Supreme Court restricts life sentences without parole for juveniles

In a 6-3 decision, the court strikes down laws in 37 states, including California, that allow life terms with no chance for parole for a crime that does not involve murder.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

May 17, 2010

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court for the first time on Monday put a strict constitutional limit on prison terms, ruling it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a young criminal to prison for life with no chance for parole for a crime that does not involve murder.

The ruling is the second in recent years to greatly expand the constitutional protections for juveniles. And once again, the justices in the majority said they agreed with international critics who say the United States is out of step when it comes to treatment for the young.

There has been a "global consensus" among all nations but the United States that juvenile criminals should not be locked up for life with no chance to rehabilitate themselves, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult," he wrote, quoting his 2005 opinion that rejected the death penalty for underage murderers.

That ruling spared several dozen young murderers from possible execution.

Monday's ruling gives new hope — although no guarantee of release — to at least 129 prisoners nationwide who were given life terms for crimes such as robbery or assault that took place before they were 18.

California has 249 juveniles sentenced to life without possibility of parole, but only two that did not involve a murder, according to a preliminary review by state corrections officials.

Conservatives in Congress have sharply criticized Kennedy for citing international legal norms. They said the interpretation of the Constitution should be unaffected by foreign views.

Undaunted, Kennedy said again on Monday that the "judgment of the world's nations" deserved to be considered when U.S. judges decided what was cruel and unusual punishment. These international norms are not "binding or controlling," he said, but they can "provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

The ruling came in the case of Terrance Graham, who at 16 pleaded guilty to taking part in the armed robbery of a barbecue restaurant in Florida. A year later, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery.

The judge, acting on a Florida law that allowed juveniles to be treated as adults, gave him life in prison with no chance for parole.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kennedy that such a life term for a young offender is always unconstitutional. Young criminals may be locked up for years, but they deserve "some realistic opportunity" to seek their release, they said.

This ruling, Graham vs. Florida, struck down the laws in California and 36 other states that permit such life sentences with no parole.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed that Graham's sentence was unconstitutionally cruel. It was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime, he said, since burglary and robbery usually result in about five years behind bars. But he did not agree that such prison terms were unconstitutional in all cases. He cited the case of a 17-year-old who raped an 8-year-old girl and buried her alive, and another involving a group of juveniles who raped a woman in front of her young son.

The dissenters — Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court should not impose "its own independent moral views" that these life prison terms are cruel and unusual punishment. Thomas said the justices should let states set the proper prison terms for criminals.

A Washington lawyer representing the National District Attorneys Assn. denounced the ruling. The court's decision "creates a whole new category of constitutionally protected criminals, essentially a 'get out of jail free' card for underage criminals repeatedly convicted of adult heinous violent crimes," said attorney Gene Schaerr.

But others saw it as a step forward.

"None of us are the same people we were as teenagers," said Marsha Levick, deputy director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. "When it comes to sentencing youth, we should not make irrevocable decisions."

Human Rights Watch says the United States has 2,574 inmates serving life terms for crimes they committed before age 18. The vast majority of young criminals who get life terms were involved in homicides.

Of the 129 prisoners directly affected by Monday's ruling, 77 are in Florida. In addition to California, the other states with at least a few such prisoners are Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-juveniles-20100518,0,173764,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama signs press freedom law named for slain journalist Daniel Pearl

President Obama on Monday signed a law designed to encourage the expansion of press freedoms -- abroad.

Named after slain journalist Daniel Pearl, the law is designed to cast a spotlight on how foreign governments treat the media. The act requires the State Department in its annual human rights report to identify countries where there were violations of freedom of the press and what role the government may have had in the violations.

The measure “sends a strong message from the United States government and from the State Department that we are paying attention to how other governments are operating when it comes to the press,” Obama said at the White House signing ceremony. The law “puts us clearly on the side of journalistic freedom.”

Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded by militants in Pakistan in 2002. Attending the ceremony were his family, including his widow and their son, Adam Daniel, who turns 8 on May 28. Also attending were congressional sponsors including Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Adam Schiff  (D-Burbank).

The Obama administration has a had a bit of roller-coaster ride with the media over the last few months as a once pleasant relationship has cooled. Earlier this month, there were complaints at a White House briefing that Obama hasn't had a recent formal news conference. After other complaints, the president visited with reporters on Air Force One during a Midwest swing.

According to the pool report on Monday's signing, one reporter attempted to ask the president a question about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Speaking of press freedoms ... ” CBS News correspondent Chip Reid began.

