist with the San Diego Metropolitan Magazine (www.sandiegometro.com).

 

(The opinions expressed by Patrick Osio, Jr. are solely his and do not necessarily reflect those of HispanicVista.com, editorial board of advisors or it’s contributing writers.)

Patrick Osio, Jr. has written a short but intensive manual on the Mexican perspective on numerous issues between our two countries. The manual is an in depth primer on the culture and protocol for better understanding Mexicans that in turn allows establishing personal and business relationships, and how to avoid the most common faux pas that can ruin relationships and business deals.

The manual is available through Electronic delivery for $9.95 making it possible to download the manual for save on your hard drive, printing its entirety or particular sections while reaping considerable savings over printed copies.