CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

November 11, 2010

NAIT RECEIVES MIXED BLESSING FROM APPEALS COURT

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:09 am

Unindicted Co-Conspirator in Holy Land Appeals Case in Fight to Clear Name

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, formerly the nation’s largest Islamic charity organization based in Dallas, Texas, and seven of its leaders were indicted in 2007 with providing “material support” to a terrorist organization, primarily to Hamas. We have posted up articles about the case (here and here). A 2008 trial resulted in convictions for all those indicted and with Holy Land being labeled as the “largest terrorism financing” Islamic group in the country. In 2009 its founders were given life sentences.

Beyond the forced collapse of this organization and the incarceration of its leaders, the U.S. Justice Department effectively branded 246 other individuals and organizations as “terrorist” sympathizers by listing them as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case. One of those organizations was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the largest Muslim civil rights group in America. We posted an article here which dealt with the legal and reputational harm caused by the practice of the Government wrongfully naming unindicted co-conspirators.  Also included in this infamous list were the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The reputational harm done to CAIR and other Muslim civil rights groups listed in the Holy Land case was evident by the national media coverage which virtually linked them as “associates of terrorism” (here and here).The House Republican Conference in March 2007 urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by CAIR, calling the organization “terrorist apologists.” The reputational and political fallout continues to this day for CAIR. This past March Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Welch sent a letter to four members of Congress justifying CAIR being named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case, saying the Justice Department has evidence that links CAIR to Hamas.

(more…)

October 23, 2010

ANOTHER ROGUE PROSECUTOR-IMMUNITY CASE

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:42 pm

Supreme Court will Hear Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft to Determine if the Former Attorney General can be Held Responsible for Illegal Arrest and Detention of Muslim Man under Material Witness Statute

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a second case involving a rogue prosecutor abusing his power. This second case involves former U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft who was sued under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, by Abdullah Al-Kidd.

We recently reported about the first case, Thompson v. Connick. The Al-Kidd case will have far greater constitutional, as well as national security, implications. The case originates from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, which held that the former attorney general abused the federal material witness law which allows U.S. citizens to be locked up if they possess information about ongoing criminal investigations.

The origin of this case is rooted in this nation’s law enforcement and national security reaction to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City. Attorney General Ashcroft, at the behest of his boss President George W. Bush, hastily developed a policy that allowed the FBI and the Department of Justice to use the federal material witness law as a “pretext” to “arrest and detain terrorism suspects about whom they did not have a sufficient evidence to arrest on criminal charges but wished to hold preventatively or to investigate further,” according to the Ninth Circuit. As a matter of fact, during a “press briefing” announcing the Bush administration’s new national security strategies to protect the nation from  further terrorist attacks (after the cows escaped the barn), Ashcroft told the media:

“Today, I am announcing several steps that we are taking to enhance our ability to protect the United States from the threat of terrorist aliens. These measures form one part of the department’s strategy to prevent terrorist attacks by taking suspected terrorists off the street … Aggressive detention of lawbreakers and material witnesses is vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks.”

(more…)

September 30, 2010

DR AAFIA SIDDIQUI-THE PUNISHMENT DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:27 am

86 Year Federal Sentence Handed to the Gray Lady of Bagram Greater Than Necessary, Cruel and Unusual

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Billy Sinclair

Depending on who you believe, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is either an American-educated Pakistani neuroscientist kidnapped in Pakistan in 2003 and tortured by Americans in the infamous Bagram prison in Afghanistan over the next four years or she is a captured al Qaeda terrorist who tried to kill six American military personnel in Ghazni, Afghanistan in 2008. Whichever she is, she did not deserve the 86 year sentence U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Berman imposed on her on September 23, 2010 because she posed a threat of “recidivism.”

There are a number of fairly certain facts about the bizarre and mysterious Siddiqui case in the public record. The Pakistani-born doctor was given up to the CIA by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed following his March 1, 2003 arrest in Pakistan and subsequent torture by the intelligence agency. The “spook” agency, which had virtually transformed itself into a lawless organization of kidnappings, torture, and secret prisons during the administration of George W. Bush, leaked Siddiqui’s name to the media, including CNN who in April 2003 took the Government-fed bait and linked the doctor to alleged al-Qaeda terrorism activities. Shortly after Siddiqui’s name was made public in connection with terrorism she disappeared with her three children in Karachi, just days after returning there from America. International media outlets quickly reported she had been taken into custody by the FBI, who denied the claim, while her family members were told she had been kidnapped.

A little more than a year after her Karachi disappearance, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Patrick Mueller conducted a news conference during which Mueller called Siddiqui “an al-Qaeda operative and facilitator” who was wanted in connection “with possible terrorist threats against the United States.” However, just days after this May 2004 news conference, the FBI issued an international “information alert” which stated that while the agency had no information connecting Siddiqui “to specific terrorist activities,” the FBI still wanted “to locate and question [her].”

Many people, like Andy Worthington, became convinced that Dr. Siddiqui had been kidnapped—either by Pakistani or American authorities—and was being held in a CIA secret prison somewhere (here, here, and here). By 2007 the Human Rights Watch group released a report calling Siddiqui one of the many “ghost prisoners” being held in secret prisons controlled by the CIA. And by November of that year former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice lftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who was leading an investigation into the detention and disappearance of some 500 Pakistanis, including Siddiqui.

(more…)

June 25, 2010

TERRORISM LAW HELD CONSTITUTIONAL

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:47 am

Material Support of Foreign Terrorist Organizations vs. Freedom of Speech and Association

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Founded in 1974, the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan (PKK) was established as a Marxist-Leninist insurgent group composed of Turkish Kurds who formed to seek Kurdish independence from Turkey.  By the late 1990s the group had had morphed from a rural-based insurgent group into a full-fledged terrorist organization, sometimes using suicide bombings on civilian targets.

Founded in 1976, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) became one of the most lethal and well organized terrorist groups in the world that, beginning in 1983, waged an armed campaign in Sri Lanka to establish a separate Tamil homeland before the group was defeated by the Sri Lanka army in May 2009.  The LTTE pioneered the use of suicide belts.

Both groups are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the U.S Department of State.

The evidence is clear that the PKK and LTTE have engaged in terrorist activities, including suicide bombings, which have harmed innocent civilians. It was these kinds of international terrorist acts and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that prompted the U.S. Congress to enact the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in April 1996.

One of the controversial components of AEDPA was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2339B which makes it a federal crime to provide “material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” While Congress has amended the definition of “material support or resources” a number of times since 1996, Subsection 2339A (b) (1) offers the current definition:

(more…)

June 1, 2010

THE CONTINUED ASSAULT ON MIRANDA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:52 pm

Abandoning Miranda in Terrorism Cases Contrary to Constitution and Beginning of Slippery Slope towards Neo-Con Police State

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The United States Supreme Court in 1966 handed down Miranda v. Arizonawhich mandated to every law enforcement agency in this country that they advise all criminal suspects their right to silence; that anything they say can and may be used against them in a court of law; and that they have a right to an attorney. Findlaw columnist and former White House counsel John Dean has written two (here and here) recent columns in response to comments made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on May 9, 2010 on several Sunday morning news/talk shows that the “Miranda warnings” given to terror suspects should perhaps be modified. Dean warned the Obama administration that, if the Holder comments represented possible “new policy,” it is navigating down a constitutional “slippery slope” by “messing with Miranda rights to fight terrorism.”

Dean pointed out that simple Google research will reveal study after study which has shown that Miranda has never impeded legitimate law enforcement efforts to solve crimes and that there is “no evidence” it has been a serious problem in producing results through the many terrorism investigations the government has conducted over the last two decades. Since the Christmas Day airline bombing attempt by Farouck Abdulmuttalab, the Miranda warnings have become the rallying linchpin for conservatives in this country who want any person, American citizen or not, who is arrested for any terrorist act or suspected terrorist act against this country, to be treated as an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 so that “harsh interrogation techniques” can be employed to extract whatever information the suspect may know about other possible terror attacks against the country. As Dean pointed out: “… the only people complaining about Mirandizing terrorists are Republicans.”