“You are free to ask them,” the president said of the right to question. But he avoided the oil issue with, “I'm not doing a press conference today.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/05/obama-signs-daniel-pearl-press-freedom-law.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Convicted killer John Albert Gardner III a possible assault suspect in three counties, police say

Convicted killer and rapist John Albert Gardner III is being investigated as a possible suspect in assaults in San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, law enforcement officials said Monday.

"We believe he's involved in other cases, not necessarily murder," said Lt. Dennis Brugos, head of the San Diego Sheriff's Department homicide detail. A multi-agency "Gardner task force" is at work, he said.

Brugos said investigators talked to Gardner for two hours Friday after he was sentenced for murder in the deaths of Chelsea King, 17, and Amber Dubois, 14, in northern San Diego County. He declined to say in how many cases Gardner was considered a potential suspect.

Brugos' comments came as law enforcement agencies broke their silence on the King and Dubois murders.

At a news conference, Escondido police said that in the weeks after Amber's Feb. 13, 2009, disappearance an officer questioned Gardner when a woman said he was stalking her in his car. The officer found an open container of alcohol in Gardner's car and a 3-year-old child, the son of Gardner's girlfriend.

The incident occured about a mile from where Amber had last been seen walking to class at Escondido High School.

The officer, who knew Gardner was a registered sex offender, let Gardner go and did not report the incident to a task force that Escondido police had formed to look for Amber, according to Escondido Capt. Bob Benton. Ten months later, Gardner killed Chelsea King.

Escondido police had a  dozen contacts with Gardner while he lived in Escondido, but he was never considered a suspect in Amber's disappearance, officials said. 

Still, Escondido Police Chief Jim Maher said, "I have full confidence in my police department."

Maher said he doubted that evidence linking Gardner to Amber's disappearance would have developed even if the information about the stop had been given to the task force.

Gardner was sentenced Friday in San Diego Superior Court to life in prison without the possibility of parole . The sentence was part of a plea bargain in which the 31-year-old registered sex offender escaped the death penalty in exchange for pleading guilty to murdering both teenagers during rape attempts.

During much of the high-profile investigation after Chelsea's disappearance on Feb. 25 of this year, a judicial gag order kept attorneys and other law enforcement personnel from discussing the case publicly or releasing documents.

After Gardner pleaded guilty last month, a judge lifted the gag order on April 22 -- although Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis successfully urged all law enforcement personnel to remain silent. Although the search warrants were released, as required by law, other documents were withheld.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department, the Escondido Police Department and the county medical examiner all rejected requests from the media.

In announcing the plea bargain in April, Dumanis said that without it, her office did not have enough evidence to convict Gardner for Amber's murder and seek the death penalty.

After being arrested for Chelsea's murder, Gardner led officials to Amber's remains on condition the information not be used to file a murder charge against him. Officials began searching for other evidence that would link him to the murder and could be used to seek the death penalty.

Brugos said evidence was collected at the mountainous site where Amber's remains were found. He declined to give details.

At the news conference,  Dumanis and Deputy Dist. Atty. Kristen Spieler declined to talk specifics about the failed investigation that led to the plea bargain or the plea deal itself although Spieler said it was frustrating that no evidence linking Gardner to Amber's murder could be found.

Gardner was arrested for Chelsea's murder after investigators found a pair of her underwear with her blood and his semen on it near the jogging path at Lake Hodges where she had gone running.

One of the search warrants released after the guilty plea showed that two utility company workers had told authorities after Gardner's arrest and the discovery of Amber's remains that they had seen people who looked like Gardner and Amber in a car similar to Gardner's. The sighting was in the area northeast of Escondido, where Amber's remains were later found.

The victims' parents had sought in court to block the release of information about the crimes that they say would increase the agony of the families. Each family has also criticized segments of the news coverage, particularly the decision of a television station to broadcast a jailhouse interview with Gardner after his guilty plea in April.

Before his arrest, Gardner was a registered sex offender. He served five years in prison for an attack on a 13-year-old girl.

Chelsea's family has urged the Legislature to adopt "Chelsea's law," which would allow life sentences for sex criminals who attack minors.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/convicted-killer-john-albert-gardner-a-possible-assault-suspect-in-three-counties-police-say.html#more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona's anti-Latino movement

First it was an anti-immigration law. Then it was an anti-ethnic studies law.

May 18, 2010

When Arizona passed a law requiring immigrants to keep their papers with them at all times or risk arrest, we believed the state's hysteria was the unfortunate byproduct of the dysfunctional federal immigration policy. After all, who isn't fed up with illegal immigration? People may disagree about the solution to the problem, but no one denies that what the United States is doing now isn't working.

But it is now clear that Arizona's problem isn't only immigration — legal or otherwise. Its problem is Latinos.

