Attorney General Defends Prosecution Of 9/11 Mastermind In Federal Court, Discusses Prison Reform

By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, through the federal court system in New York rather than through military commissions.

President Barack Obama revived former President George W. Bush’s military commissions, also known as military tribunals, in May 2009 for a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Obama's tribunals, deemed “Bush Light” by critics, provided terror suspects and war prisoners with more legal protections. However, the tribunals have been criticized for sacrificing American judicial values in order to prosecute prisoners quicker.

In his argument for employing federal courts rather than military courts, Holder cited the 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He claimed that the United States could prosecute terrorists “safely and securely” in the federal system because “we have been doing it for years.”

“I studied this issue extensively,” Holder said in his opening statements. “I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in the federal court.”

While Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) defended Holder, saying that “we can rely on the American justice system,” the decision was met with criticism from Republican members of the committee. In one instance, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Holder’s choice “a perversion of the justice system.”

“You’re a fine man,” Graham said to Holder. “I know you want to do everything to help this country be safe but I think you’ve made a fundamental mistake here.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) mentioned that Mohammed had already said he would plead guilty to the terrorists acts.

“How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?” Kyl asked, garnering scattered applause and laughter from some audience members. “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in an Article III [federal] court than that?”

In response, Holder said, “the determination I make ... does not depend on the whims or the desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said he wanted to do that then. I have no idea with what he wants to do now with regards to these military commissions that now [have] enhanced protections. My job is to look at the possibilities."

Holder also touched on issues such as prison reform legislation, claiming that drug courts specifically established for non-violent crimes have so far been effective, responding to Senator Al Franken's (D-Minn.) opinion that too many prisoners were in prison for drug possession.

“We’re essentially [taking] kids who are in possession of drugs and sending them to crime school," Franken said. "They learn from other criminals how to do crime, and two-thirds of them come back [after] they’re released within three years.”

“I’m familiar with the [drug court] we have here in Washington, D.C.... that has [proven] to be very successful in dealing with people who are selling drugs because they are addicted to drugs,” Holder said. “These are low level dealers, not the people who live in penthouses and drive big cars and all that.”

Holder recommended a data driven analysis of the U.S. prison system. He said that a “sentencing group” is looking at a “wide variety” of issues in U.S. prisons.

“Who is in jail?” Holder asked. “Are they in jail for appropriate amounts of time? Is the amount of time they spend in jail a deterrent? Does that have an impact on the recidivism rate? This group will be reporting back to me within the next couple of months. It is on that basis that we’ll be formulating policy and working with the Committee.”

House Subcommittee Members Seek To Eliminate Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Drug Offenders

By Aaron Richardson

The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing Tuesday to consider legislation that would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders.

“The current sentencing requirements have failed to accomplish the legislative intent of the 1986 anti drug abuse act. We are wasting precious government resources on low level drug offenders. Moreover, the act has had a desolate impact on the African American community resulting in the incarceration of a disproportionate amount of African Americans often for many, many years," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.) gave his input on why eliminating minimum sentences could be dangerous to society as a whole.

“Judges should not be free to sentence felonies as misdemeanors. If there is no bottom to the range there will be more incidents where people will be killed or harmed because of light sentences.” said Gohmert.

Julie Stewart, President and Founder of Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM), discussed the impact mandatory minimum sentences have had on the U.S.

“Since the passage of the Safety Valve which allows the courts to sentence below the mandatory minimum for a narrow band of drug defendants over 210,000 people have been sentenced federally to 5 or 10 year mandatory prison sentences. That’s an enormous number of families affected by these one size fits all sentences.” Said Stewart.

Strip Search of Middle School Student Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Rules

By Matthew S. Schwartz — Talk Radio News Service

A 13-year-old girl's Constitutional rights were violated when school officials searched her bra and underpants for prohibited painkillers, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The Court did not go as far as banning school strip searches, but did state that officials must have a justified belief, based on suspected facts, that a strip search will reveal the hidden items.

"Nondangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School students of hiding that sort of thing in underwear," wrote Justice David Souter in the 8–1 decision. Officials need to fear danger to students, and have a specific reason to look in a student's underwear, "before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."

Because there was no reason to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were hidden in her underwear, the search violated the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches."

The highly anticipated case arose out of events that occurred at the Arizona middle school in October of 2003. Then assistant-principal of the school, Kerry Wilson, called Savana Redding into his office, where he showed her four white prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, and one over-the-counter naproxen pill, all used for pain but banned under school rules. Wilson told her he had received a report that she was giving the pills to students, but Savana denied it and agreed to let Wilson search her backpack.

After finding nothing, Wilson sent Savana to the school nurse, who searched her clothes for pills. Finding none, they then asked her to remove her clothes, pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and pull out the elastic on her underpants. No pills were found.

Savan's mother filed suit against the the school district and officials for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana's Fourth Amendment rights.

Normally, for a search to be constitutional, a police officer must have "probable cause" to conduct the search. Probable cause exists where circumstances would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been, or is, being committed," in the words of an oft-cited 1925 Supreme Court decision.

But the Court has also recognized that the Fourth Amendment must be applied differently in educational contexts, where schools are responsible for ensuring their students' safety. So in 1985, the Court required a less stringent standard — "reasonable suspicion" — and held that a student search is permissible if it is "reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student."

The facts in this case did not justify such an intrusive search, the Court held.

"The suspicion of Wilson's was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing," Souter wrote, adding that most reasonable suspicions would support searches of a student's backpack and outer clothes.

A strip search, however, is "categorically distinct" from a backpack and clothes search, Souter wrote. "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. … [A]dolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure."

Lawyers for the school had argued that the search was no more intrusive than what happens in school locker rooms. But the justices wouldn't buy it.

"Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be," Souter wrote.

The Court also held that the school officials who conducted the search are protected from liability, because it was unclear at the time whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

The lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, believed the search did not violate Savana's Constitutional rights. "The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators," he wrote, calling the decision a "deep intrusion into the administration of public schools."

The case is Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.

Napolitano Announces Enhanced Customs Cooperation With Mexico

By Celia Canon

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Mexican Finance Minister Agustin Carstens signed a letter of intent announcing new areas of cooperation on the U.S-Mexican border during a press conference Monday at the Ronald Reagan Center.

In 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had agreed upon a bilateral program that allowed Mexico and the U.S to join forces in order to safeguard trade and combat illegal activity at the border.

Today’s announcement boosted the 2007 Bilateral Strategic Plan by updating agencies' technology, training Mexican officers for Border Patrol service, and preventing criminals from entering Mexico.

Napolitano praised the extension, saying “The U.S is a full partner with Mexico and the Calderon administration as we satisfy our twin goals of a secure border and a resilient border that allows legitimate trade and commerce to pass but that keeps out drugs, that keeps out weapons, keeps out the cash that fuels these cartels and... makes certain that the border is safe and secure for those who live there.”

Carstens reflected on the importance of this fundamental cooperation for the completion of both Mexican and American interests.

“We both acknowledge that...our joint efforts will translate into more secure and competitive North America,” said Carstens.

The 2007 initiative has already been met with considerable success.

“We have seized [three times] the amount of arms, we’ve seized 50% more drugs,” said Napolitano.

The Senate Rebuilds Pakistan

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Photo by Michael Ruhl

In the next 5 years, the Pakistani infrastructure will be fortified by almost $10 billion American dollars, if Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have anything to say about it. The aptly titled Kerry-Lugar Bill will provided money for rebuilding the lives of civilians in war torn Pakistan.

Both Kerry and Lugar said that most of the money that has been funneled into Pakistan in the past few years has gone towards security. The aim of this bill is to shift the balance, to place more of an emphasis on infrastructure.

The Senators want to use the money for building schools, improving health care, building bridges, water projects, and other elements of infrastructure. Kerry said that the target projects are “things that would improve life and give people a sense of progress” to civilians.

The money would also be used for ensuring an independent media, expanding human rights and the rule of law, expanding transparency in government, rooting out political corruption and countering the drug trade.

Additionally military funding would be conditioned upon several things, including Pakistani security forces preventing al Qaeda and Taliban forces from operating in Pakistan. The military forces would not be able to interfere in politics or in the judicial process, according to the provisions of the bill.

The legislation bill would give $1.5 billion each year from FY 2009-2013, and would recommend similar amounts of money over the subsequent five years. There would be required benchmarks to measuring how effective the funding is, and the President will have to submit semi-annual reports to Congress about progress made.