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…)

January 9, 2010

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2009

Fear Mongers Continue Calls for Military Tribunals to Avoid Burdens of Complying with Constitution and Rule of Law

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The day after we posted our blog “Argument Against Gitmo Closure Defeated By Act of Terrorism” (Dec. 28, 2009), in which we pointed out that Republican opponents of the Obama administration’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, had not suggested that Christmas Day attempted airline bomber Umar Farouck Abdulmutallab be tried before a military tribunal rather than in a civilian court, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) led an awakened chorus of Republican voices saying Abdulmutallab should not be tried as a “criminal defendant” in a federal civilian court but rather as a “terrorist” before a military tribunal.

“I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal … by putting him into the criminal justice system,” King stated in a December 29 interview with NBC. “I wish they would have put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could … My concern is that we did miss the opportunity because once we put him into the criminal justice system, he gets a lawyer and Miranda rights.”

King’s statements suggest that military interrogators would have been able to employ the “harsh interrogation methods” long advocated by former Vice President Dick Cheney (such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, etc.) to secure the “intelligence and information” the congressman assumes Abdulmutallab possesses. Apparently Rep. King, along with the others who share this point of view, forgot that in 2005 Congress (a body to which the New York representative belongs) passed the Detainee Treatment Act which prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of “terror suspects” during military or CIA interrogations. Torture is no longer a permissible method to extract “intelligence and information” from terror suspects, despite Dick Cheney’s lamentations to the contrary.

Rep. King, who is a ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, must have also forgotten (or has never been aware) that in October 2009 President Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (which is called the “Military Commissions Act of 2009”) which significantly altered the legal landscape in the interrogation of “terror suspects.” The previous Military Commissions Act, enacted by King and his congressional colleagues in 2006, allowed coerced statements obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence against terror suspects tried before military tribunals. The new Act, which was law at the time of Abdulmutallab’s arrest, no longer permits the use of such statements obtained through the “harsh interrogation” techniques supported by Dick Cheney and others. In a recent Findlaw column, Human Rights Watch attorney Joanne Mariner discussed the provisions of the revised 2009 Act:

(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…)

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…)

Older Posts »

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