What else are we to conclude from Arizona's decision last week to ban ethnic studies from its schools? The new law prohibits schools from teaching classes that promote "resentment" toward a race or class of people, that are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, that promote the overthrow of the government or that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." But by most accounts, the courses in question aren't really teaching such things, and they're open to all students — black, white and Latino.

Certainly, Arizona is getting darker and darker these days. According to a Brookings Institution report, Arizona's Latino population has shot up 180% in the last 20 years, with the white population dropping from 72% to 58%. Latinos account for about one-third of the state's 6.6 million people, and 90% of Latinos under age 18 were born in the U.S. Even if all immigration from Mexico were halted tomorrow, the high birthrate of this young population would continue Arizona's population boom and its demographic shift.

At the rate things are going, whites may soon be a minority in Arizona. Will SB 2281 then be used against them? Will that be the end of British literature classes? Dickens, after all, seethes with class resentment. And he didn't exactly write for Native Americans, Latinos and blacks.

But rest assured, if the day ever comes when the new brown majority doesn't see any purpose in teaching the literature, history and culture of Arizona's white minority, we won't uphold a double standard. We'll defend the value of teaching ethnic studies then, just as we do now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ethnic-20100518,0,7925457,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A New Standard of Decency

Monday's welcome Supreme Court decision , banning sentences of life without parole for juvenile criminals who do not commit murder, recognizes that children mature and should not be irrevocably punished for a childhood act short of killing. But it also recognizes that nations mature — that standards of justice and constitutional principles change over the centuries and should be reinterpreted by new generations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-member majority, acknowledged that permanent life sentences for juveniles might not have been historically recognized as cruel and unusual punishment but should now be considered unconstitutional because of “evolving standards of decency.”

Justice John Paul Stevens stated the case simply and elegantly in a concurring opinion:

“Society changes,” he wrote. “Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time.”

That, of course, infuriated the strict constructionists on the court, who said the Constitution's framers meant “cruel and unusual” to refer to torture and nothing more. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for two other justices, said the court was overstepping its bounds by interpreting the clause to ban disproportionate punishment.

Viewing the case from that 18th-century perspective, however, means ignoring recent scientific evidence showing a fundamental difference between the minds of juveniles and adults. Justice Kennedy, expanding on his landmark 2005 decision that banned the death penalty for juveniles, noted that the brain matures through late adolescence. He said juvenile actions are less likely to be evidence of an “irretrievably depraved character.”

The subject of the case decided on Monday, Terrance Graham, whose parents were crack addicts, participated in a restaurant robbery at age 16 and in a home-invasion robbery at age 17. A Florida judge sentenced him to life in prison without parole in 2005 at a time when the state, overreacting to a rash of juvenile crime, was cracking down on what it considered teenage superpredators .

But the court was hardly ordering his release, or that of the 128 other juveniles like him around the country (mostly in Florida) who are also locked up with no chance of parole. Instead, the court simply gave these prisoners a chance to show that they have matured and been rehabilitated, that years after their crimes, they have, at least, the hope of winning their release. (Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. took a middle position, saying Mr. Graham deserved a shot at parole but declining to endorse a categorical position.)

The majority's opinion was particularly heartening for its forthright acknowledgment that there are other sources of judicial inspiration beyond the country's founders. The low number of juvenile criminals sentenced to life without parole for noncapital crimes demonstrates that states, judges, prosecutors and juries have reached a de facto national consensus against the practice, the opinion said.

And, braving the catcalls of nativists, Justice Kennedy also looked to international law to bolster his argument, noting that this form of sentencing had been rejected by countries the world over . Until Monday, the United States was the only country to impose such sentences on its teenagers; thanks to five justices on the court, the world now stands in unanimous agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/opinion/18tue1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NATO Urged to Look Beyond Borders

PARIS — NATO must be willing to fight and operate far from its borders to defend its members in a new world of terrorism, piracy and cyberattacks, according to a proposed strategy for the alliance released Monday.

The proposal, “ NATO 2020 ,” also urges the alliance to restore credibility to its pledge of collective security, which it said was a prerequisite for efforts farther afield.

“NATO must be versatile and efficient enough to operate far from home,” former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright , who led a team of experts in writing the report, said at a news conference in Brussels. “In order to sustain the political will for operations outside its area, NATO must see that all its members are reassured about the security of their home territories.”

One of the main purposes of the new strategy, NATO officials said, is to recommit the alliance to its core mission of collective self-defense, known as Article 5 of its original charter.

But the report also says that the alliance must not fail in its current battle against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which NATO forces entered in collective defense of the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“In today's world we may have to go beyond our borders to defend our borders,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen , the alliance's secretary general. “I can mention Afghanistan as a case in point.”

