CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

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

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…)

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

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…)

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…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

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