CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

March 14, 2010

“BAD MOON ON THE RISE”

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:52 pm

Keep America Safe: Right Wing Fanatics Attack Lawyers, Constitution, and Fundamental Right to Legal Representation

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Every major movement or cause throughout this nation’s history which sought constitutional protections for those the government had denied, from racial minorities ostracized by segregationists laws to those persecuted for their religious beliefs, was led by lawyers. Our fundamental notions of social justice, which are grounded in this nation’s Bill of Rights and in Federal and state constitutions form the original colonies, exist because of the courage of lawyers to form, frame and preserve those notions. Lawyers have always borne the brunt of criticism from political conservatives who really believe in many respects that our government should be run as a totalitarian state like fascism. We saw this tragic reality when the Klu Klux Klan was once one of the most powerful political forces in this country, when McCarthyism’s “guilt by association” became the rule of law, and when segregationists labeled civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King “agents of communism.” It was lawyers who led the way in bringing about an end to the underlying fanatical political ideology that created and sustained the government-sponsored repression of social justice during each of these dark moments in our nation’s history.

This repressive McCarthyism-like political ideology has once again reared its ugly head. This time the charge is being led by a conservative political group called Keep America Safe. The target of the group’s anti-Democratic efforts are lawyers who represent suspected terrorists, and in particular government lawyers who, as the New York Times reported in a March 9, 2010 article by John Schwartz, “worked in the past on behalf of detained terrorism suspects.”

Keep America Safe is led by Liz Cheney, the daughter of former White House Vice-President Dick Cheney who has repeatedly expressed his disdain for anyone who believes terror suspects enjoy “rights.” Keep America Safe earlier this month released a video that questioned the loyalty of a number of U.S. Justice Department lawyers in the Obama administration who have represented Guantanamo Bay prison detainees before the courts.

The Keep America Safe video is so far out there in McCarthyism’s lunatic right fringe that even some traditional mainstream conservative political groups, like the Federalist Society, have rebuked it on the fundamental constitutional principle that even the most unpopular individual charged with an offense against the laws of this country has a right to a lawyer. Perhaps Liz Cheney was buoyed by the recent stunning upset election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown who made the “war on terror” the central feature of his campaign with rhetoric like the government should not be “wasting” money providing lawyers to terrorists. We suspect Ms. Cheney and Keep America Safe wanted to curry favor with those elements of the Tea Party movement who regularly show up at rallies dressed in revolutionary war garb waving signs proclaiming the government has been taken over by socialists.

(more…)

February 18, 2010

AN ELECTION TORPEDOES THE CONSTITUTION

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — johntfloyd @ 6:01 pm

Politics of Terror Threaten Constitution

By:  Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The recent election of Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts has effectively torpedoed the constitutional right to silence by any “terror suspect” arrested on American soil. Elected to replace the legendary liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, who died of brain cancer last August, Brown used the “politics of terror” to seal his stunning upset victory over Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Brown accused the Obama administration of being “soft on terror” with its decisions to close Guantanamo Bay and to prosecute “9/11 mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and co-conspirators in a New York federal civilian court rather than before a military tribunal.

These two decisions have drawn the political ire of Republicans across the country, as well as many conservative-moderate Democrats, including New York’s senior senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer who, along with New York’s Republican Mayor Michael Blumberg, have lobbied the Obama administration to move the KSM trial out of New York and into some more remote region of the country. Scott Brown effectively manipulated this political unrest to rise from the depths of a “long shot candidate” into the “winner’s circle”—a political victory that simultaneously resurrected the Republican Party from the ashes of political demise and put the Obama administration in the cross hairs of a deepening political crisis.

Then the Christmas Day bombing attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit by a Nigerian native named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab stunned the nation. Abdulmutallab was seized, taken into custody by the FBI, and underwent some custodial interrogation before he was advised of his Miranda right to remain silent and given counsel. The FBI did not contact any of the nation’s intelligence agencies prior to interrogating or advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights. The law enforcement interrogation effectively ceased after the terror suspect was advised of his right to silence and counsel appointed to represent him.

Republicans, and Scott Brown in particular, seized upon the Justice Department’s handling of the “Christmas Day bombing case” as further evidence of the Obama administration’s “soft on terror” policies first scorned by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Brown, who by Christmas Day has already surged almost even with Coakley in the polls, used the Abdulmutallab case to rally angry Massachusetts voters even more, telling them that their tax dollars should not be used to pay for “lawyers for terrorists.” He reiterated these campaign views on January 20, 2010 in his U.S. Senate seat victory speech.

“I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation,” Brown said. “They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

(more…)

February 5, 2010

WHO IS AAFIA SIDDIQUI: TERRORIST OR GOVERNMENT PAWN?

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:36 pm

The Tragic Case of the “The Gray Lady of Bagram”

By:  Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The U.S. Government contends Aafia Siddiqui’s alleged links to terrorism began in June 2001—some three months before the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City’s Twin Towers. According to government sources, Siddiqui made a trip from Quetta, Pakistan to Monrovia, Liberia, where she was met by a car and driven to the Hotel Boulevard, a known al Qaeda safe house. A week later Siddiqui allegedly left Monrovia in the same inauspicious manner in which she arrived—the only difference being is that she carried with her a large parcel of Africa’s illegal diamonds, a hard-to-trace but key funding source for al Qaeda’s terror operations.

Nearly three years later on May 26, 2004 former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller held a new conference during which they announced the government had received reports that al Qaeda planned terror attacks in the U.S. that summer or fall. Director Mueller specifically named Aafia Siddiqui as “an al-Qaeda operative and facilitator” and one of the seven al-Qaeda suspects being sought in connection with the impending terror plots. Attorney General Ashcroft added the seven suspects posed “a clear and present danger” to America and should be “considered armed and dangerous.”

As soon as Siddiqui’s photo was displayed during the Ashcroft/Mueller news conference an informant was convinced Siddiqui was the same woman who went to Monrovia in June 2001 and left with the package of illegal diamonds. The informant called the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which was investigating Africa’s illegal diamond trade, and reported Siddiqui’s alleged ties to the diamond trade on behalf of al Qaeda.

Siddiqui’s family vigorously disputes the notion that Aafia was ever in Monrovia. They say she was living in the Back Bay Manor in Roxbury, Massachusetts taking care of her own three children and her sister’s child (while the sister finished a fellowship in neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital), as well as being a wife to her husband who was an anesthesiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

(more…)

December 3, 2009

TRYING KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD IN FEDERAL COURT IS NOT END OF WORLD

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:25 am

Federal Trials Open to the Public, for Terrorism Cases Support American Constitutional Concepts of Fair Trials, Justice

By Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

While there are many security and legal problems associated with major terrorism trials conducted in federal courts in the United States, Republican critics of the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (“KSM”) in a New York federal court have methodically spread unnecessary fear in order to politicize that decision. What may be good for the country, much less our legal system, does not factor into their conservative political agenda to undermine the Obama presidency at every turn. It’s tantamount to an irresponsible lunatic standing up in a crowded theater and hollering “fire” just to see how much panic and chaos he can cause.

To begin with, the KSM civilian trial critics charge that the “9/11 mastermind” and his 9/11 co-conspirators will use their incarceration in a federal penal facility to spread their message of terror both within and outside the facility. The critics fail to inform the public that KSM and his co-conspirators will probably be housed in Unit 10 South of the Special Housing Unit in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”) located in Manhattan. Unit 10 South is considered the most secure housing unit in any federal facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) in the New York City area. 1/ It’s an ultra maximum security unit used almost exclusively to house terrorism suspects and other offenders who pose a proven danger to other inmates or prison guards. Placement in Unit 10 South has been called the “’nuclear option’ of indefinite solitary confinement.” 2/

Federal regulations grant the BOP tremendous authority to impose “special administrative measures (“SAMs”) on terror suspects for the specific reason of preventing them from instigating acts of terrorism or violence. These regulations, codified in 28 CFR 501.3, provide:

(a) Upon direction of the Attorney General, the Director, Bureau of Prisons, may authorize the Warden to implement special administrative measures that are reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury. These procedures may be implemented upon written notification to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, by the Attorney General or, at the Attorney General’s direction, by the head of a federal law enforcement agency, or the head of a member agency of the United States intelligence community, that there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons, or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. These special administrative measures ordinarily may include housing the inmate in administrative detention and/or limiting certain privileges, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of acts of violence or terrorism. The authority of the Director under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level of Acting Director. (more…)

November 21, 2009

IS OSAMA BIN LADEN A TERRORIST OR AN UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT?

Politics as Usual: Republicans Desperately Seek Outrage to be Relevant

By:  Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently appeared before a U.S. Senate committee hearing to explain his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his four co-conspirators, in federal civilian court rather than let them be tried before a military commission under the 2009 Military Commissions Act. There were a number of sharp, biting exchanges between Holder and Republican senators, all of whom have joined ranks in a calculated political agenda to oppose the Obama administration not only on this decision but any decision it makes on any front.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, vigorously questioned Holder about Osama bin Laden should he be captured. Would the self-proclaimed jihadist be considered a criminal terrorist or an ‘unprivileged belligerent” (previously known as “enemy combatants” under the 2006 Military Commissions Act)? As a criminal terrorist, bin Laden, of course, would enjoy the same constitutional protections as any criminal defendant, including right to remain silent, right to counsel, and right not to be tortured. Sen. Graham’s line of questioning indicated he would be shocked and appalled were the world’s most wanted terrorist be given such constitutional protections upon capture.

Sen. Graham has a short memory. It was a Republican-led Congress in 1996 that enacted (and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton in April of that year) the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This law was enacted primarily in response to the 1995 Oklahoma City and 1993 World Trade Center bombings. AEDPA was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332b. This statute defines the term “Federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that “is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” ADEPA designated the following list of already prohibited crimes as acts of “terrorism”:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 32 – destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
  • 13 U.S.C. § 37 – violence at international airports
  • 18 U.S.C. § 81 – arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (more…)

November 18, 2009

THE AGONIZING GITMO DILEMMA

Enemy Combatant Cases in Federal Courts Chart Uncertain Path

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

On January 22, 2009, just days after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced that he would close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility where hundreds “suspected terrorists” have been held for years without trial under an official Bush-administration created designation “enemy combatant.” Civil libertarians and prominent constitutional scholars have long advocated the closure of the facility while political conservatives have fought hard in the trenches to keep the internationally-criticized torture facility open.