Already this year, 200 NATO soldiers have died in Afghanistan, according to the Web site iCasualties.org , which tracks military fatalities, compared with 119 in the same period last year.

The report, commissioned by NATO, is meant to provide the guidelines for a new strategic concept to replace the one NATO adopted in 1999. Mr. Rasmussen will refine the guidelines and present them to the 28 member governments for comments, with the aim of adopting a new strategy at the organization's summit meeting in Lisbon in November.

In a post-1999 world of terrorism, nuclear proliferation and the spread of missiles to more aggressive countries and even nonstate actors, like Hezbollah and Hamas , and threats to the security of energy supplies and the Internet, the alliance must reform to remain relevant, the report said. It added, “Although NATO is busier than it has ever been, its value is less obvious to many than in the past.”

The report also urges the alliance to improve its ties and security cooperation with Moscow, working together on areas of mutual interest like missile defense, counterterrorism, maritime security and the fight against narcotics. “NATO should pursue a policy of engagement with Russia, while reassuring all allies that their security and interests will be defended,” the report said.

With Iran believed to be working to develop a nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles, partnership with Russia on missile defense makes sense, the report said. “Missile defense is most effective when it is a joint enterprise, and cooperation between the alliance and its partners, especially Russia, is highly desirable,” it said.

The panel urged NATO to maintain a nuclear deterrent “at the minimum level required by the prevailing security environment,” rejecting arguments by some European governments that American battlefield nuclear weapons be removed from the continent.

In a time of tight budgets, the panel said, members should spend more efficiently and do more to buy weapons jointly and to pool resources, like military transport planes. In 2008, only five NATO members met a target of spending a minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense; one of them, Greece, is in deep difficulty over its debts.

The report also suggests that the alliance be ready to intervene in humanitarian disasters, in cases of genocide, large-scale violations of human rights and the chaos of failed states.

A separate report , published this month by the Center for European Reform in London, says NATO needs to address the security concerns of newer members in central and eastern Europe.

As a gesture of nonaggression aimed at Russia, the alliance has done little planning on how it might defend newer member states like Poland and the Baltic countries from a Russian attack, whether military, naval or through the Internet. Some eastern European officials fear a Georgia-like local or regional conflict, where existing antagonisms could be manipulated.

“Some of the allies worry that NATO would not be able to come to their defense in a crisis,” said Tomas Valasek, one of the authors of the London report, who also was a civilian adviser to Ms. Albright's group.

“If they feel secure at home,” the report says, “they will have less need to invest in equipment needed for self-defense and have more reasons to buy the hardware needed for far-off missions such as Afghanistan.” And fewer reasons, the report says, to fear Russia and oppose a new NATO relationship with Moscow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/europe/18nato.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Generation Gap Over Immigration

MIAMI — Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”

Cathleen McCarthy, a senior at the University of Arizona , says immigration is the rare, radioactive topic that sparks arguments with her liberal mother and her grandmother.

“Many older Americans feel threatened by the change that immigration presents,” Ms. McCarthy said. “Young people today have simply been exposed to a more accepting worldview.”

Forget sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll; immigration is a new generational fault line.

In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain 's offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.

This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was “about right” (as opposed to “going too far” or “not far enough”). Boomers were also more likely to say that “no newcomers” should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a “welcome all” approach.

The generational conflict could complicate chances of a federal immigration overhaul any time soon. “The hardening of this divide spells further stalemate,” said Roberto Suro , the former head of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center .

And the causes are partly linked to experience. Demographically, younger and older Americans grew up in vastly different worlds. Those born after the civil rights era lived in a country of high rates of legal and illegal immigration. In their neighborhoods and schools, the presence of immigrants was as hard to miss as a Starbucks today.

In contrast, baby boomers and older Americans — even those who fought for integration — came of age in one of the most homogenous moments in the country's history.

Immigration, which census figures show declined sharply from the Depression through the 1960s, reached a historic low point the year after Woodstock. From 1860 through 1920, 13 percent to 15 percent of the country was foreign born — a rate similar to today's, when immigrants make up about 12.5 percent of the country.

But in 1970, only 4.7 percent of the country was foreign born, and most of those immigrants were older Europeans, often unnoticed by the boomer generation born from 1946 to 1964.

Boomers and their parents also spent their formative years away from the cities, where newer immigrants tended to gather — unlike today's young people who have become more involved with immigrants, through college, or by moving to urban areas.

“It's hard for them to share each others' views on what's going on,” said William H. Frey , a demographer with the Brookings Institution . “These older people grew up in largely white suburbs or largely segregated neighborhoods. Young people have grown up in an interracial culture.”

