Jailed Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released early from federal prison Tuesday after serving about two years of their 11- and 12-year terms. Their sentences were reduced by former President George W. Bush in one of his final acts as president, drawing praise from many outraged supporters of Ramos and Compean.
The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet.
Like virtually all other treaties flowing out of the United Nations, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is not what it purports to be. Stripped to its bare essence, it is a naked grab for power, an effort to transfer power from the nation-state to the emerging world-state. It comes as no surprise to those who study U.S. foreign policy that the major organizational force promoting the convention is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier organization in the United States promoting global governance. One of the first major send-offs for LOST was an article entitled "Who Will Own the Oceans?" in the council's journal, Foreign Affairs, in April 1976. Between then and now the CFR's membership, along with its substantial assets and influence, has been summoned to propel this unwanted treaty to its near-ratified present status.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s office has nearly completed a report that excoriates the three senior Bush administration officials who gave a pseudo-legal imprimatur to torture detainees, according to the New York Times for February 17. The Justice Department inquiry focuses upon three former Bush-era lawyers: Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo, Judge Jay S. Bybee of the U.S. Ninth District Appellate Court, and Steven G. Bradbury.
Imagine that certain investors have set up a business under a charter and by-laws that specifically provide for a number of managers assigned to oversee various separate and independent branches of the company, all of whom must answer ultimately to the investors. One of the managers then announces that: (i) he alone will determine, not only when the other managers are not in compliance with the company's policies, but also what those policies actually are; (ii) the investors will have no say in the making of these determinations; and (iii) if the investors dissent from his unilateral determinations, their only recourse will be to re-write the company's charter and by-laws, subject to the manager's own interpretations of what such amendments mean. How long would any investors in their right minds tolerate such a topsy-turvy state of affairs? Yet this is precisely how the governments of the United States and the states operate under the contemporary doctrine of "judicial supremacy."