Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Bush vs. Dem Congress over Iraq War; Congress Hears Testimony on Border Patrol Agents Convicted of Wrongfully Shooting Drug Dealer
Aired July 21, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Tonight, President Bush's confrontation with Congress over the war in Iraq escalates. The president accusing Democrats of playing politics with the war, appealing for more time for his strategy to work. But top military commanders again warning it will be years before our troops are home.
And the battlefield on our border with Mexico. Rising demand for the release of imprisoned former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. New evidence why these two men shouldn't spend another day in prison.
We'll have all of that and much more straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK, news, debate, and opinion, for Saturday, July 21st.
Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody. President Bush this week blasted Democrats for tying his hands in the conduct of the Iraq War. The president demanding the leadership in Congress give him more time and more money to keep the war going. The fight in Washington between the president and Congress comes as top military commanders are again warning our troops will be in Iraq for years to come.
Jamie McIntyre reports now from the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): CNN has learned that 2,200 troops from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit have been extended in Iraq 30 days. They will stay in Anbar province until November, another sign U.S. commanders believe the surge just needs time.
MAJ. GENERAL RAYMOND ODIERNO, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION COMMANDER: Hope is that the policymakers and everyone else, the public within the United States, listen and hear what we're saying, because there is some progress being made.
MCINTYRE: The growing disconnect between Baghdad and Washington was symbolized during the Senate testimony of U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, when this video link from Iraq dropped unexpectedly.
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Baghdad, can you hear the U.S. Senate? (LAUGHTER)
MCINTYRE: It was a light moment in a deadly serious debate. From Ambassador Crocker came the sober admission the Iraqi government faces, in his words, "considerable difficulties" meeting the benchmark of political reconciliation by September.
RYAN CROCKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: If there is one word that I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq, that word would be fear.
MCINTYRE: The fear of General Odierno, second-in-command in Iraq, is that the hard-won gains of the past 30 days will fall victim to the growing disillusionment in Congress.
Without giving numbers, Odierno claimed that since the surge began in earnest June 15th, the number of attacks, casualties, and IEDs have all decreased; 175 high-value individuals, he says, have been captured or killed, including several top al Qaeda leaders, and that 50 percent of Baghdad is now secure.
But, he says, al Qaeda in Iraq is just waiting for the U.S. to give up.
ODIERNO: What I have learned in the last four years here is they are extremely savvy. They understand what's going on in September.
MCINTYRE: But Congress has lost patience. Senator Joe Biden lectured Ambassador Crocker at the close of his testimony.
BIDEN: We ain't staying. We're not staying. We're not staying. Not much time.
MCINTYRE (on camera): General Odierno raised some eye-brows this week when he seemed to suggest that he needed more time, until November, to do a really good assessment. But he quickly pack- pedaled, issuing a statement the next day, saying that by November, he'll simply know even more about whether the surge is working.
But while many Americans anticipate that if the surge does succeed, it will mean troops will come home, the message from the commander seems to be just the opposite, that it could mean they need to stay to keep the success from slipping away -- Lou.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Jamie McIntyre, reporting from the Pentagon.
The White House this week also said we're safer from a terrorist attack than before September 11th. But the president's own counterterrorism officials admit the strategy for fighting al Qaeda is failing. The grim intelligence assessment again raising questions why, almost six years after September 11th, we still haven't captured or killed Osama bin Laden.
Ed Henry reports from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Four days after 9/11, the president huddled at Camp David with his war cabinet and issued a warning to Osama bin Laden.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes.
HENRY: Within a month, the president launched a war with Afghanistan and boasted al Qaeda and the Taliban regime were on the run.
BUSH: We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.
HENRY: March 2002, just six months after vowing he would get bin Laden, the president said he wasn't so focused on the terrorist anymore.
BUSH: His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. So I don't know where he is, nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him.
HENRY: Later in 2002, the CIA learned bin Laden was not in contact with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, even though the president was making a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda as he built the case for war.
BUSH: We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
HENRY: In early 2003, the CIA warned Mr. Bush an invasion of Iraq could give al Qaeda new opportunities to expand its influence, which has turned out to be true, based on a new National Intelligence Estimate. The president ignored the CIA's warning, but is now trying to use the threat from al Qaeda in Iraq, which didn't exist before the war, as a reason to keep U.S. troops there.
BUSH: To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.
HENRY (on camera): Retired General David Grange backs the president on that point, saying it's better to stay in Iraq and capture and kill as many extremists as possible. But many Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill say it's better for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and refocus on other hot spots like Pakistan.
Ed Henry, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: A new tactic in the war in Iraq, proving effective in stopping some of the attacks against our troops. The military is supporting armed militias in Iraq, enlisting them like a shadow army in our fight against al Qaeda. But that tactic is strongly opposed by the Iraqi government, which sees it as a challenge to its own political power.