The generation gap is especially pronounced in formerly fast-growing states like Arizona and Florida, where retirees and new immigrants have flocked — one group for sun, the other for work.

In a new report based on census figures titled “The State of Metropolitan America,” Mr. Frey found that Arizona has the largest “cultural generation gap,” as he calls it, between older Americans who are largely white (83 percent in Arizona's case) and children under 18 who are increasingly members of minorities (57 percent in Arizona's case).

Florida ranks sixth on Mr. Frey's cultural generation gap list, with a 29 percentage point difference between the percentage of white people among its older residents and the percentage that whites make up of its children.

That very different makeup of the young and the old can lead t0 tensions. Demographers say it has the potential to produce public policy that alienates the young because older people are more likely to vote and less likely to be connected to the perspectives of youth — especially the perspectives of young people of different races and national origins.

“Short term, politically, the age divide heightens polarization,” Mr. Suro said “Long term,” he added, “there's the challenge of whether older citizens will pay for the education of the children of immigrants.”

Some older Americans acknowledge that how they grew up has shaped their opinions. Mike Lombardi, 56, of Litchfield, Ariz. — one of 1,079 respondents in the Times/CBS poll conducted from April 28 to May 2 — said his support for his state's new law stemmed partly from the shock of seeing gaggles of immigrants outside Home Depot, who he assumed were illegal. Comparing the situation to his youth in Torrance, Calif., in a follow-up interview, he said, “You didn't see anything like what you see now.”

Maggie Aspillaga, 62, a Cuban immigrant in Miami, had more specific concerns: a risk of crime from illegal immigrants and the costs in health care and other services. “They're taking resources,” she said.

Some young people agree, of course, just as many baby boomers support more open immigration policies. In the poll, a majority of Americans in all age groups described illegal immigration as a “very serious” problem.

Still, divisions were pronounced by age: for instance, while 41 percent of Americans ages 45 to 64 and 36 percent of older Americans said immigration levels should be decreased, only 24 percent of those younger than 45 said so.

Ms. Patrick, 22, said the gap reflected what each group saw as normal. In her view, current immigration levels — legal and illegal — represent “the natural course of history.”

As children, after all, her generation watched “ Sesame Street ” with Hispanic characters, many of them sat in classrooms that were a virtual United Nations , and now they marry across ethnic lines in record numbers. Their children are even adopting mixed monikers like “Mexipino,” (Mexican and Filipino) and “Blaxican” (black and Mexican).

That “multiculti” (short for multicultural) United States is not without challenges. Aparna Malladi, 31, a graduate student at Florida International University originally from India, said that when she first entered laboratories in Miami, it took a while for her to learn the customs.

“I didn't know that when I enter a room, I have to greet everyone and say goodbye when I leave,” Ms. Malladi said. “People thought I was being rude.”

Still, in interviews across the nation, young people emphasized the benefits of immigrants. Andrea Bonvecchio, 17, the daughter of a naturalized citizen from Venezuela, said going to a high school that is “like 98 percent Hispanic” meant she could find friends who enjoyed both Latin music and her favorite movie, “The Parent Trap.”

Nicole Vespia, 18, of Selden, N.Y., said older people who were worried about immigrants stealing jobs were giving up on an American ideal: capitalist meritocracy.

“If someone works better than I do, they deserve to get the job,” Ms. Vespia said. “I work in a stockroom, and my best workers are people who don't really speak English. It's cool to get to know them.”

Her parents' generation, she added, just needs to adapt.

“My stepdad says, ‘Why do I have to press 1 for English?' I think that's ridiculous,” Ms. Vespia said, referring to the common instruction on customer-service lines. “It's not that big of a deal. Quit crying about it. Press the button.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/18divide.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In an escalation of protest tactics, five immigrants dressed in caps and gowns held a sit-in on Monday at the Tucson offices of Senator John McCain , calling on him to sponsor legislation to open a path to legal status for young illegal immigrants.

Four of the protesters, including three who are in the country illegally, were arrested Monday evening on misdemeanor trespassing charges. The three were expected to face deportation proceedings.

It was the first time students have directly risked deportation in an effort to prompt Congress to take up a bill that would benefit illegal immigrant youths.

Separately on Monday, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Phoenix by a coalition of civil rights, labor and religious groups challenging the new Arizona law that allows the police to detain suspected illegal immigrants as unconstitutional, saying it would lead to racial profiling.

Though it was the fifth suit challenging the law, it was widely believed to have the best chance of being heard by the courts given the groups' experience and the nature of the complaint.

Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said of the protesters, “The individuals have a right to peacefully protest in the senator's office,” and added that Mr. McCain “understands the students' frustrations.”

But she said: “Elections have consequences, and they should focus their efforts on the president and the Democrats that control the agenda in Congress.”

Mr. McCain, a Republican, has in years past repeatedly sponsored a bill that would offer legalization for illegal immigrant students who were brought to the United States as children by their parents, known to its supporters as the Dream Act. But this year he has not. Mr. McCain is facing a primary challenge from J.D Hayworth , a talk show host who has taken a tough stand on illegal immigrants.

The students protesting in Mr. McCain's office said they wanted to increase pressure on Congress to pass the Dream Act this year, even if lawmakers do not take up a broader overhaul of the immigration system. The student bill is currently part of a Democratic proposal for an overhaul, largely written by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York.

“I've been organizing for years, and a lot of my friends have become frustrated and lost hope,” said one of the students, Lizbeth Mateo, 25. “We don't have any more time to be waiting. I really believe this year we can make it happen.”

Ms. Mateo, who came to the United States when she was 14, said she paid full tuition to earn a degree from California State University , Northridge, the first member of her family to graduate from college. She said her plans to attend law school had failed because she lacked legal status.

Ms. Mateo was arrested, along with Mohammad Abdollahi, 24, of Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Yahaira Carrillo, 25, of Kansas City, Mo. All three are illegal immigrants.

Also arrested was Raúl Alcaraz, 27, an immigrant from Mexico who is a legal resident and a counselor at a Tucson high school.

The protesters walked into Mr. McCain's office just before noon and sat in the lobby.

Tania Unzueta, 26, who is from Los Angeles, joined the sit-in, but she said the group decided she should leave the protest in order to avoid arrest.

Mr. Abdollahi said he could not return to Iran, where he was born, because he is gay and feared persecution there.

Margo Cowan, a lawyer representing the students, said that the Tucson police said they would advise federal immigration authorities of the arrests, and that she expected the students would be put in immigration detention.

Illegal immigrant students have become increasingly public in their protests in recent months, as the prospects for an immigration overhaul faded in Washington. Four immigrant students walked from Miami to Washington, arriving in late April. So far, immigration authorities have not moved to detain student protesters.

Lawmakers are divided over whether to take up the Dream Act as separate legislation. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a Republican who is a lead sponsor of the bill, said that the senator did not support any effort to advance a comprehensive immigration overhaul this year, but that he believed the Dream Act could be “doable” separately.

An aide to Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat who is the act's other lead sponsor, said he continued to see it as part of an overhaul.

Lawyers for the groups that filed the suit over the Arizona immigration law Monday took aim at a chief argument of its supporters: that it largely parallels existing federal statutes. The lawyers said the Arizona law went further because federal agents are not required to check the immigration status of people they stop or arrest, as the state law requires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/18dream.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld

WASHINGTON — In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question that has lately engaged the Tea Party movement and opponents of the new health care law: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress's power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I?

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

The challenge to the civil commitment law was brought by five prisoners. The case of Graydon Comstock was typical. In November 2006, six days before Mr. Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography , Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Mr. Comstock was a sexually dangerous person.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., unanimously ruled that none of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution empowered it to authorize such civil commitments. But the decision was stayed, and Mr. Comstock has remained confined in a federal prison.

At the argument of the case in January, Solicitor General Elena Kagan , now President Obama 's pick for the Supreme Court, said the law was needed “to run a criminal justice system that does not itself endanger the public.” She said 105 people had been confined under the law.

Ms. Kagan pointed to the Constitution's “necessary and proper” clause as granting Congress the power to pass the law, though the clause is not ordinarily thought of as a source of free-standing authority. The clause gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other powers

Justice Stephen G. Breyer , writing for himself and four other justices, said the clause provided Congress with the needed authority as long as the statute in question was “rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.”

Congress has the undoubted powers, Justice Breyer said, to enact criminal laws in furtherance of its enumerated powers and to create a prison system to punish people who violate those laws, though neither power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. “The civil commitment statute before us represents a modest addition,” he added, comparing it to medical quarantine.

Justice Breyer took pains to make clear that the court was not ruling on the separate question of whether such confinement violated the Constitution's due process clause.

Two justices, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy , voted to uphold the law but did not adopt Justice Breyer's general approach.

In his concurrence, Justice Alito said he was concerned about both “the breadth of the court's language” and “the ambiguity of the standard that the court applies.”

But he said the civil confinement law passed constitutional muster. “Just as it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the apprehension of escaped federal prisoners,” he wrote, “it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners who would otherwise escape civil commitment as a result of federal imprisonment.”

