Holder Highlights New Times Square Arrests, Defends Trying Terrorists In Federal Courts

By Justine Rellosa-Talk Radio News Service

Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee Thursday that the Department of Justice had issued search warrants earlier in the day that ultimately led to the apprehension of several individuals identified during the investigation of the Times Square bombing attempt.

Holder raised the fact to highlight the effectiveness of confronting terrorists within the U.S. justice system.

“The concern I have is that people want to take away from us the ability to bring cases in the federal courts,” Holder said. “You take away from us an extremely valuable tool; you actually weaken this country; you weaken our ability to fight this war against those that would do this nation harm.”

The Attorney General added that he is making a conscious effort to keep his Department from becoming ensnared in politics.

“I will not allow this department of Justice to be politicized,” said Holder. “I want the American people to know that, right or wrong, the decisions that I make are based on the facts and on the law and have no basis in politics.”

Top Court: Ashcroft, Mueller Not Liable For Muslim Civil Rights Violations

By Jonathan Bronstein, Talk Radio News Service

Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government allowed law enforcement officials to arrest people of “high interest” according to race, religion, or national origin, according to Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani citizen who was placed in a maximum-security prison in early 2002.

Iqbal claimed that the government’s decision violated his civil rights and he sued former U.S. Attorney General John Aschcroft and Robert Mueller, then-Director of the FBI.

Today, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy, ruled against Iqbal.

Kennedy wrote that Iqbal’s initial filings did not provide enough information to automatically find Ashcroft and Mueller responsible for the abuses he suffered while being held.

The case will now return to the lower courts, where Iqbal may have a chance to substantiate his claim that he was subjected to harsh conditions on account of his religion and nationality, and that Ashcroft and Mueller were the “principle architects” of this plan.

Four Justices dissented, and in an opinion written by Justice Souter agreed with the lower courts' findings that Ashcroft and Mueller did violate his civil rights and could therefore be held responsible.

Durbin: Crack Cocaine Laws Are Unjust

By Jonathan Bronstein, Talk Radio News

Two items that weigh 50 grams, an average chocolate bar and a relatively small amount of crack cocaine, and while the former may be sweet and delectable, being in possession of the latter will put one behind bars for a minimum of 10 years.

By contrast, 5000 grams of powdered cocaine would be needed to put an individual in jail for 10 years, a fact that demonstrates the incongruity of federal drug laws, according to Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Currently the punishment ratio between powdered cocaine to crack cocaine is 100:1, meaning that one needs 100 times as much powdered cocaine as crack cocaine to achieve an equal sentence.

“The evidence does not justify a sentencing disparity between these two drugs,” said Durbin. “The sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine is both unjustified and unjust.”

The reason for this discrepancy between the two forms of the same drug can be attributed to the crack epidemic, which was perceived to be the greatest threat to American urban security. As a result, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which set the current federal penalty for crack and powder cocaine trafficking.

But such a law has caused an unintended consequence as now minorities, especially African Americas, have deep ceded distrust of the government because they feel that this law is intentionally racist.

“We (Americans) have to do something, and we have to do something now to address this phenomenon that is affecting our country and that is having a devastating affect on the African American community,” said Judge Reggie Walton of Washington D.C.

Durbin cited 2007 crime statistics, which revealed that 81 percent of all crack offenders were African Americans, while only 24 percent of all crack users were African Americans. Durbin felt that this disparity only exacerbated the feelings of distrust towards the judicial system.

“These racial disparities undermine trust in our criminal justice system and have a corrosive effect on the relationship between law enforcement and minority communities,” said Durbin.

Assistant Attorney General Larry Breuer spoke on behalf of the Obama Administration and stressed that this unfair disparity must be eliminated because it hurts the legitimacy of the justice system.

“Out laws and their enforcement must not only be fair, but they also must be perceived as fair,” said Breuer, who continued to say that “The perception of unfairness undermines governmental authority in the criminal process.”

Holder: No Jail Time For Torturers

Jonathan Bronstein, Talk Radio News Service

The Obama Administration's release of formally classified memos detailing alleged pre-meditated torture techniques approved by Bush Administration officials has placed many lawmakers at a crossroads. President Obama recently delegated the monumental task of deciding whether to prosecute any formal high ranking officials who knowingly allowed for the use of torture against so-called enemy combatants to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Today while testifying in front of the House Appropriation Committee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Holder stated "With regard to those members of the intelligence community who acted in good faith and on the reliance of Justice Department opinions that were shared with them, it is not our intention to prosecute those individuals."

Holder's comments were nearly identical to Obama's recent remarks at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where he pledged his support to those officials who followed the orders of their superiors.

But U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) said that he wanted ensure that Americans understood all the facts behind the use of torture as a means of getting vital intelligence information for enemy combatants. Wold asked Holder if anymore memos existed, like those alluding to unreleased memos referenced to by former Vice President Dick Cheney which he says prove that the harsh tactics yielded positive results, Wolf asked Holder if any such memos existed.

"In fairness to the American people, once you (the Obama administration) made a decision to release the existing memos that you put out then you have an obligation to release the rest of the memos," said Wolf

Holder responded forcefully. "I am the Attorney General and I do not control many of these memos that you are referring to."

Yet, at the conclusion of the hearing, Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) stated his hope, "At the Justice Department politics is out and justice is back," he said.

House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee hearing on the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel

Acting Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, said there is a specific definition as to what is torture. Torture, he said, is when severe mental or physical suffering causes prolonged mental harm. He said the physiological sensation of the "gag" or "drowning" reaction is what makes the technique acute, even though you know you're not going to drown.

There are new statutes in the War Crimes Act, Bradbury said, that took the definition of torture and changed it. The new statutes became effective Fall 2006, and the department has not analyzed the practice of waterboarding under that new statute. He also said he is not aware of any deaths resulting from being waterboarded.

During questioning about the destroyed CIA tapes, Bradbury said he was not involved in the discussion nor did he have personal knowledge about it, and when asked who may have destroyed them he said, "I don't know." Although he was repeatedly asked the same question in various different ways, he kept saying "I don't know."

Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC) asked if the president had the authority to "disregard" the legality of waterboarding, and under Article II of the Constitution, would he be able to order waterboarding to be done. Bradbury would not directly answer the question, instead saying that the president would not do that even with the power to do so. Watt repeated the question six times, and emphasized that he did not want to know if the president "would" do it, the question was if the president "could" step over the law under Article II. Bradbury never answered that question.