Michael Ware reports now from Baghdad. And we warn you, some of the video you are about to see in Michael's report is without question disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is one of America's new allies, the enemy of our enemy, beating a suspected al Qaeda member, threatening to kill him. He is part of America's success against al Qaeda in Iraq, a member of a Sunni militia group supported by the U.S. to target al Qaeda.
In this operation north of Baghdad, his group, no uniforms, their faces covered, are working hand-in-hand with local police and army units and drawn from insurgent groups and local tribes. These are fighters who have been killing Americans and now use some American- supplied ammunition and U.S. military support to turn on al Qaeda, enemies of the U.S., now supported by the U.S.
BUSH: In Anbar province, Sunni tribes that were once fighting alongside al Qaeda against our coalition are now fighting alongside our coalition against al Qaeda. We're working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country.
WARE: And this is Anbar. Grainy video, posted two weeks ago on an Islamist Web site shows U.S.-aligned militia unloading another al Qaeda prisoner from a police pickup. The man in charge asks his prisoner if he killed someone called Khalid (ph), and then, taunting, tells him, to say hi to Khalid for me.
Cursing their prisoner, the makeshift firing squad leads him to a spot near an embankment. And he's executed.
(GUNFIRE)
WARE: Why would these insurgents and tribesmen turn on al Qaeda to work with the Americans? The answer, power, money, contracts and control over their neighborhoods.
And while few mourn the deaths of al Qaeda fighters anywhere, summary executions and excessive force by militias, sponsored by the U.S., is not something American commanders say they condone nor seek.
Brigadier General Mark McDonald.
BRIG. GEN. MARK MCDONALD, MULTINATIONAL CORPS - IRAQ: We do not allow that and we do not encourage that. We will stop that if we see it.
WARE: That said, the general also says he has not seen reports of abuses himself. But another senior U.S. official does say the militia's methods are an ugly side of the war here in Iraq, ugly, but effective.
In the militia-controlled areas, al Qaeda has not been defeated, but it has certainly been blunted, the capital of Anbar reclaimed from its grip and attacks across the province spectacularly reduced, with similar signs emerging in other areas.
The successes of the Sunni militias, however, come at a price. The Shia-dominated government in Baghdad is not happy, wary of U.S. support for armed Sunni groups.
"This support scares us," says Hadi al-Amri. Commanding a powerful Shia militia, he is Iraq's equivalent to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the U.S.
"Working with these people is very dangerous," he says. "We told the Americans we won't accept under any circumstances their being open to armed Sunni militia, like the Islamic Army of Iraq or the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution." Two of the very groups the U.S. has been courting and supporting.
And this former national security minister, now heading a parliamentary oversight body, claims the U.S. is overstepping its authority.
"That these tribes are armed beyond the government's control might lead to conflict," he says, suggesting they may be an American counterbalance to a government accused of links to an Iranian-backed militia from the Shia community.
LT. GEN. G.C.M. LAMB, DEPUTY COMMANDING GEN., MNF-IRAQ: There is nothing that the Multinational force, the Corps, is doing with, by name, by numbers, by place, by location, by intent, that we don't share with the government of Iraq.
WARE: With few signs of progress from the central government, America's former insurgent enemies seem to have given U.S. commanders something the Iraqi government rarely has, a success story.
Michael Ware, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Coming up next, the safety of your food. There are laws in place to protect us from dangerous food, but they're not being enforced. We'll tell you why and who wants to keep it that way.
Also, Congress this week launching an investigation into those long prison terms for two former Border Patrol agents. We'll have that story and I'll talk with the man at the center of the controversy, the man President Bush calls his good friend. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We've been reporting on this broadcast the need to enforce this nation's origin -- country-of-origin labels for our food for the protection of American consumers. Those requirements were enacted in law, in fact, more than four years ago. Never enforced because of political and lobbying pressure from the industry while Americans are increasingly concerned and threatened about food safety. A Consumer's Union poll in fact shows 92 percent of all Americans want to know where their food originates.
Kitty Pilgrim reports now on the efforts by special interests to keep Americans in the dark about where their food comes from and what's in it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Food from all over the world, consumers may like the variety, but they also want to know where their food is coming from, and they can't tell.
Laws enacted by Congress in 2002 to require country-of-origin labeling, so-called COOL laws, but powerful lobbying groups pushed back implementation of those laws for most products until 2008.
URVASHI RANGAN, CONSUMER REPORTS: In Congress, the delay was done in 2004 and then again another delay was made in 2006. So, there has definitely been opportunities for country-of-origin labeling to go into effect and it has most clearly been derailed at least twice.
PILGRIM: The recent discovery of numerous cases of contaminated food, especially from China, have caused health scares. Just this week, popular snacks manufactured in the United States but containing Chinese ingredients were found to be contaminated with salmonella.