“This is not a case in which it is merely possible for a court to think of a rational basis on which Congress might have perceived an attenuated link between the powers underlying the federal criminal statutes and the challenged federal criminal provision,” Justice Alito added, saying there was in this case at least “a substantial link.”

Justice Kennedy added that the majority did not pay enough heed to the 10th Amendment. Under the amendment, he wrote, “the Constitution delegates limited powers to the national government and then reserves the remainder for the states (or the people), not the other way around, as the court's analysis suggests.”

Justice Clarence Thomas , joined by Justice Antonin Scalia , dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock , No. 08-1224.

“The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” Justice Thomas wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice Department to Review New Orleans's Troubled Police Force

NEW ORLEANS — Officials from the Justice Department announced a widespread review of this city's troubled police department on Monday, the necessary first step in a full-scale overhaul.

Standing at a news conference alongside the mayor, the police chief and other federal and local officials, Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in the Justice Department, said reform efforts would focus on reducing crime, restoring public trust in the police and protecting the rule of law in a department seen for years as corrupt, brutal and inept.

The review, often called a “pattern or practice investigation,” will take months, if not years, and will most likely lead to a consent decree, a legally binding agreement for reform.

The announcement did not come as a surprise, as the new mayor, Mitch Landrieu , publicly asked for federal intervention on May 5, just two days after taking office. While city officials pushed back against the prospect of a consent decree in past years when the department was under federal scrutiny, Mr. Landrieu said he welcomed one, along with the resources that such an agreement would bring.

Some changes could be instituted before the imposition of a consent decree, officials said, including the creation of an early warning system that would track police officers who had drawn a high number of civilian complaints. In extolling the potential of such an arrangement, Mr. Perez cited the example of the Los Angeles Police Department, which was under a consent decree until last year, saying that crime was down and public confidence in the police had been in large part restored, according to surveys.

But resistance met initial efforts at a consent decree in Los Angeles. In an interview before Monday's news conference, Mr. Perez said he was optimistic here because of the unusually widespread support for federal involvement from local citizens and officials.

“I'm not sure I've ever seen it in other cities at this early stage,” Mr. Perez said. “Often we spend months and sometimes years building that consensus.”

But there are few defenders here of a police force that, in the words of the mayor, “has lost its way.”

The department is being scrutinized in at least eight federal criminal investigations, including several into the police killings of civilians. The most highly publicized inquiry, into shootings of six unarmed civilians on Danziger Bridge shortly after Hurricane Katrina , has resulted in four guilty pleas from former police officers, who signed harrowing accounts of the killings and the subsequent cover-up.

Some of those investigations were under way before Mr. Perez was confirmed in his position in October 2009. But Mr. Perez said that upon his arrival, he and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. almost immediately began discussing the prospect of a holistic approach to reforming the New Orleans Police Department, a course of action that fell out of favor under the Bush administration.

Until this month, however, it was unlikely that the Justice Department would have been met with such an eager welcome at the ground level.

Mr. Perez declined to discuss his department's relationship with the former mayor, C. Ray Nagin , and a former police superintendent, Warren Riley. Mr. Nagin was a staunch defender of Mr. Riley, who routinely resisted oversight from the city's own police monitor, refusing to hand over documents the office requested.

Shortly after his election in February, Mr. Landrieu reached out to Justice Department officials, Mr. Perez said, and just two days after his inauguration, announced that he was actively soliciting federal intervention.

“I feel like right now the time is ripe and the critical forces have really come together,” Mr. Perez said.

Federal intervention is also supported by the newly appointed police superintendent, Ronal Serpas , who in 2003 was brought in as an investigator in a similar federal shake-up in the Detroit Police Department.

Mr. Serpas is not new to the city, or its police. He was second in command under the former police superintendent Richard Pennington, credited by many with turning around the department, at least temporarily, after the dark days of the mid-1990s, when the police not only failed to control a soaring murder rate but also in several notorious cases even contributed to it.

Longtime critics of the police force say that reform efforts have come and gone but have never rid the department of problems festering at its core. The approach has been cyclical, said Mary Howell, a civil rights lawyer here who has represented victims of police brutality.

Outbursts of scandalous violence have been followed by efforts at reform, which eventually came apart, Ms. Howell said. The hope this time is that, under a consent decree, enough resources will be brought to bear to begin making real and lasting changes in the culture of the force.

“That is the hardest thing,” Ms. Howell said. “That is absolutely the hardest thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/18orleans.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Taps F.B.I. Deputy to Head a Security Agency

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday made his third try to fill the top job at the Transportation Security Administration , this time picking someone who might have an easier time passing the F.B.I. background check — the deputy director of the F.B.I.

