CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

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…)

September 1, 2009

CIA PROBE NECESSARY TO PROTECT RULE OF LAW

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:57 pm

Investigating Crimes of Torture: Expecting and Demanding Accountability

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and paralegal Billy Sinclair

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently selected a Connecticut federal prosecutor named John H. Durham to investigate whether the CIA’s destruction of the videotapes of harsh interrogation techniques inflicted upon terror suspects between 2002 and 2003 merit a full blown investigation of the agency employees (or independent contractors hired by the agency) who conducted those interrogations and those government officials who approved them.

Political conservatives–instigated by wing-nut pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh—have blasted Holder’s decision as being a terrible blow to the intelligence agency’s morale. They charge that the rank-and-file spy hawks will now be inhibited from protecting the country’s national security interests because of fear they will violate some law while “doing their duty” that might land them in the slammer.

The decision to investigate the CIA—regardless of whether it was those who ordered the torture interrogations, those who carried them out (regardless of whether the interrogators were career agency employees or independent contractors working as hired guns), or those who orchestrated the political cover up the massive torture conspiracy—should not depend upon “agency morale.” The so-called “morale issue” is a red-herring. The nation should not be concerned about the “morale” of a rogue agency that lacks the moral capability or legal duty to obey clearly established federal laws, international laws, and Geneva Conventions.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney joined the political fray more recently by saying the selection of a special prosecutor was a political outrage. As one media pundit pointed out, the vice president himself has never held the Constitution in high esteem or exhibited very much respect for the rule of law. We agree. Shortly after 9/11, Cheney told then NBC’s Meet the Press host Tim Russert that those in power would have to visit the “dark side” to win President Bush’s declared “war on terror.” The former vice-president has since been a staunch defender of “harsh interrogation techniques” (water boarding, sleep deprivation, use of guns and drills to threaten blindfolded prisoners, attack dogs, beatings, and a host of other physical abuses) that he refuses to characterize as “torture.” (more…)

May 22, 2009

THE GITMO DILEMMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:24 pm

Don’t We Have Prison Space for a Few More?

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Shortly after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced his intention to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which currently houses 240 individuals classified as “enemy combatants” suspected of having engaged in some form of terrorism against the United States. The president stated that he was studying the various options for dealing with these detainees.

The proposed closure of “Gitmo,” as the military facility is now known, drew expected criticism from Republicans and right-wing spokesman like former Vice President Dick Cheney who accused the president of compromising the nation’s security interests. Failing to get a specific plan about what would be done with the “detainees” currently housed there, conservative and moderate Democrats gradually cuddled up to drumbeat of right-wing hysteria being promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and refused to stand by the president.

On May 20, 2009, the U.S. Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support, voted 90-6 to block President’s Obama request for funds necessary to shutdown the Gitmo facility.

“One thing [President Obama] has to do is begin to articulate the specifics of a plan for closing Guantanamo,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster with close ties to the congressional leaders. “The Hill needs to hear that.”

Echoing sentiments held by former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was asleep at the wheel leading up to the 9/11 attacks, recently warned congressional leaders that placing Gitmo detainees in the nation’s prison system could influence the “radicalization” of other inmates should they be placed in this system.

The FBI director should stick to law enforcement because he knows nothing about the nation’s prison subculture. In the first place, only a couple dozen of the 240 detainees currently housed at Gitmo would be transferred to federal prisons where they would be immediately, and permanently, placed in maximum security lockdown. The majority of the rest would be farmed out to Saudi Arabia where they would be put through that country’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program which has enjoyed some success. The remaining few, and the least dangerous, could be released to their country of origin.

During the Bush administration, some 500 suspected “enemy combatants” were released from Gitmo—either because they were innocent to begin with or because the nation’s military intelligence personnel felt combatants no longer posed a security threat to this country. Pentagon figures show that somewhere between 11 to 14 percent of those released returned to “militant activities.” An 85 percent success rate is not bad for any prisoner release program not based on “individual rehabilitation.” The nation’s regular prison system, which is based on the “rehabilitation” model, enjoys a success rate of around 55 percent.