A Web site sponsored by the American Meat Institute advocates no country-of-origin labeling, reading: "a coalition of entities who are deeply concerned about the costly, trade-distorting, and disruptive nature of mandatory country-of-origin labeling."
But the American Farmers Union, which represents a quarter- million producers of all types of fruit, vegetables, grain, and other commodities is for country-of-origin labeling.
TOM BUIS, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION: We have been advocating this for about 15 years and actually got it into the 2002 farm bill as part of the law signed in to law by President Bush. Importers have been able to block and delay the implementation time after time after time.
PILGRIM: The USDA said even though the law has been passed, it's not a final rule. It's still only a proposed rule.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The USDA also said they're now in an open comment 60- day period, asking for public input on how they want the country of origin rules to read. That period will end August 20th. And after that, the final rules will begin to be formulated. But it's clear the American public wants the stricter rules in place.
DOBBS: And we need to cut through the nonsense here. Congress has been rolling over the lobbyists, delaying the enforcement of this law that has now been on the books for five years. And everyone should know that these gutless wonders, these spineless wonders sitting on that committee are -- they're absolutely to blame. Let's get their names up on the Web site. I want them up for this -- I want them up now. Let them be accountable. This is inexcusable.
PILGRIM: It certainly is. These rules will not go into place until September 2008.
DOBBS: These -- you know, this -- let's impeach them. I've had it. Anyway, let's get it up. It will be on loudobbs.com. You can see how your congressman and your representatives and so-called public servants are behaving and why. Thank you, Kitty Pilgrim.
After our extensive reporting on this broadcast about the government's failure to enforce those country-of-origin labels, the House Agriculture Committee this week did reject an amendment that would have further weakened the requirements. Good for them. More to be done.
Up next here, drug cartels moving their illegal products across the border with Mexico. Can they be stopped? You bet they can. Why isn't this government doing it? We'll have the report.
And some tough questions for the man who prosecuted former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. And senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn, they now have taken the position that the sentences of those two former Border Patrol agents should be commuted. They are our guests here next, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Investigators have found two drug tunnels under the border in Nogales, Arizona, over the past two weeks. In Mexico this spring, the largest seizure of drug money ever, a stash of $206 million to fund the chemicals to make methamphetamine destined for this country. All of this just more evidence that Mexican drug cartels are successfully and repeatedly exploiting the border and they have the money to keep right on doing it.
Christine Romans has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This border is the entryway for most of the illegal drugs entering the United States. Ninety percent of the South American cocaine destined for U.S. consumers comes here through Mexico. Marijuana and cocaine are moved across the border in vehicles with secret compartments or hidden with legitimate cargo.
And the Drug Enforcement Administration says Mexican cartels supply at least 80 percent of the methamphetamines consumed in this country.
GEORGE GRAYSON, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY: The drug cartels can fly over the border. They can send small, fast boats around it. They can tunnel under it. And they can load their so-called mules with drugs to deliver them personally in the United States. ROMANS: The State Department's annual Drug Strategy Report concludes legitimate commercial traffic provides "ample opportunities for smugglers." Away from border crossings, drugs are moved across in a dangerous cat and mouse game with authorities.
T.J. BONNER, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: They are inevitably, almost invariably, armed, perhaps not to shoot it out with the law enforcement officers, but certainly to protect against being ripped off by the competition.
ROMANS: A deadly competition among Mexican drug cartels for the $13.8 billion in revenue they share each year, killing rivals for control of trading routes into the United States, targeting judges, police officers and journalists in Mexico.
The violence has moved north, gripping border towns like Nuevo Laredo. The government says cartels are even operating huge marijuana plantations inside America's national parks, making the border crossing unnecessary.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Mexico has extradited more than a dozen accused traffickers to face U.S. justice and put 20,000 federal police to the street. Part of the American strategy, to choke off the funding of drug cartels. The DEA in two years seizing some $3.5 billion in drugs and money, trying to stop the funding of the next round -- or at least make a bit of a dent in it -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much, Christine Romans.
On this side of the border, a group of illegal alien supporters decided to hold a protest and they wore masks of me at a protest they held in Milwaukee this week. What a charming fellow, don't you think? Saying the only way to be heard in the illegal immigration debate is if you are Lou Dobbs.
I hate to tell you, but the truth is we couldn't be heard in this debate for the longest time, even wearing that mask. The protesters rallying at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee. The leader of Voces de la Frontera says they wore the masks to draw attention to the problems facing illegal aliens in this country.
It's time now to -- after we talk about Iraq and illegal immigration and all of the issues confronting this country, the vacuum of leadership, we thought it would -- we'd ask a question a little differently in our poll. So here's our question this week. And we actually mean this quite sincerely. Do you believe America needs to just simply declare a countrywide time-out? Maybe have a national group hug? And just sit back and think about our future for at least a few weeks while all the politicians remain extremely quiet? Just shut the heck up? We wanted you to think about this question. We'd love to hear your answer. We'll have the results for you in Monday evening's broadcast. We hope you'll vote. We'd like to hear from you. Up next, seeking justice for Ramos and Compean. Congress takes action in the case of the former Border Patrol agents. The man who sent them to prison, prosecutor Johnny Sutton, is our guest. Is the government's case unraveling? Is it time for freedom? You better believe it.
And two powerful senators call on the president to do just that, the right thing. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: I've been calling for a congressional hearing into the prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for almost a year. They finally had their hearing on Capitol Hill this week. The two men were convicted last March of shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler they pursued in a high-speed chase. That drug smuggler given immunity by the Justice Department to testify against the two agents. Those agents now serving 11- and 12- year sentences in federal prison.
As Casey Wian now reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee had tough questions for the U.S. attorney who led the prosecution.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: That will be included in the record.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was standing room only for a Senate hearing into the Bush administration's prosecution of two Border Patrol agents for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean have already served six months of 11- and 12-year terms for the 2005 Texas border shooting.
FEINSTEIN: I have not heard many people argue that agents Ramos and Compean deserve the length of these sentences.
WIAN: The agents admit not properly reporting the shooting, but insist illegal alien drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was pointing a gun at them.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: The public sees two Border Patrol agents serving long prison sentences, while an admitted drug dealer goes free.
WIAN: Senators demanded to know why prosecutors working for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton gave a drug cartel member immunity to testify against the agents.
JOHNNY SUTTON, U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS: They are not heroes. They deliberately shot an unarmed man in the back without justification, destroyed evidence to cover it up, and lied about it.
WIAN: Congressional supporters of the agents dispute that. REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Two of America's brave Border Patrol defenders have had their lives destroyed by what I see as an elitist, arrogant and overreaching prosecutor who believes that protecting the civil rights of illegal alien criminals is worth destroying the lives of law enforcement officers for minor procedural violations.
WIAN: Sutton says, his prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to charge Davila, even though he admitted to smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana the day he was shot.
DAVID L. BOTSFORD, APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR RAMOS: Why Mr. Sutton says that he can't be prosecuted bewilders me, because I believe any first-year prosecutor could get an indictment and successfully prosecute him.
WIAN: Current and former Border Patrol officials defended the prosecution of the two agents.
LUIS BARKER, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: From the standpoint of policy, I can't think of anything that needs to be changed. And I don't disagree that the penalty is disproportionate.
WIAN: Disproportional because Sutton's prosecutors charged the agents with a federal firearm offense that carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Sutton did admit one mistake, the decision to give Davila an unrestricted border crossing card the DEA says allowed him to smuggle even more drugs into the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The guy was a drug dealer.
SUTTON: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And does it concern you that -- does that decision concern you? Do you agree with that decision?
SUTTON: I think, looking back on that with 20/20 hindsight, that probably wasn't a very wise move.
WIAN: Border Patrol chief David Aguilar may have provided more evidence for the agents' supporters. He told senators there have been nearly 2,000 assaults against Border Patrol agents since February, 2005, and 144 agents discharged their weapons.
But prosecutors in the Ramos-Compean case prevented jurors from hearing testimony about violence on the Mexican border.
Casey Wian, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who prosecuted those two former agents, has managed to maintain at least a public face that he is committed to the prosecution he led.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Let me turn to, first, the comments by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who referred to you in some strong words. He called you "an elitist, arrogant, and overreaching prosecutor who put the rights of a drug smuggler before those of two hardworking Border Patrol Agents."
How do you respond?
SUTTON: Well, it's, you know, I don't know what's in his mind. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes that. I'm sure he's a good Congressman. But with due respect to him, he's very wrong on the facts of this case and he said a lot of things today that were just inaccurate.
And you know, this was a jury trial. I mean, this wasn't something that popped out of my head. This, you know, these -- the two lawyers who tried this are veterans -- 35-year veterans of the Department of Justice, their combined experience. And West Texas juries don't do these kind of things just because some U.S. attorney says we want to convict some Border Patrol agents.
Chief Aguilar said that 144 agents in the last two years have used deadly force. Thirteen times they killed people. Not one of those Border Patrol agents was prosecuted.
DOBBS: Let's go to some of the facts of this case.
SUTTON: Sure.
DOBBS: One of those facts -- and you said it again in Room 226 of the Dirksen Building. You said these agents shot an unarmed man in the back.
SUTTON: Right.
DOBBS: Well, that's one version of the facts. But, also, it was controverted by their own testimony. And, in point of fact, the Army surgeon who withdrew the bullet did not declare that that would have been an inconsistent entry wound from a position that would have been assumed had he been firing a weapon.
So the agents have maintained throughout that they saw something in his hand which they thought was a gun.
SUTTON: Well, the first we ever hear about a gun is one month after they shoot this guy. And that's after they had been arrested. They didn't tell their buddies...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: How much longer after he had been shot did you arrest the agents?
SUTTON: About a month. It was about a month from the shooting... (CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: So it was contemporary?
SUTTON: ... until when we arrested him. So what they...
DOBBS: So it would have been contemporaneous with that claim of defense?
SUTTON: No, no, no. They covered it up for a month. And it wasn't until we arrested Compean that he ever mentioned anything about a gun. So what I'm saying is that as they're conspiring with other agents -- with another agent -- as Compean is conspiring, picking up the shells, he never said a gun. He said the guy threw dirt in my eyes.
So I guess what I'm saying, the jury heard all that information...
DOBBS: Well...
SUTTON: ... that said there was no gun. And there's no reason in the world to cover this up if that guy had a gun. I mean...
DOBBS: When you say cover up, it's interesting. There were a total of how many agents on the scene at various points during that first hour?
SUTTON: A whole bunch eventually got there...
DOBBS: There were a whole bunch, right.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Including two supervisors or was it three?
SUTTON: Two supervisors eventually showed up. The cover-up was only the agents who were right at the scene. And some of those agents just knew about the shooting and didn't report it. You know, Agent Vazquez picked up the shell casings and destroyed evidence.
DOBBS: Well, let's talk a little bit about this cover-up. Amongst the things covered up, they are required to report a high speed chase.
Did they do so?
SUTTON: I don't know. I mean...
DOBBS: No, they did not.
SUTTON: I mean, they certainly -- they would radio in that they were in pursuit.
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: So, I mean, the supervisors were listening on the radio.
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: So they knew there was a pursuit going on at the time.
DOBBS: The other aspect of this is that -- and it was brought up, the prospect that there was a gun, or at least what could have reasonably been perceived to be a gun, and that is the possession of a cell phone.
There were two vehicles waiting for the drug smuggler, Aldrete- Davila, when he crossed the Rio Grande onto the Mexican side of the border. I mean, that wasn't a coincidence, do you think?
SUTTON: I doubt it. I mean, these...
DOBBS: So...
SUTTON: I mean, I would imagine...
DOBBS: ... well, why would there not be the assumption, since no one found that second cell phone, that that could have possibly been something that would have been there?
SUTTON: Oh, that he had a cell phone and that's what they thought was the gun?
DOBBS: Well, I mean, it's a possibility, I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
SUTTON: Sure, it's a possibility. That's why we have jury trials. I mean, that --you know, the defense attorneys that -- at the time of trial weren't even arguing it was a gun. They were arguing, well, maybe it was a cell phone. And that's why, you know, I brought out in my testimony today that we went back -- our agent went back and of the 155 loads that happened the year before this in Favon's (ph)...
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: ... 43,000 pounds of marijuana...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: ... one gun.
SUTTON: No. Not one gun in that group.
DOBBS: So over a period of one year...
(CROSSTALK)
SUTTON: Going back almost 500 loads to 2001...
DOBBS: Right. SUTTON: ... one gun. Now, that doesn't mean he didn't have a gun. But what it says is smugglers in that area don't carry guns. And it's -- the reason -- and the irony is because of the 924C...
DOBBS: The drug smuggler in this case, was he known to be a member of the cartel and a professional mule?
SUTTON: No. The DEA had no information about him...
DOBBS: No record on him?
SUTTON: He had no record in the United States before this.
DOBBS: I am absolutely -- I consider your prosecution to have been absolutely, completely out of any proportion to the alleged crime. I believe that these two agents really got a lousy deal. And I think the drug smuggler got a wonderful deal.
And the idea of giving immunity and not learning, as your office did not, your prosecutors did not -- they didn't learn the name of a single member of a drug cartel. They didn't learn the location of a single safe house in that cartel. This guy was given, as you acknowledged, a -- I think as you put it, in hindsight it wasn't a wise decision, given full crossing privileges across the border as a drug smuggler.
I mean, there are remarkably generous tilts here in the favor and the advantage of a drug smuggler to the disadvantage of sworn law enforcement officers.
SUTTON: It's a terrible position for a prosecutor to be in. No prosecutor ever wants to go against...
DOBBS: Why did you put yourself in that position?
SUTTON: Well, I didn't put myself there. Compean and Ramos put me there. That's the horrible thing. I work with -- I've been a prosecutor my entire career...
DOBBS: OK. Wait, let's stop. Let's stop.
SUTTON: They put us there.
DOBBS: Ramos fired one shot. He fired one shot.
SUTTON: Right.