The modifications proposed by Attorney General Holder deal with the “public safety exception” to Miranda. This exception was carved out by the Supreme Court in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles. In that case Benjamin Quarles was convicted of possessing a gun. The conviction stemmed from a series of events in which a woman stopped two New York policemen and told them she had been raped. She said her attacker had fled into a nearby supermarket carrying a gun.  One of the officers entered the store and saw Quarles, He ordered him to stop, placed his hands over his head, frisked him, and found only an empty shoulder holster. When the officer asked he suspect where the gun was, he nodded toward some empty cartons and said “over there.” The officer retrieved the gun and formally placed the suspect under arrest. The lower courts threw out Quarles statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had not given him the Miranda warnings. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, finding that there are situations where “public safety” trump the “prophylactic rules” of Miranda.

The “public safety exception”—sometimes called the “rescue” or “emergency” rule—has been used many times since. Coleen Rowley recently posted the following example on Huffington Post:

“One spring morning in the mid 1990s, a man whose last name was Liberatore rang a doorbell pretending to be a delivery man. Threatening a weapon, he gained entrance to the home somewhere in the Quad Cities, Illinois, tying up a teen-aged babysitter along with the young boy the babysitter was watching. Then he left, kidnapping the family’s 11 month old baby. Eventually the young boy was able to free himself and call for help. The hysterical parents rushed home and quickly notified the police and FBI.

(more…)

May 28, 2010

FBI STEPS UP INQUISITION AGAINST MUSLIM AMERICAN COMMUNITY

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:39 am

Know Your Legal Rights Before Talking to the FBI

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Fort Hood shooting massacre last year, the Christmas day bombing attempt, and the Times Square car bombing attempt have prompted the FBI to again increase its surveillance of the Muslim American community in this country. Muslim Advocates recently issued a “community alert” informing all Muslim Americans, but especially those from Pakistan and South Asia, that the FBI may be contacting them for information and advice in “addressing violent extremism.” Muslim Advocates was so concerned that it offered a free webinar about how Muslims can freely and safely work with law enforcement.

We agree with Muslim Advocates that before any Americans speak to the FBI they should have an attorney presence. The FBI does not conduct “information gathering” interviews to seek advice about how to address “violent extremism.” The FBI is a law enforcement agency whose overriding function is to investigate criminal wrongdoing, especially potential terror attacks. They can very easily, and have quite frequently, take “innocent” information provided to them and turn it into a “terrorism” investigation which actually has no foundation in fact or law. Muslim Advocates offers the following advice, to which we subscribe:

  • Be smart, protect yourself, know your rights
  • Protect your friends, family and community
  • Learn more about how to work with law enforcement
  • When contacted by the FBI, inform agency that your attorney will contact them
  • Seek an attorney

Our law firm has provided pro bono assistance to hundreds of Houston-area Muslim Americans who have been faced with “voluntary” FBI interviews. Our position is not to be obstructionists but to make sure that Muslim Americans suddenly in the target sight, or even potential target sight, of the FBI have proper legal advice in the critical “information gathering” process.  For instance, to inform the client that false statements to FBI agents can be a federal felony criminal offense with a possible five year term of imprisonment.  Additionally, that everyone in the U.S. has constitutionally protected rights guaranteeing free exercise of religion, speech and association, which can be infringed upon by certain FBI practices and questions.

The St. Louis Dispatch reported recently that the ACLU has established a civil rights project to protect American Muslims from law enforcement intimidation, especially the FBI. Such legal projects are necessary because 2.5 million Muslim Americans were born abroad, according to a 2007 Pew Research Center report, and this necessitates that many of them travel frequently to see their families in their native countries. Such foreign travel automatically makes them “persons of interests” in the eyes of the FBI. Muslim Americans cannot engage in “innocent travel.” They are uniformly considered “suspects.”

(more…)

March 26, 2010

OBAMA and MCCAIN: FORMER PRESIDENTIAL RIVALS EMBRACE TORTURE AND ASSASSINATION

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:29 pm

Continuing Bush’s War on Terror, Obama Continues Policy of Unfettered Presidential Power to Assassinate Americans Abroad and McCain Sponsorsthe Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Sen. John McCain was once an honorable man, a respected “war hero,” and a “maverick” politician who stood on principle before political expediency. In 2000 the Arizona senator waged a “maverick” campaign for the Republican presidential nomination from inside his Straight Talk Express bus and stunned the nation with a convincing victory over heavily favorite Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary. He became an instant media “darling” who suddenly had the respect and admiration of most moderate Republicans and independents. The Vietnam “war hero” had taken on the Republican Party establishment and won.

Then came South Carolina—a primary election battle that would change McCain and he would never quite be the same again. Republican Party insiders, and their South Carolina operatives, gutted McCain’s seemingly impenetrable “war hero” stature and seriously damaged his “maverick” political persona. They did it with a smear campaign The New York Times described as a “painful symbol of the brutality of American politics.” The smear campaign included unfounded charges that McCain “abandoned” veterans on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues; that he fathered a black child out of wedlock; that he was a homosexual and his wife a drug addict; and that he was either mentally unstable because of his POW experiences or a traitorous “Manchurian Candidate.”

While the mainstream media did not give much serious coverage to the smear charges, the inherent problem about playing in mud is that you get muddy. Bush trounced McCain in the South Carolina primary and went on to assume his family-gifted presidency. McCain was a thoroughly whipped political puppy who had effectively disenfranchised himself from the Republican Party base, that is until the 9/11 terror attacks brought down New York City’s Twin Towers. In the wake of this worst-ever terror attack on American soil which resulted in a Bush declared “war on terror” and the invasion of two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, Sen. John McCain had a new, invigorated political mission: he would be a “hawk” on the wars being fought on two fronts by American troops and he would lead the nation into the unchartered constitutional waters in its first-ever “war on terror.”

To his political credit, Sen. McCain voiced criticism of the use of “torture” on terror suspects captured by American authorities during the Bush era. As a former prisoner of war in North Vietnam and the victim of horrendous torture by North Vietnamese military officials, McCain become the most compelling moral voice against the practice of torture, such as water boarding, when it was advocated and condoned at the highest levels in the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

(more…)

March 18, 2010

ARE WE ALL POTENTIAL JIHADISTS?

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:28 am

Arrest of “Jihad Jane” Adds Fuel to Fight Against Racial Profiling

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Leonard Pitts is an excellent columnist. He recently wrote a piece about Colleen LaRose, the Pennsylvania housewife turned Islamic jihadist, whose arrest made it abundantly clear why airport security is not only necessary but essential. Whether conscious or not, most Americans believe “terrorists” can be easily profiled by their physical appearance,” unusual” accents, the clothes they wear, or the facial hair they sport. “Terrorists” are not white, blond, and mainstream in dress and mannerisms. American media has convinced us that real terrorists are either bearded Arabs or dark-skinned Africans who dress like Muslims.

If Timothy McVeigh taught us anything, it should be that individuals willing to inflict mass casualties on Americans in the name of “government opposition” come in all sizes, stripes, and colors. The arrest of LaRose, dubbed “Jihad Jane” by either the media or law enforcement officials, reinforces the McVeigh lesson. A blond, green-eyed former Texas teenager, LaRose would not have triggered much, if any, interest from fellow passengers had she boarded an airliner for any destination in America with bomb-making material concealed somewhere on her body or in her possessions.

Collen LaRose and her counterpart, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez who was arrested several days after LaRose in connection with an international terror plot to kill a Swedish cartoonist who offended many Muslims world-wide with his cartoons, are the very reason why all Americans must undergo strict security checks and monitoring before boarding airliners in this country and why there should be no “profile” for terrorists. As Mr. Pitts wrote in his column:

“[The LaRose arrest] ought to serve as a rebuke to the guy standing in the airport security line grumbling at how the TSA agent is running his wand over some dewy-eyed grandmother who obviously isn’t a threat. Even more, it should rebuke pundits like Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter, and Kathleen Parker, who, in the wake of 9/11 argued for ethnic profiling in airport security. Pat down swarthy, bearded young men with Middle Eastern accents and exotic headgear, they said, and leave the rest of us alone.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

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