With respect as to how to handle dangerous terrorists, the nation’s prison system has a historical and legal precedent for keeping “militant” inmates is long term maximum security lockdown. Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace, both suspected of being former Black Panther Party members, were kept in maximum security lockdown for 35 years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for the 1972 murder of a prison guard before a federal judge ordered their release from lockdown in 2007. Prison officials quickly returned them to lockdown on trumped up disciplinary charges within weeks of their release from solitary.

As for Mueller’s “radicalization” charge, the nation’s federal prison system is controlled by Mexican or other Latin American gangs—most of whom have direct affiliations with some of the most violent and well-organized drug cartels in the world. They could care less about the Koran, Allah, or “radical Islam.” They are about greed, profit and violence—not religion or justice. Realistically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons could simply put the worst, and the most dangerous, “terrorists” in the general inmate population of the average medium or maximum security facility and they would have to kowtow to the gangs just to survive with their lives, and some with their manhood.

Whether laced in long term maximum security lockdown in a “super max” prison or in general inmate population, given the increased scrutiny these Gitmo detainees would enjoy, they would have about as much success “radicalizing” other inmates as the CIA has enjoyed tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden. After all, you can’t do too much “radicalizing” from solitary confinement.

Remove the political posturing from the debate and the “Gitmo” dilemma could easily be resolved. Clear out one wing in one of the nation’s most secure “super max” federal prisons either in Marion, Illinois or Florence, Colorado; staff this wing with trained security personnel; install sophisticated security monitoring systems; and keep the two-dozen most dangerous terrorists in lockdown for the next fifty years or until they die, whichever comes first. Politics aside, treating these men as normal convicts within the prison system, with the typical threat assessments, classifications and housing placements, would likely adequately solve most of the issues.

The simple reality is that terrorists are not going to be released into American communities as Karl Rove-inspired Republicans have tried to frighten the public into believing. It’s pure nonsense, and dangerous politics. This nation, and the president, faces too many other very real and potentially catastrophic crises to be side-tracked by the so-called “Gitmo dilemma.” This problem is too important to be influenced by the likes of FBI Director Mueller who cannot point to a single instance where a convicted “terrorist” housed in an American prison has “radicalized” either a Muslim or non-Muslim inmate enough to carry out a terrorist attack against America; or conservative Republicans who spread the unfounded fears that terrorists are about to be released into American communities where they can turn our children into “suicide bombers.”

President Obama should give Congress a plan. Release most of the Gitmo detainees into Saudi Arabia’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program. Transfer the remaining and most dangerous others to American federal prisons; try them before military tribunals; and if found guilty and their convictions upheld on appeal, imprison them for the rest of their lives in a maximum security lockdown status where they will grow old and die in anonymity.

That will eliminate whatever national security threat these particular terrorists pose to this country and restore America’s legal and moral standing in the international community. What is so hard about that?

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

May 9, 2009

A DEFENSE AGAINST TORTURE

The rule of law prevails over the demands of politics

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In the wake of the Obama administration’s release of the “terror memos” and the political firestorm the release generated, the president has instructed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to review all the facts and circumstances surrounding the “torture” interrogations conducted by CIA and U.S. military personnel and make a determination of whether criminal charges should be filed either against those who approved the torture interrogations or those who conducted them, or both. Any decision Attorney General Holder makes will trigger an intense political backlash.

While the Democratic leadership favors either the formation of some kind of “truth commission” to investigate the torture issue much like the 9/11 commission or the criminal prosecution of all those involved, indications from the media are that President Obama is not personally or politically prepared to embrace either concept. One thing is fairly certain. The president should follow the rule of law. As a Harvard Law School graduate and former law professor, Obama has a deep appreciation for making sure that the rule of law prevails over the demands of politics. The president should neither direct nor attempt to control the course of the attorney general’s investigation and he will most certainly abide by the attorney general’s final decision.

Recent leaks indicate that criminal prosecution is not being considered but that the Justice Department may recommend that those involved in crafting the documents be disciplined by their state bar associations or banned from the practice of law.

However, should the attorney general elect to prosecute those involved in the “torture” process under the Bush administration, recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and historical U.S. Supreme Court precedents may offer a defense to those indicted on torture charges. The federal torture statute, Section 2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code, requires the Government to prove following elements: 1) the torture occurred outside the United States; 2) the person who carried out the torture is a United States national; and 3) the person who carried out the torture is in the United States, regardless of the nationality of either the torturer or the victim of the torture. These same elements apply to those who conspire to carry out torture. Anyone convicted under this statute faces a fine or a term of imprisonment up to 20 years, or both. 1/ (more…)

April 23, 2009

THE CIA TERROR MEMOS

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 9:24 am

Legal Opinions Redefine Torture, Criminal Acts

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Bush administration’s 2001 declaration of “war on terror” critically—if not irreparably—injured the constitutional soul of America. This nation can no longer look other civilized countries in directly in the eye and unequivocally say it is the moral leader of the “free world.” The recently released CIA “terror memos” demonstrate that during the eight-year presidential tenure of George W. Bush the United States became a nation that subscribed almost exclusively to the base Machiavellian political dogma of “the end justifies the means.”  Those who have defended, and continue to defend, the “torture” practices carried out under the Bush administration say they were a necessary weapon in the “war on terror” declared by President Bush after the three September 11, 2001 terror attacks against the United States by the international terrorist organization, al-Qaeda.

In the wake of that war declaration, the nation’s Central Intelligence Agency established “black site” (secret) prisons in friendly countries across Europe. The CIA, and its contracted mercenaries, began to search for and round up “terror suspects” around the globe. Many of the suspects were kidnapped off public streets in their home countries and whisked away to one of the CIA’s “black site” prisons. Most of those “terror suspects” were ultimately designated by the military term as “enemy combatants” and turned over to the military to be housed in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. These “enemy combatants,” most of whom were Arab foreign nationals, enjoyed no “constitutional” protections such as right to a public and speedy trial by jury, right to confront and cross examine their accusers, privilege against self-incrimination, or the right to habeas corpus.

One of the first “high-valued” terror suspects captured by the CIA was Abu Zubaydah, the highest ranking member of al-Qaeda captured at the time. A hardcore operative of the terrorist organization and personal confidant of Osama bin Laden, Zubaydah was captured on March 28, 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan after being shot three times in an attempt to evade capture. It became immediately clear to the CIA that he was not about to cooperate with American authorities about al-Qaeda’s past or future terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.

From the moment of his capture, the CIA had aggressively interrogated Zubaydah to force his cooperation without much success. The intelligence agency decided to escalate from harsh interrogation methods to “torture” to get him to talk. The agency, however, knew torture is explicitly prohibited by Section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code; and being fearful of future congressional and media backlash, the agency sought, and received, legal cover from the U.S. Justice Department to violate this law. (more…)

April 21, 2009

TORTURE FALLOUT CONTINUES

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:07 am

Foreign Investigation of Torture Techniques Sanctioned by Bush Administration

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

CIA Director Leon Panetta announced on April 9, 2009 that it would shut down those “black site” secret prisons in foreign countries utilized by the George Bush administration to house, and torture, suspected terrorists—many of whom were kidnapped off public streets in their home countries by either CIA agents or CIA operatives, and who had never been formally charged with any terror-related activity.

Panetta said the agency officers who employed what the New York Times called “brutal interrogation methods”—a euphemism for torture—“should not be investigated, much less punished” because their actions had been declared lawful by the U.S. Justice Department.

The laws of the United States, and international law, prohibit torture, as do many treaties between most civilized nations. CIA interrogators employed a variety of brutal interrogation methods in these “black site” prisons to get terrorist suspects to provide information about terrorism activities. One of the methods was “water-boarding”—a near drowning technique used on at least three prisoners in 2002 and 2003, and a torture technique declared a “war crime” by the U.S. after World War II because it had been used by the Japanese. Panetta and other top Obama administration officials have stated publicly that they believe water-boarding is torture.

