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: , , , , — 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…)

January 9, 2011

THE CORRUPTION OF FISA

Government Avoids 4th Amendment Requirement of Probable Cause

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 1970 it was discovered by a gentleman named Christopher H. Pyle that the U.S. Army Intelligence Command had 1500 commissioned officers whose duty it was to spy on any known protest or demonstration in this country involving 20 or more people. While Pyle’s eventual revelations about this stunning information captured the attention of the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Sen. Sam Ervin, the great Watergate truth-seeking champion, had little authority to do anything about the “spying on Americans” scandal.

But in 1975 a younger, and lesser known, Democratic senator from Idaho named Frank Church put the Pyle information to good use. In the wake of President Richard Nixon’s resignation for the massive criminal corruption associated with Watergate, Senator Church used a December 1974 report by New York Times columnist Seymour Hersh concerning widespread CIA warrantless surveillance to bring Pyle’s information before the senator’s U.S. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

Thanks to courageous Americans like Pyle, Hersh, and Sens. Church and Ervin, the people of this country learned that its executive branch of government had been violating their civil and constitutional rights at such a mind-numbing scale that many lost their faith in “honest government.” It was out of the ashes of this governmental lawlessness that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) was signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter in 1978. A central feature of the Act was the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(“FISA Court”) which allows the executive branch to secretly obtain warrants for electronic surveillance but only with strict judicial review (18 USC 36 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance)

The eleven members (originally the number was seven) of the FISA Court are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. These judges have the authority to entertain ex parteapplications for electronic surveillance “for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.” FISA defines “foreign intelligence information” as:

(more…)

December 28, 2010

AMERICA-BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

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

Promoting Fear of Muslim Terror Government Continues Invasion into Privacy, Civil Rights

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Did you know that the nation’s Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has given $31 billion in grants, including $3.8 billion in 2010 alone, to state and local governments to find and protect Americans from terrorists?

A recent, detailed report in the Washington Post, titled Monitoring America, written by Dana Priest and William H. Arkin, said there is now “a web of 4,058 federal, state and local organizations, each with its own counterterrorism responsibilities.” At least 935 of these agencies were established in the wake of 9/11 Twin Tower attacks in New York City.

A first impression would consider this a good thing: that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies on “on their game” protecting us from unlikely but potentially real terrorists. This “feel good” impression was given buoyancy by several recent FBI sting operations over the last couple of months: one involving a Baltimore construction worker who wanted to blow up a Maryland military recruiting station; another involving a Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen who wanted to detonate a car bomb among a large gathering of people attending a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon; and yet another involving a Virginia man arrested for wanting to bomb Washington and metro stations.

Arrests in these sting operations occurred within weeks of each other with all of them being a lead story on network and cable news. While it was disturbing to think that there are potential domestic terrorists in our midst, the FBI made a big media splash with these arrests to reassure Americans that the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working diligently to protect us.

But protection at what cost?

Each of these FBI sting operations were born out of what the Post said is a “vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.” This coordinated state, federal, local and military intelligence gathering is known as “Top Secret America.”  The Post conducted an extensive, months-long investigation that was based on nearly 100 interviews and 1,000 documents and the newspaper’s key findings were:

(more…)

December 10, 2010

WIKILEAKS-JULIAN ASSANGE-AND POSSIBLE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Keeping the government in Check, the Uncomfortable Reality of Freedom of the Press

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange surrendered to British authorities on December 7, 2010 in connection with sexual assault allegations leveled against the Australian native by Swedish authorities. News media reports said Assange was engaged in consensual sexual encounters with two women (WikiLeak volunteers) in Sweden this past August when the encounters turned non-consensual because Assange would not use a condom. The controversial Assange has gained international acclaim and criticism for his website’s disclosure of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables and documents. The sexual assault charges became prominent after the disclosures occurred.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed satisfaction to the news media about Assange’ arrest by British authorities. The defense secretary called the latest turn of events in this international furor “good news.”

It is not clear what steps will be taken by Swedish authorities to have Assange returned to Sweden to face the sexual assault charges. A British judge ordered the WikiLeaks founder held without bail pending a December 14 hearing. The judge refused Assange’s request for bail, saying the international fugitive posed a significant “flight risk.” That’s a rather strange finding inasmuch as Assange “surrendered” to British authorities.

In the meantime, a criminal investigation into the WikiLeaks disclosures is underway in this country. CNN’s legal analyst Jeffery Toobin recently observed on the cable news network that Assange would not be allowed to “rub the United States’ nose in committing illegal acts and get away with it.” Toobin speculated that the U.S. Justice Department already has a sealed indictment against the WikiLeaks’ founder.

An Assange indictment would certainly please conservative political leaders in this country. In aFacebook posting, former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, the controversial presidential hopeful, took time out from her caribou killing and fish clubbing to say Assange should be hunted down like an al Qaeda terrorist and indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917.