A liberal policy think tank called Center for American Progress, a staunch ally of the Obama administration, charged in a recently released report that the administration has made a series of blunders following the President’s January 22nd Gitmo closure announcement. The report, authored by Ken Gude, a scholar for the Center, says these blunders will delay Gitmo’s ultimate closure for months. The most significant blunders, the report charged, was the administration’s failure to have enough people in place to handle the difficult closure process and misleading Congress about its intentions.

The Obama administration assigned two task forces to deal with the Gitmo dilemma: one to examine the overall “detention policy” of suspected terrorists and the second to review the files of more than 200 detainees to determine whether they should be prosecuted in federal civilian courts or by military commissions. The most high-profile of these “enemy combatants” were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who has been in custody since March 2003, and four of his co-conspirators—all of whom will now be tried in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York based on a recent decision by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Just last month President Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (officially titled the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act) which changes—but some would argue does not actually improve—the rules governing the military commissions created in 2006 to hear terrorism cases. In 2006 then-Sen. Obama, and 33 other U.S. senators, voted against the “military commission’s law,” calling it a “flawed document” that ran counter to American values. (more…)

October 14, 2009

WHO ARE THE REAL HOME GROWN TERRORISTS?

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:24 pm

Right-Wing Patriot Groups, White Supremest, Neo-Nazis Pose Growing Threat

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The mainstream media over the past two weeks has been saturated with an endless stream of stories about Najibullah Zazi, a suspected Afganhani terrorist reportedly involved in a plot of bomb New York City’s mass transit system; Michael Fenton, an American converted to Islam who allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb in front of a Springfield, Illinois federal court building with the help of undercover FBI operatives; and Hosam Maher Smadi, a Jordanian who also allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb at a Dallas skyscraper with the help of undercover FBI operatives. All three allegedly terrorist plots were exposed by the FBI this past September following the arrests of these individuals.

These three individuals—all of whom were linked to what some in the media refer to as “radical Islam”—have become the most recent faces of the term “home grown terrorism” in the United States. It has become almost second nature for Americans to associate virtually every threat of terrorism with the religion of Islam. But do radical jihadists pose the greatest threat of terrorism in this country?

James G. Cummings is not a household name in America. He is certainly not as well known as Zazi, Fenton or Smadi. He was shot to death by his wife on December 9, 2008. Two months later an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center was posted online by WikiLeaks which revealed that “radioactive materials” had been removed from Cummings’ Belfast, Maine home following his shooting death.

“On 9 December 2008, radiological dispersal device components and literature, and radioactive materials, were discovered at the Maine residence of an identified deceased [person] James Cummings,” WikiLeaks quoted the intelligence report as saying.

The report listed the following “dirty bomb” making materials found at Cummings’ residence: four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide, and magnesium. In addition to these materials, the report stated that literature about how to construct a “dirty bomb” and other information about radioactive materials (cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60) were found at the residence. (more…)

September 26, 2009

NEVER, EVER TALK TO POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:45 pm

Recent Terrorism Related Arrests Illustrate Need to Consult Lawyer Before Interviewing with Law Enforcement

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

This legal maxim is rooted in the very soul of every criminal defense attorney. Even if an individual is innocent, no one should ever talk to the police once the police make it clear they are investigating a crime, or a potential crime, and they feel the individual has either some involvement or knowledge about the crime. This advice is especially true when it comes to the FBI whose agents are skilled in the art of interrogation and proficient at tricking a person into making a false statement.

This FBI strategy was recently highlighted in a suspected al-Qaeda terror plot involving Najibullah Zazi, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who hails from Afghanistan. News media reports, based on official accounts or leaked accounts by the FBI, have linked Zazi and at least three other Denver-area men, along with a number of suspected or unknown individuals in New York and other cities in the United States, with an alleged al-Qaeda plot to use hydrogen peroxide bombs carried in backpacks to attack New York City’s mass transit system or other mass transit systems in this country.

(The following fact pattern is taken from FBI affidavits, which are notoriously one-sided, and news reports and may be incorrect, misleading or wrong. These men are presumed innocent and the use of these facts in this article is for illustrative purposes only.)

Zazi and his father, Mohammed Zazi (a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan), and a New York City imam named Ahmad Wais Afzali (also a lawful permanent U.S. resident from Afghanistan) were arrested on September 19, 2009 by the FBI for allegedly making false statements to federal agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001(a)(2). The “false statement” charges indicated that the FBI, and Homeland Security agents, had not yet compiled enough evidence to bring terror-related conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 or specific acts of “international terrorism” under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331(1) against anyone they suspect were involved in the alleged New York City mass transit terror plot. The government has since indicted Najibullah Zazi on terrorism related charges. (more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress © 2010 John T. Floyd III Crimnal Defense Attorney : Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee