Our View - Wednesday

Disorder on border
Agents simply wrong in shooting

The case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean - Border Patrol agents in Texas convicted in 2006 of shooting an illegal-immigrant drug smuggler as he headed back toward Mexico, and sentenced to 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively - has become a cause célèbre for activists concerned about illegal immigration. Supporters of the two men had hoped that the courts would throw out their convictions, but last week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the convictions, which leaves them lobbying the Bush administration for pardons or commutations.

To the agents' supporters, the case is an example of the U.S. government's refusal to take seriously illegal-immigration issues. People are outraged that those patrolling the border have been prosecuted for shooting (not fatally) a drug smuggler, and that the U.S. government actually gave that smuggler immunity to testify against the agents.

But if one gets past the emotions and looks at the specifics of the case, it's hard to draw broader immigration-policy issues from the prosecution or to be too critical of the government's prosecution. The prison terms are excessive, but that's a function of the mandatory minimum sentences Congress approved for the specific gun crime for which the two men were prosecuted.

For those who might have missed the story two years ago, the two agents chased a man near the Mexico-Texas border. As the smuggler headed back to Mexico, the court explained that "the agents gave chase, fired their weapons at him several times, and hit him once, but the wound did not prevent his escape into Mexico. After the incident, there was a ‘cover-up' - including a cleanup of the area of spent shells and failure by the two agents to report the weaponfiring incident, as plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies. ... It is well-established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit officers to shoot a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a threat to the physical safety of the officers or to the public."

The agents argued that they felt threatened, but the jury didn't buy the argument. The case ultimately centered on which version of events the jury believed. So the court found no reason to overturn the convictions, although it did vacate one lesser conviction for tampering with an official proceeding.

The courts understand that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Border Patrol agents, police, deputies or federal officers to fire at fleeing suspects and to cover up evidence. In reality, this issue doesn't have much to say about immigration policy, although it touches on the topic of mandatory minimum sentences.

A commutation of their sentences to something less Draconian might be appropriate, but they certainly shouldn't be pardoned.

What he really did wrong

It is ironic how often great malefactors get tripped up on matters that seem picayune by comparison. Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens has for decades had a reputation as one of the most shame-, unapologetic pork Congress.

Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the Senate - since 1968 - acts as if his main mission is to raid the federal Treasury for the benefit of friends and special interests in Alaska. The most blatant example of course, was the unnecessary and inordinately expensive "bridge to nowhere," from a small town to a virtually uninhabited island that he wanted federal taxpayers to fund. Between 1999 and 2007, he brought some $3 billion in earmarks to various Alaska projects.

So what does he get nailed for in a seven-count federal grand jury indictment handed down last week? Failing to report a bunch of work done for free on a vacation home in the small ski resort in Girdwood, southeast of Anchorage.

To be sure, it was extensive work. The first floor was put on stilts so a new ffirst floor could be built, along with a fancy wraparound deck, a new garage, a premium gas grill, plumbing, electrical, and trading an old Ford for a new Land Rover for one of his kids. It amounted to $250,000 worth of renovation.

The work was allegedly done by Veco, an oil services company, with whom the senator met about projects in Pakistan and Russia and about "multiple federal grants and contracts to benefit Veco," according to the indictment.

But Stevens wasn't even charged with accepting bribes, simply for not reporting these gifts on his annual financial disclosure forms. Compared to the billions of dollars he's snagged for projects of dubious worth in Alaska - being chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee when the GOP had a majority didn't hurt - it's pennyante.

Perhaps it shows that when it comes to politicians, the most reprehensible things they do are the things that are perfectly legal.

A crisis in trade?

The final failure of the so-called Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations recently has been described as a crisis in trade policy and even in the headline to a Wall Street Journal editorial, as "the end of free trade."

The best hope might be that while politicians posture about the harm that unregulated trade does to certain sectors of an economy, at some level they know such faux-populist rhetoric is pure poppycock. Behind the scenes, one might hope, they will at least not do too much harm to the international trading system.

Denouncing free trade is seen as politically valuable in almost every country of the world. In the U.S., Democratic politicians serving the narrow interests of trade unions are seen as gallant protectors of the "little people." In India, Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, the single individual most directly responsible for scuttling the Doha Round talks, is greeted at home as a conquering hero who bravely stood up to the United States and Europe.

It's a shame ignorance about trade is so pervasive that politicians believe they have to pander to anti-trade sentiments, especially since international trade is probably the single most effective anti-poverty program ever devised. The countries that traded the least have seen their economies stagnate and poverty remain pervasive.

While the Doha Round of talks under the World Trade Organization - which began in 2001 - were stagnating and eventually failing, hundreds of countries around the world reduced tariffs and administrative barriers to freer trade.

"In a just-in-time world, countries are competing for investment and talent, so they need to be fairly frictionless," said Daniel Ikenson, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

So even as some ministers are denouncing free trade as an imperialist ploy, they have been streamlining their trading procedures.

Even as India's commerce minister cultivates an image as a brave defier of former colonial powers, India has reduced tariffs and other barriers steadily over the last decade.

Maybe reality is winning despite political pandering.