(more…)

December 5, 2010

WIKILEAKS RENEW DR. AAFIA SIDDIQUI MYSTERY

86-year prison term for Dr. Siddiqui: Victory in Courtroom is Loss on Worldwide Public Stage

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

This website has maintained an ongoing interest in the bizarre case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui (hereand here). We have stated we do not know if the Pakistani native is a brilliant neuroscientist or an al Qaeda terrorist as our Government has repeatedly charged she is. What we do know is that our Government has cloaked the Siddiqui case in such mystery and secrecy that we believe she was most likely kidnapped, along with her three children, by Pakistan’s infamous intelligence agency in Karachi in 2003 and turned over to our Government who placed her in secret detention in Bagram military prison in Afghanistan where she was subjected to torture and other forms of debilitating abuse.

Just months after U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Berman, sitting in the Southern District of New York, imposed an 86-year prison term on Dr. Siddiqui following her conviction for shooting American military personnel after her detention in Ghanzi, Afghanistan in July 2008, the highly publicized and controversial WikiLeaks disclosures of U.S. State Department classified cables has reawaken what the British newspaper, The Guardian, calls “one of the most vexed mysteries of the Bush-era ‘war on terror’.”

One cable from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, dated July 31, 2008 (two weeks after Siddiqui’s capture in Afghanistan), stated: “Bagram officials have assured us that they have not been holding Siddiqui for the last four years, as has been alleged.” Earlier cables from the embassy in February addressed the widespread public protest and outrage in Pakistan following Siddiqui’s conviction in February 2010.  At that time U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson charged the protests were the result of “one-sided” media coverage in Pakistan about the case.

The mystery surrounding Dr. Siddiqui’s strange disappearance from Karachi in 2003 assumed an international life form in 2008 when, according to the Peace thru Justice Foundation, four men escaped from the Bagram prison and began to share stories about a Pakistani woman known as “Prisoner 650” who had been repeatedly subjected to torture and physical abuse at the hands of U.S. Government and military personnel. After a British citizen named Binyan Mohamed was released from U.S. secret detention, he positively identified a photograph of Dr. Siddiqui as “Prisoner 650.” The Prisoner 650/Dr. Siddiqui story was picked up by British journalist Yvonne Ridley who coined her as the “Gray Lady of Bagram.” The “Gray Lady” term was employed because Ridley said “Prisoner 650” appeared to be a “ghost” by all those who saw her and heard her screams echoing following torture sessions at the infamous Bagram prison.

(more…)

December 2, 2010

BOTH TERROR AND AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM ON TRIAL

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:52 pm

Suspected Terrorists should be Transferred to Civilian Custody and Processed in the Criminal Justice System

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was involved in the two bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. To what extent we do not know. The final verdict is mixed on that issue. What we do know is that the New York Times reported Ghailani was captured in Pakistan in 2004 where he was held in one of the CIA’s “secret prisons” for most of the next five years. He was subjected to repeated interrogations and torture during that period before he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay detention facility, according to his attorneys. The Obama administration elected to use the Ghailani case as a test run for its policy that terrorists should be tried in civilian courts rather than before military tribunals (herehere and here). Ghailani was then indicted by a New York federal grand jury on 285 terrorism-related counts, including conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and murder in connection with the embassy bombings, and thereafter transferred from military custody to civilian custody.

The Times also reported that last May that U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued two significant pretrial rulings in the Ghailani case which seem to pave the way for future prosecution of suspected terrorists, like Khalid Sheik Mohammad, in civilian courts. The judge denied motions by Ghailani’s attorneys to dismiss the charges against him because he had been subjected to torture while held in the CIA’s “black site” facility and because his right to a speedy trial had been violated by the secret CIA pretrial incarceration. Put simply, torture and long term incarceration in secret prisons without an attorney or due process protections will not stand as a bar to terrorism prosecutions in Judge Kaplan’s court—a significant departure from longstanding constitutional precedents in our system of  justice.

But on the day before the Government was to present its case Judge Kaplan handed down a ruling which, some legal experts believe, damaged the prosecution’s case, according to theTimes. The judge ruled the Government could not use Hussein Abebe as a witness because the CIA learned about him through Ghailani’s tortuous interrogations. Abebe was prepared to testify he had sold Ghailani the explosives used to destroy the embassies. Judge Kaplan, however, tempered his ruling with the observation that even if Ghailani were found not guilty, he could be held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant” until “hostilities between the United States and al Qaeda and Taliban end.”

Last month, following a four-week trial, an anonymous six-man, six-woman jury acquitted Ghailani of 284 counts while finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He faces a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life imprisonment on that one count at his sentencing scheduled for January 25, 2011. Lead prosecutor in the case, Preet Bharara, said he will seek a life sentence for Ghailani. Ghailani’s four attorneys presented a defense that their client had been “duped” into assisting in the conspiracy to destroy the embassies and will obviously push for a much lesser sentence because of the jury’s verdict.

(more…)

October 23, 2010

ANOTHER ROGUE PROSECUTOR-IMMUNITY CASE

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…)

Older Posts »

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