Neither President of the United States, with all his immense executive powers, nor the United States Justice Department have either the statutory or constitutional authority to declare a crime—and torture is recognized by the laws of this nation and the laws of the international community as a crime—to be “legal” as suggested by CIA Director Panetta. (more…)

March 5, 2009

UN-INDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR(S): AN UNNECESSARY STIGMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:09 am

The Right Wing and the Council on American-Islamic Relations; No Due Process for the Unindicted

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

What exactly is a un-indicted co-conspirator?

Attorney Peter R. Rient defined the term as any person the Government alleges “agreed with others to violate the law but who is not charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct.” 1/

While the “un-indicted co-conspirator” designation may not have immediate legal consequences, it definitely has long term social consequences. As Ira P. Robbins, Bernard T. Welsh Scholar and Professor of Law and Justice, has written: “Although a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, these procedural protections do little to shield an individual who is identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. Because trials focus on the guilt or innocence of the indicted individuals, the practice of naming an individual as an unindicted co-conspirator in effect accuses the person of a crime without providing him or her with a forum for seeking vindication. Thus, the practice routinely results in injury to their reputations, lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office.” 2/

Three decades earlier the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Briggs came to much the same conclusion: “”[t]the grand jury that returns an indictment naming a person as an unindicted conspirator does not perform its shield function [protecting the innocent] but does exactly the reverse. If the charges are baseless, the named person should not be subjected to a public branding, and if supported by probable cause, he should not be denied a forum.” 3/

That’s precisely what happened to some of the nearly 300 individuals or entities named as un-indicted co-conspirators in the “Holy Land Foundation terrorism case” tried in Dallas last year. One of the groups named as an un-indicted co-conspirator was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This group found itself in the Government’s cross hairs after one of the Holy Land leaders, Ghassam Elashi, who founded the Texas chapter of CAIR and chaired on the Holy Land Foundation, was indicted on terrorism related charges. (more…)

November 30, 2008

THE WAR ON TERROR ENJOYS RECENT VICTORIES

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:12 pm

Government Finally Reaches the Holy Land in Complex Case of Providing Financial Support to Terrorist

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

America has a disposition toward war. The nation was created through war, and except for brief periods of respite, America has been at war with itself and other countries throughout its history. When not at war with other nations, America has found a need to declare “war” on one social ill after another, particularly over the last five decades. Beginning with President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” through President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” following 9/11, government officials have consistently used a war slogan to justify one social crusade after another.

In 2007 we wrote in this column (under the title “The Holy Land Foundation Verdict”) about the efforts of the Bush administration, as part of its “war on terror,” to convict the Holy Land Foundation of Texas for terrorism-related activities. We will revisit some of the historical background of that column as a lead into this one.

Under its original name Occupied Land Fund, the Holy Land Foundation was established in California in 1989 by Ghassan Elashi and other Palestinian Activists. The purpose of the Foundation was to provide assistance to Palestinians displaced by a Palestinian uprising against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The uprising became known as the “intifada.” The most aggressive resistance in the intifada came from the Iranian-backed organization called Hamas which had been established in 1987. The political leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook, was married to Elashi’s cousin.

Three years later, in 1992, Holy Land moved its headquarters to Richardson, Texas. The Foundation came under the scrutiny of the governments of the United States and Israel the following year. An Illinois businessman named Muhammad Salah detained in Israel informed authorities that Holy Land, which had become America’s largest Muslim charity, was actually a front for Hamas. While he later claimed that he had provided information to the Israelis under torture, he told the authorities that Marzook, who was living in the U.S. at the time, had actually funded the creation of Holy Land with hundreds of thousands of dollars of start-up money. (more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress © 2009 John T. Floyd III All Rights Reserved:Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee