Thread: Feinstein to Bush: Free Ramos, Compean

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



After presiding over a Senate hearing today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has decided to ask President Bush to commute the sentences of former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, an aide for the California Democrat told WND.

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.

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.


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."

In mid-January, White House spokesman Tony Snow said people lobbying for a presidential pardon or any other intervention on behalf of the agents should review the evidence.

"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."

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."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=56727

I HAVE A FEELING RAMOS AND CAMPEON WILL SOON BE FREE.

If the agents did covered up the incident then they are at fault and should be held accountable. If they had followed the law and filed a correct report even if they had shot the smuggler they would not be in the mess.

Johnny Sutten had to do his job and follow the rule of law, the evidence and that is is what he did. I do not think, after listening to him this morning on C-Span, that he did anything wrong. He follow the law and if he had done otherwise he would not have been doing his job. We are damming him for doing his job and we damn others for not doing their job.

We have a lot of empathy for the agents and as we well know some of the agents are not squeaky clean and are on the take. Putting that aside, the agents tried to cover it up and the did a bad of job of doing that. Not fully knowing the rule of law, I do think the sentence was too much for the act committed.

Following talk shows and the not getting all the facts, I had come to the desision that Johnny Sutton was the bad guy and had it in for the agents and that simply is not true.

This is not a case of who is the bad guys and who is the good guy. Many bad guys have walked because the good guys have not done their jobs properly. We see the agents as the good guys and the smuggler as the bad guy and we are right. Altho the law is not always followed, we should follow it as closely as possible. I always thought we were a nation of laws and laws are make to be followed.

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.

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."

dyehard39:

At a minimum, here is the problem...a misapplication of the law to their case. More will come out. The Bush administration and Mexico pressed for their convictions with the largest sentence possible to send a message to the Border Control of "hands off illegal aliens. Do not pursue and apprehend. If you do, any controversy that can be applied to you, as an agent used during the altercation will be cause for prosecution." It is meant as a deterrent and morale breaker toward the Border Control. Another tool used by Bush in his open borders agenda. Another example of Bush's open borders..the assignment of National Guard to the border with no authority to carry weapons and make arrests or apprehensions.

dyehard, i couldnt disagree with you more.

The things the agents did or did not do were all border patrol violations subject to reprimand or at most 5 day suspensions.

Mr. sutton continues to say the doper was shot in the back yet everything proves otherwise. he was shot in the asscheek and the bullet lodged in the thigh.

mr. sutton was never at the trial until the day of the sentencing. all of this was done by the people who work under him in el paso. they also went out of their way to keep information out of the hands of jurors. (IE the second drug bust)

we are damning sutton because he takes the word of an admitted dope runner who had been running dope for 14 years.
we are damning sutton for not going after the doper when he ADMITTED to another B pagent in AZ that he was indeed smuggling that day... and six days later immunity was given...

mr sutton and his office in el paso did have it in for the agents and that is shown big time, the vigorous way he went after them has shown that his office was after them.

lets also remember the three agents were given immunity for their testimony and in the transscript i have read, the agents who have been fired did lie on their statements at one time or another and said so.
so you threaten anyone with prosecution and then offer immunity, then your liable to get them to say what you want them to say

Originally Posted by zeezil

The Bush administration and Mexico pressed for their convictions with the largest sentence possible to send a message to the Border Control of "hands off illegal aliens.

Which is why it is HIGHLY unlikely that Bush will commute the sentences.
I hate to be the ant at the picnic here but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Having said that, I have never hoped more that I am wrong.

Originally Posted by jamesw62

dyehard, i couldnt disagree with you more.

The things the agents did or did not do were all border patrol violations subject to reprimand or at most 5 day suspensions.

lets also remember the three agents were given immunity for their testimony and in the transscript i have read, the agents who have been fired did lie on their statements at one time or another and said so.
so you threaten anyone with prosecution and the n offer immunity, then your lible to get them to say what you want them to say

Your are right, the incident did not warrant any thing more than a suspension at the most.
I think Sutton felt the sentence did not fit the crime either and he did not hand down the sentence.

First of all, there was no crime.

"Offense" number one was picking up their brass after firing their pistols. Don't you pick up brass after firing a pistol or a rifle? The military trains soldiers to do that. It's a habit inculcated by the instructor at the firing range.

PICKING UP BRASS IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

Mr. Compéan picked up as many as 14 spent shells. During the course of his arrest, the 14 spent shells certainly ended up in law enforcement hands. To call this "destroying evidence" seriously taxes the credibility of the DA's office.

"Offense" number two was not filing an incident report. Mr. Ramos' supervisor was present, and his supervisor's supervisor was present. The ranking law enforcement officer is responsible to file the incident report. It was not Mr. Ramos' responsibility to file a report. Why not prosecute the supervisors?

In any case, not filing an incident report is a violation of CBP regulations, NOT A CRIME! The maximum administrative penalty for failing to file an incident report in a timely fashion is a negative personnel report, and possibly up to a five day suspension. To my knowledge, neither of the supervisors have received a suspension.

It is neither the U.S. District Attorney's job nor his jurisdiction to prosecute violations of CBP regulations. How absurd.

During the chase, Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed at Mr. Ramos. He was standing in a position which would allow shooting, as verified by the trajectory of Mr. Ramos' bullet, which entered the side of Aldrete-Davila's left buttock and lodged in his right thigh. This shot was in self-defense in the heat of a chase, when there was no possibility of knowing whether the perp was pointing a gun or a crooked stick.

No one ever called this a crime. The only action which could possibly be called a crime was Compéan "destroying evidence" by picking up his brass. Ramos only picked up one shell and immediately threw it down in disgust.

The prosecution apparently confused the judge to make carrying a weapon while firing at a criminal in hot pursuit - not a crime - transferable to the "destroying evidence" charge for picking up brass.

Mr. Compéan: two years for picking up brass; ten years for having a pistol while shooting at a fugitive who had downed him in a fist fight.

Mr. Ramos: one year for picking up brass that he dropped back on the ground; ten years for having a pistol while shooting in self-defense at a fugitive pointing something at him.

The so-called "crime", destroying evidence while in possession of a weapon, is punishable by some penalty: probably a ding in their personnel files, with up to five days suspension from duty.

Otherwise, each and every police officer who spits on the sidewalk will get ten years in prison, simply because he has a service pistol in his holster.

you are right, neither supervisor got a suspension.
IN FACT one even has been promoted since the incident

correct me if wrong, its ramos whos in for 11 and compean whos in for 12

"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.

Boy is this ever the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.