DOBBS: He was not in view of what was transpiring, had, in my judgment, I think it's reasonable to say, every possible reason to think that something had happened and an exchange of gunfire. I won't speak to Compean, but to Ramos.
The fact that he is called -- you know, to this moment you're calling him a man who's fired on a man -- an unarmed man, which is in dispute by the facts...
SUTTON: The jury -- we had a jury trial, Lou. We litigated it.
DOBBS: You have three jurors who regret their decision today and have stipulated that.
SUTTON: Yes, but what those jurors -- when you come in and say, hey, would you -- these guys are fathers...
DOBBS: Did those...
SUTTON: ... of three, they're going to do a decade in prison...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: By the way, I mean, that's another thing that, to Senator Feinstein's credit, brought out. The 924C prosecution resulting in a minimum sentence for firearm -- the use of that firearm, the jury did not realize that there's a 10-year minimum on that sentence alone.
SUTTON: That's right, because the jury -- that's not their job. Their job is to decide, did they do it or did they not?
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: Has the government proved it beyond a reasonable doubt?
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: And then the question is, what's the right punishment? The judge sets that.
DOBBS: Do you honestly believe...
SUTTON: The punishment was set by Congress in this case.
DOBBS: Do you honestly believe that your office conducted itself as it should have in this case and that there is no doubt in your mind that Ramos and Compean should serve over 10 years in prison?
SUTTON: My -- that's why I'm out publicly defending these guys tooth and nail.
DOBBS: Right.
SUTTON: They did the right thing. We...
DOBBS: These guys being?
SUTTON: My two -- my prosecutors in El Paso. They did the right thing. These guys were guilty. They proved it before a jury.
DOBBS: Well, you and I are going to have to...
SUTTON: They got the punishment that Congress said...
DOBBS: We've got...
SUTTON: ... they should get.
DOBBS: You and I are going to have to disagree, because I think your prosecutors were overzealous. I think that the Department of Homeland Security, in what they -- the names they called these agents and the slurs against them, were absolutely heinous. And I think they should be explaining themselves to the American people. I hope that we can find some truth and some justice in it for these two men.
SUTTON: I'm here to answer any questions. I answered them all today. We put our cards on the table.
DOBBS: Yes.
SUTTON: I've posted the transcript.
DOBBS: You did.
SUTTON: The truth is on our side in this thing. The only issue, really, is punishment. That's what sticks in people's craw. It's a lot of time. And I've said that...
DOBBS: Yes.
SUTTON: I've said that often.
(CROSSTALK)
SUTTON: But they rejected all plea bargain deals. They knew when they rolled the dice and went to trial that if they were convicted, it was going to be 10 years...
DOBBS: Does that sound like the...
SUTTON: ... stat.
DOBBS: Does that sound like the actions of guilty men to you?
SUTTON: Absolutely. They were guilty...
DOBBS: How many of your...
SUTTON: ... as sin.
DOBBS: How many of your cases result in a plea bargain?
SUTTON: Ninety-five percent. These guys were banking that that dope -- that dope smuggler wasn't going to show up. And if he didn't, we had no case. So it was...
DOBBS: Well, you've got...
SUTTON: ... when he showed up...
DOBBS: You've got the case resolved, obviously, in your mind, Johnny Sutton. It is not resolved, certainly, in mine. And I think we've got -- I am pleased that we're going to learn more about what transpired.
We thank you for your time and being here.
SUTTON: Well, thank you so much for this opportunity to come on and talk to your listeners. I really appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Up next, senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn join me. They want the president to take action on the Ramos and Compean case.
The White House looking for patience from Congress over the conduct of the war but the Democrats are keeping pressure on. We'll hear what our panel of political analysts has to say about that and more coming up here next. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator John Cornyn led Tuesday's Senate Judiciary hearing on the Ramos and Compean case. We talked about their view of that case after the testimony in that hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CORNYN: This sentence was clearly excessive and mainly because of a statute that Congress never really intended would be applied to a law enforcement officer under these circumstances. It gave a minimum mandatory 10-year sentence stacked on top of the other offenses.
And then, of course, there was the immunity deal offered to this drug dealer and an unlimited visa which allowed him to travel back and forth without supervision and probably allowed him to do another -- dump another load of narcotics in the United States. A lot of mistakes, a lot of errors that just didn't need to be.
FEINSTEIN: But, if I might just add to that.
DOBBS: Sure.
FEINSTEIN: Because I agree very much with what Senator Cornyn said. And I think the fact that he's a former Texas State Supreme Court jurist means something, a great deal, in all of this. I'm not a lawyer, but I have sat on the Judiciary Committee now for some 14 years and hopefully have picked up some law.
The reason I say this is a prosecutorial overreach is because 12 counts were charged against these two men. There were, in fact, plea bargains. The plea bargains submitted by the prosecutors were for sentences maybe in the vicinity of two and three years. They were turned down by the defendants. What the jury didn't know was that the mandatory sentence was in one of these counts.
DOBBS: Right. FEINSTEIN: And that mandatory sentence was 10 years. So if they found them guilty, they had no choice but to have 10 years put on top of everything else, which would have totaled about two years.
DOBBS: Well...
FEINSTEIN: So it seems to me that there is a good case that can be made for a commutation sentence.
DOBBS: A commutation of sentence. We also have in Congress, the House of Representatives pushing through Congressman Hunter's pardon, seeking a Congressional pardon for these agents. A pardon is also possible. Do you think you're using -- obviously, you're referring to a commutation of sentence.
Why would a pardon not be as effective or as desirable, in your judgment, Senator Cornyn?
CORNYN: If I could weigh in on that. Let me just say that Senator Feinstein -- I'd would take her over a lot of lawyers I know any day.
DOBBS: I think that a lot of people would agree with you.
CORNYN: She's tough. But I have to tell you that, of course, a pardon or commutation, which are both within the power of the president of the United States, obviously, Scooter Libby getting a commutation of his sentence by the president recently. And I hope he'll give the same sort of consideration to these two Border Patrol agents.
But I know Congressman Hunter, in the absence of that executive branch commutation or pardon, has introduced a bill. I'm going to have to look at that to see if I think that will fly. I think that's, in the absence of anything else, a good effort. But I think eventually this is going to be something the president is going to have to consider.
DOBBS: So...
FEINSTEIN: There's one thing that I'd just like to mention...
DOBBS: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am.
FEINSTEIN: ... Lou, that became clear to me in this case, that a law enforcement officer, faced with somebody that's bringing over $1.2 million worth of marijuana, and the culprit wants to escape. So the law enforcement officer says, stop. And the culprit just keeps going. Now, he cannot fire. He cannot stop him. So he is faced with either having to outrun him -- and let's say it's a 45-year-old police officer.
DOBBS: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: How does he outrun a 22-year-old? The fact is, he can't. And I think this may be one of the reasons why we've got so much drugs coming across the border.
DOBBS: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: Some -- a law enforcement officer says, stop, and it means nothing.
DOBBS: I -- so much...
FEINSTEIN: And this, we've to take a look at.
DOBBS: Yes, senators, to both of your credit, you referred to what Congress needs to do here. We've had a 30-year war on drugs and the tragedies and the casualties in that war have been enormous. We've got to come to terms with it.
I want to -- I just have to say, as one who has been following this case carefully, closely and looking for justice for these two agents, I'm moved by your decision, both of you, to seek a commutation from the president.
I hope that your interest will continue. And we thank you for your interest to this point. It was a remarkable proceeding today.
CORNYN: Thanks, Lou.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Senators Feinstein and Cornyn asked the president to commute the sentences of those former agents the day after the hearing. A House subcommittee will be holding its own hearing on that issue at the end of this month and we'll be there. And be sure to read my column, "Time to Free Ramos and Compean" on loudobbs.com.
Up next here, Democrats escalating their confrontation with the White House. Three of the country's best political analysts join me next. Stay with us, we're coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now, Errol Louis, New York Daily News, syndicated columnist Miguel Perez; and in our Washington studios, Diana West, Washington Times.
Good to have you all here. Well, the Democrats had a cot-fest, spent all night in the U.S. Senate. Miguel, did that accomplish anything or just...
MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Absolutely nothing. But we all knew that was going to happen, didn't we? We didn't expect them to get the 60 votes that they needed.
DOBBS: So why did they do it?
ERROL LOUIS, THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Well, they wanted to show their constituents that they were going to at least try to fulfill their big campaign promise from last fall of stopping the war. And it was always an empty kind of a promise. And so they're just kind of playing it out. And I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time.
DOBBS: We've got a political system that's demonstrating that. It looks like we may have a political system, Diana, that's also demonstrating you're not going to fool us much longer.
DIANA WEST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: We have a crisis of leadership, Lou. I don't hear anything out of the White House or the Congress that represents a strategy, that sounds like anybody has a clue that whether the Iraqi parliament functions has nothing to do with American national security.
DOBBS: We don't have a Congress that's functioning or a president that's functioning, Miguel, what in the world is the American voter to do? We're sitting here 15 months away from a presidential election and none of the above is winning on the Republican side, and a lot of people are confused about a lot of things on the Democratic side.
PEREZ: Absolutely. And unfortunately, we don't have -- as Diana said, we don't have the leadership on either party to really tell us, listen, this is really the way we should go. Nobody has a solution for Iraq, unfortunately. We all know that it's going to end up in genocide and we're wondering when that genocide begins and when it ends.
:DOBBS: Barack Obama says genocide isn't a sufficient reason to stay in Iraq. I mean, saying that Friday, my goodness. I mean, we're hearing rather extreme declaratives from both sides of this, from Republican and Democratic candidates.
LOUIS: Sure. Well, and then out of the Defense Department you hear talk that hundreds of lives will be lost if a withdrawal is attempted. As if hundreds of lives are not being lost every month.
DOBBS: I'd like to see a debate on what are the consequences of the policy choices that are made by this administration, this Congress, because they talk as if there are only two options, complete withdrawal or complete stay the course. We haven't had that debate in this nation with thousands of our guys, or troops dying in Iraq, 26,000 of our troops wounded, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis dead. We haven't had that debate yet. Diana West, why not?
WEST: Because I feel that our leadership is craven to the point of not being able to assess global jihad. We are in a cycle of jihad that has recurred, you know, time and time again over the last 1,300- 1,400. But we're not allowed to really take that into concern. We're sitting here...
DOBBS: Why, because we're afraid to say "radical Islamist."
WEST: Yes, that's exactly true. We're afraid to discuss these things that come right out of an ancient religion, the jihad doctrine. So we're focused on the Iraqi parliaments getting together while meanwhile we do nothing about Iran, nothing about Saudi Arabia, nothing about the other centers of jihad that are actually changing the world.
DOBBS: We're going to be back in one minute with our panel of experts. And we're going to talk about what has been unthinkable. We're going to think about what has been unspeakable. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We're back with Errol Louis, Miguel Perez and Diana West.
Errol, where are we headed with this, the idea of this is a war on terror, not a war against radical Islamists? As Diana West just suggested, people are afraid, apparently, to speak directly on this issue. Where does that leave us? Why aren't we having this national debate?
LOUIS: The real problem is, there's a lack of trust in our institutions. The members of Congress don't seem to want to use their own institution the way it was meant and designed to be used. Hold hearings. Hold hearings in all 50 states if that's what it takes.
DOBBS: Fact-finding, fact-finding.
LOUIS: Fact-finding, fact-presenting. You know, and sooner or later I think the wisdom of the people will come through. And you'll see that, you know, look, at six months, nine months, 12 months, we'll be at a decision point. And we'll all know why a decision can or should be made.
DOBBS: Well, the Congress did something and I have to give the Senate Judiciary, a great committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who led the hearing on Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, the two Border Patrol agents imprisoned under the -- what I consider an outrage of justice. We've been reporting on it. I've called for investigations for almost a year.
Miguel, what is your reaction to the president and his reaction? He doesn't believe his friend, Johnny Sutton, could possibly be...
PEREZ: It seems like the most important fact that that the president is considering is that the prosecutor is a good buddy of his. That's the facts. That's what he is basing his judgment on. But then here's the quote that he gave in this public forum. "I know it's an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts that these men were convicted."
Two words. Scooter Libby. I mean, is he suffering from amnesia? Did he forget that he just commuted the sentence of one of his own administration's members? And these two guys go to jail for shooting a drug dealer?
DOBBS: Diana? WEST: I don't understand his motivations unless all of the worst things we suspect about him are true in terms of kowtowing to the Mexican government, et cetera. And I'm very glad the Senate is taking these steps.
DOBBS: I've got to be very direct here. I did not expect this Senate hearing to produce much. I wasn't -- my expectations were not high. And I've got -- I really have to tip my hat, congratulate, compliment Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator John Cornyn and the others who stood up for these two terribly wronged former Border Patrol agents. Your thoughts, Errol?
LOUIS: I think Miguel is exactly right. If you're a close buddy of the president, at the top of the government, Scooter Libby, you get one kind of treatment. If you are a Border Patrol agent who has the president hanging on the wall of their office, you know, they're federal employees, you're not entitled to those kind of benefits, apparently.
And it sends a terrible message up and down the chain of command that favors will mean more than your actual dedication, your actions and that if you need help from the top, it may or may not reach down to you.
DOBBS: Well, that's a terrible indictment, isn't it, of this government. Going back to what you were talking about, holding hearings in 50 states, whatever the issue, not only fact-finding, but hearing the voice of the people. It is the last thing this Congress, this president, this Senate wants, seemingly, is to hear the voice of the people. We've got to get beyond that no matter who we elect into 2008.
Are we agreed at least on that, Diana?
WEST: I would say so.
DOBBS: Errol, you get the last word.
LOUIS: The old-fashioned institutions, the hearings, the reports, the findings, it needs to be revitalized desperately on this and many other issues.
DOBBS: On those sage words, we conclude. Thank you very much, Errol. Diana, thank you. And we appreciate it, Miguel, good to see you.
And thank you for joining us this weekend. Join us tomorrow, for all us, thank you for watching. Enjoy your weekend. Good night from New York. "CNN SPECIAL: YouTube Debate Countdown" begins right now with John Roberts and Kiran Chetry.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
