National Security | CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

May 5, 2011

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: national security, Osama, Terrorist, torture, war on terror — johntfloyd @ 11:59 am

The Cost of the War on Terror: Orwellian Inspired Torture, Extrajudicial Rendition, Racial/Religious Profiling, Warrantless Wiretaps, Investigations without Reasonable Cause…

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Osama bin Laden is dead. Many peoples in the world, especially in the United States, are celebrating the death of the world’s most notorious terrorist. The nature and circumstances of his demise were fitting in light of the life of hate, vengeance, and violence he led. The old adage, “live by the sword, die by the sword,” is appropriate in this case.

While we feel that bin Laden got this “just deserts,” we cannot in good conscience celebrate his death as a “crowning achievement” for our justice system. On September 11, 2001, bin Laden did more than bring down New York’s famed Twin Towers and cause the death of nearly 3,000 innocent people. The four terrorist attacks he masterminded and orchestrated that day set our nation on a course of action, called the “war on terror,” which has done, perhaps, irreparable damage to our criminal justice system and our historical concepts of justice.

In pursuit of the “war on terror,” officially declared by former President George W. Bush, and our efforts to track down and kill bin Laden, our intelligence and military assets kidnapped innocent people off the streets in foreign countries; took them to secret “black site” prisons operated by the CIA where they were tortured beyond human comprehension; established a special “detainee” prison on foreign soil called Guantanamo Bay where “suspected terrorists” are held for years without any meaningful rights or privileges and without any finding of guilt; and resurrected the ancient and infamous method of torture called “water boarding” to extract information from these “suspected terrorists.”

No less than the President and the Attorney General of these United States instructed law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI, CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies like the National Security Agency, to target innocent and unsuspecting American citizens and subject them to racial/religious profiling, telephone wiretaps, surveillance of their emails, political activities, and data mining through their financial records. This Orwellian-type scrutiny was even more heightened against the American-Muslim community who instantly and continuously became “suspected terrorists” for no other reason than their religion and country of origin.

(more…)

Comments (6)

December 3, 2009

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

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: Fair Trial, KSM, national security, terror, terrorism — 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…)

Comments (1)

July 14, 2008

RACIAL PROFILING AND THE FBI

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: FBI, Muslims, national security, Racial Profiling — admin @ 8:05 pm

Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd Discusses FBI’s Push to Legitimize Racial Profiling

On July 3, 2008 the Associated Press reported that the United States Justice Department was considering adoption of new rules that would allow the FBI to investigate persons without any probable cause of wrongdoing. FBI officials said that being able to target for selective investigation Muslims, Arabs and other racial and ethnic groups that fit a “terrorist profile” would enable the agency to fulfill a post 9/11 Congressional mandate to “root out” terrorists before they strike.

The Bush administration has consistently issued statements that it does not support the targeting of racial or ethnic groups for selective investigation. The proposed new Justice Department rules, however, would allow the FBI to consider both race and ethnicity among the factors that, according to AP, “could trigger a national security investigation.”

The FBI informed AP that under its existing rules the agency must have either specific evidence or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed before it can initiate an investigation against United States citizens or legal residents. The new rules under consideration would greatly expand the agency’s police powers allowing FBI agents to begin preliminary terrorism investigations based on mined public records or general intelligence data to put together individual behavioral profiles deemed suspicious. Some of the factors the FBI would consider in developing these profiles would include but not be limited to:

Individuals traveling to regions known for terrorist activity;
Access to weapons or military training; and
The individual’s race or ethnicity.

“We don’t know what we don’t know, and the object is to cut down on that,” one anonymous FBI official told the AP in defense of the proposed rule changes. (more…)

Comments (0)

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION