INVASION USA
Feinstein to Bush: Free Ramos, Compean
Decides after Senate hearing to ask president to commute sentences
Posted: July 17, 2007
10:02 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. |
Feinstein will have a letter delivered to the White House tomorrow, said spokesman Scott Gerber.
Following the Senate judiciary committee's examination of the controversial prosecution, according to Gerber, the senator said "it became very clear the sentences did not match the crime."
Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, after a jury convicted them of violating federal gun laws and covering up the shooting of a drug smuggler as he fled back to Mexico after driving across the border with 742 pounds of marijuana. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office gave the smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, immunity to serve as the government's star witness and testify against the border agents.
Feinstein concluded the hearing today with a vow to look further into why prosecutors charged the men under section 924(c) of the U.S. code, which requires a 10-year sentence for using or carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence.
(Story continues below)
Feinstein, during questioning of Sutton, argued the statute did not apply to Ramos and Compean in their pursuit of a drug smuggler at the Mexican border, because there was no underlying crime.
Gerber told WND that Feinstein has concluded the use of 924(c) was "prosecutorial overreach."
Revival of interest
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. – who will chair a similar hearing in the House July 31 – told WND he believed today's session helped revive flagging interest in the case as Ramos and Compean pass 180 days of imprisonment while awaiting their appeals.
 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. |
He would prefer a pardon, but said he is pleased Feinstein is taking action and finds it ironic a "liberal Democrat" would do more than some "squishy Republican senators."
"I was gratified and just overwhelmed with admiration for Sen. Feinstein, that she definitely is taking this issue seriously and decided she is going to step up and fight for these little guys that are being squashed," Rohrabacher told WND.
Rohrabacher asserted the hearing today "made clear this case is, on the face of it, rotten."
"I think it has a lot to do with an attitude in this administration that refuses to admit any mistakes and protects its own clique but nobody else," he said.
Many supporters of Ramos and Compean have argued that if the president could pardon or commute the sentence of former White House aide "Scooter" Libby, he should show mercy to border agents who were prosecuted while a drug smuggler went free. The president commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence earlier this month.
Rohrabacher told WND Sutton has refused to testify at the July 31 hearing of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The congressman will examine alleged involvement of the Mexican government in the decision to prosecute the agents and others, including Texas Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez. Sutton's Western District of Texas office also prosecuted Hernandez, who was convicted of violating the civil rights of two illegal aliens injured from shell fragments that struck them as the officer shot at the tires of a van in which they escaped from a routine traffic stop. The van driver had tried to run over Hernandez.
Rohrabacher said Sutton also has refused to provide information concerning a special visa, or transit pass, given to Aldrete-Davila in the immunity deal, allowing him to travel back and forth across the border. The congressman wants to know if the pass was used in an alleged second attempt by Aldrete-Davila to smuggle marijuana into the U.S., eight months after the February 2005 incident at the center of the case.
When confronted today with the fact information about the alleged second smuggling attempt was kept from the jury, Sutton argued the judge made the decision.
But Rohrabacher points out the prosecution initiated that demand. If the jury had known about the second attempt – an apparent violation of the immunity agreement – the panel likely would not have convicted the agents, the congressman believes.
The hearing has given Ramos and Compean new life, Rohrabacher said.
"It really looked like the issue would die, and we now have at least a fighting chance," he said. "But nothing will happen until the American people rise up in a righteous rage to save these guys."
Petitioning the White House
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a candidate for president, said in testimony today pardoning Ramos and Compean is the only way "to correct this terrible injustice."
"The men and women of the Border Patrol are certainly not above the laws they are empowered to enforce," Hunter said. "But they must also know that when they must apply the necessary and appropriate level of force, their government will not work aggressively to ensure they are punished while lawlessness is rewarded."
"This is not the case of the United States saying, we are not going to support people who go after drug dealers. Of course we are. We think it's incumbent to go after drug dealers, and we also think that it's vitally important to make sure that we provide border security so our people are secure," Snow said. "We also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law. And in a court of law, these two agents were convicted on 11 of 12 counts by a jury of their peers after a lengthy trial at which they did have the opportunity to make their case."
Later that month, amid growing criticism from congressmen and activists, WND learned the White House was opening up a line of communication with lawmakers and promised it would review a transcript of the trial.
Also at that time, Snow told WND the White House was trying to get the trial transcript, "so everybody can see what happened in trial, and we can try to discern the real facts of the case."
Yesterday, at the daily press briefing, Snow said he could not discuss any details related to a potential pardon or commutation.
Heated debate
In his prepared testimony today, Sutton acknowledged the case has been "the subject of widespread media attention and heated debate."
 U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton |
He insisted that since the convictions, "it has been clear that some individuals do not understand the facts of the case, while others are merely concerned with using it to make a point about some other issue, such as illegal immigration."
Sutton said he wanted to use the hearing to "set the record straight by discussing the ample facts already in the public record, but I will be limited to discussing only information in the public record."
After recounting the prosecution's view of the case, he concluded: "The prosecution of Compean and Ramos was about our commitment to the rule of law and about two former law enforcement officers who committed serious crimes. An honest reading of the facts of this case shows that Compean and Ramos deliberately shot at an unarmed man in the back without justification, destroyed evidence to cover it up, and lied about it. A jury heard the facts and voted to convict. Faithfulness to the rule of law required me to bring this case."
****************************************************************************************************************
 Russia claims that the entire swath of Arctic seabed in the triangle that ends at the North Pole belongs to Russia, but the United Nations Committee that administers the Law of the Sea Convention has so far refused to recognize Russia's claim to the entire Arctic seabed. In order to legally claim that Russia's economic zone in the Arctic extends far beyond the 200 mile zone, it is necessary to present viable scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean's sea shelf to the north of Russian shores is a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the 200 mile zone. It was rejected. |
for Russia Profile.org
Moscow, Russia (SPX) Jul 17, 2007
Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush spent most of their time at the "lobster summit" at Kennebunkport, Maine, discussing how to prevent the growing tensions between their two countries from getting out of hand. The media and international affairs experts have been portraying missile defense in Europe and the final status of Kosovo as the two most contentious issues between Russia and the United States, with mutual recriminations over "democracy standards" providing the background for the much anticipated onset of a new Cold War.
But while this may well be true for today, the stage has been quietly set for a much more serious confrontation in the non-too-distant future between Russia and the United States - along with Canada, Norway and Denmark.
Russia has recently laid claim to a vast 1,191,000 sq km (460,800 sq miles) chunk of the ice-covered Arctic seabed. The claim is not really about territory, but rather about the huge hydrocarbon reserves that are hidden on the seabed under the Arctic ice cap. These newly discovered energy reserves will play a crucial role in the global energy balance as the existing reserves of oil and gas are depleted over the next 20 years.
Russia has the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia, but its oil and gas production is slated to decline after 2010 as currently operational reserves dwindle. Russia's Natural Resources Ministry estimates that the country's existing oil reserves will be depleted by 2030.
The 2005 BP World Energy Survey projects that U.S. oil reserves will last another 10 years if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not opened for oil exploration, Norway's reserves are good for about seven years and British North Sea reserves will last no more than five years - which is why the Arctic reserves, which are still largely unexplored, will be of such crucial importance to the world's energy future. Scientists estimate that the territory contains more than 10 billion tons of gas and oil deposits. The shelf is about 200 meters (650 feet) deep and the challenges of extracting oil and gas there appear to be surmountable, particularly if the oil prices stay where they are now - over $70 a barrel.
The Kremlin wants to secure Russia's long-term dominance over global energy markets. To ensure this, Russia needs to find new sources of fuel and the Arctic seems like the only place left to go. But there is a problem: International law does not recognize Russia's right to the entire Arctic seabed north of the Russian coastline.
The 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a 12 mile zone for territorial waters and a larger 200 mile economic zone in which a country has exclusive drilling rights for hydrocarbon and other resources.
Russia claims that the entire swath of Arctic seabed in the triangle that ends at the North Pole belongs to Russia, but the United Nations Committee that administers the Law of the Sea Convention has so far refused to recognize Russia's claim to the entire Arctic seabed.
In order to legally claim that Russia's economic zone in the Arctic extends far beyond the 200 mile zone, it is necessary to present viable scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean's sea shelf to the north of Russian shores is a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the 200 mile zone. It was rejected.
Now Russian scientists assert there is new evidence that Russia's northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via an underwater shelf. Last week a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage to the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote eastern Arctic Ocean. They claimed the ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil- and gas-rich triangle.
The latest findings are likely to prompt Russia to lodge another bid at the UN to secure its rights over the Arctic sea shelf. If no other power challenges Russia's claim, it will likely go through unchallenged.
But Washington seems to have a different view and is seeking to block the anticipated Russian bid. On May 16, 2007, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made a statement encouraging the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, as the Bush Administration wants. The Reagan administration negotiated the Convention, but the Senate refused to ratify it for fear that it would unduly limit the U.S. freedom of action on the high seas.
Lugar used the following justification in his plea for the United States to ratify the convention: "Russia has used its rights under the convention to claim large parts of the Arctic Ocean in the hope of claiming potential oil and gas deposits that might become available as the polar ice cap recedes due to global warming. If the United States did not ratify the convention, Russia would be able to press its claims without the United States at the negotiating table. This would be directly damaging to U.S. national interests." President Bush urged the Senate to ratify the convention during its current session, which ends in 2008.
The United States has been jealous of Russia's attempts to project its dominance in the energy sector and has sought to limit opportunities for Russia to control export routes and energy deposits outside Russia's territory. But the Arctic shelf is something that Russia has traditionally regarded as its own. For decades, international powers have pressed no claims to Russia's Arctic sector for obvious reasons of remoteness and inhospitability, but no longer.
Now, as the world's major economic powers brace for the battle for the last barrel of oil, it is not surprising that the United States would seek to intrude on Russia's home turf. It is obvious that Moscow would try to resist this U.S. intrusion and would view any U.S. efforts to block Russia's claim to its Arctic sector as unfriendly and overtly provocative. Furthermore, such a policy would actually help the Kremlin justify its hardline position. It would certainly prove right Moscow's assertion that U.S. policy towards Russia is really driven by the desire to get guaranteed and privileged access to Russia's energy resources.
It promises to be a tough fight.