The president announced that he would nominate John S. Pistole, the No. 2 official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2004, to take over the agency that oversees airport passenger screening. With Mr. Obama's first two choices withdrawing after revelations of past conduct, the agency has been without an Obama appointee's leading it for 16 months since he took office.

The appointment comes at a delicate moment for the agency as procedures come under review after the near escape of the suspect in the Times Square attempted bombing . The man being hunted by the authorities was able to buy a ticket to Dubai with cash at the last minute and board a plane at Kennedy International Airport even though his name had been flagged by the F.B.I. The authorities discovered that he was on the plane and removed him from it just minutes before it was supposed to take off.

Mr. Pistole has direct understanding of the situation because he was involved in the manhunt that ultimately led to the arrest of the man, Faisal Shahzad . Mr. Pistole was the official who appeared alongside Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to describe the case and to tell reporters that Mr. Shahzad was cooperating with interrogators even after he was read his Miranda rights to remain silent and have a lawyer.

A graduate of Anderson University and the Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis, Mr. Pistole, 53, joined the F.B.I. in 1983 , served in the organized crime section and in 1999 helped lead the investigative effort after the crash of Egypt Air Flight 990 off Nantucket.

He later worked in senior positions in the counterterrorism division.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18tsa.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Justice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON- Daniel Lee Jones, a Portland, Ore., white supremacist, pleaded guilty to using the Postal Service to send a threatening communication to the president of the Lima, Ohio, chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Justice Department announced today.

In the plea agreement, Jones admits to mailing F.M. Jason Upthegrove a hangman's noose, which arrived at Mr. Upthegrove's home on or about Feb. 14, 2008. Jones further states in the plea agreement that he mailed the communication containing the hangman's noose in order to convey a threat to injure Mr. Upthegrove because he was an African-American who publicly advocated for better police services for African-Americans in Lima, Ohio. The indictment indicates that Mr. Upthegrove also spoke out in the media against Jones's white supremacist group's mailing of hate flyers related to the shooting of an African-American woman by a member of the Lima Police Department.

Jones faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a potential fine of up to $250,000 for his conviction.

"A noose is an unmistakable symbol of hate in our nation, and it was used in this case to intimidate an individual for exercising his right to speak out and advocate on behalf of others," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. "The Department of Justice will vigorously prosecute those who resort to violent threats to silence such advocates, especially when that threat is motivated by hate."

"Sending a noose is a threat that harkens back to some of the darkest days of our history. We simply will not tolerate such actions any longer," said U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach.

The case was investigated by FBI Special Agent Brian Russ, and the prosecution was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bauer from the U.S. Attorney's Office, and Special Legal Counsel Barry Kowalski and Trial Attorney Shan Patel from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/May/10-crt-579.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From ICE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indiana child pornography producer sentenced to 235 years in prison

INDIANAPOLIS - A local man was sentenced to 235 years in prison on Friday following his guilty plea to producing child pornography with seven young girls. This case resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Kokomo Police Department, and the Indiana State Police.

David Metzger, 54, of Kokomo, Ind., was sentenced May 14 in the Southern District of Indiana to 235 years, or 2,820 months, in federal prison for producing and possessing child pornography.

On Oct. 28, 2009, Kokomo Police Department executed a state search warrant at Metzger's residence after several girls alleged Metzger had photographed them nude and some alleged he had sexual contact with them. Inside Metzger's home, authorities found a computer with four hard drives, another computer with five hard drives, a desktop computer, and a laptop computer, as well as numerous pieces of computer media. Seven minor female victims, all younger than 12 years old, were depicted in numerous videos and pictures located on Metzger's computer collection.

Metzger had networked and encrypted his computer system. The videos showed the seven victims in various nude dancing segments. Metzger's voice is heard promising to pay them $15 to make the video. Metzger also provided the victims with adult sex toys. Metzger pleaded guilty to 15 counts of producing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography involving the victims and other Internet child pornography he had collected over several years.

Metzger's computers will be forfeited. Metzger has remained in custody since his arrest by ICE agents Oct. 28. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gayle L. Helart, Southern District of Indiana, successfully prosecuted the case.

"This lengthy prison sentence sends a clear message that individuals who sexually exploit innocent children will be held accountable for their despicable actions," said Daniel T. Dill, resident agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Indianapolis. "We will continue working closely with other law enforcement agencies and prosecutors at the local, state and federal level to investigate and bring child predators to justice."

This investigation was part of Operation Predator, a nationwide ICE initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including those who travel overseas for sex with minors, Internet child pornographers, criminal alien sex offenders, and child sex traffickers. Since Operation Predator was launched in July 2003, ICE agents have arrested more than 12,000 individuals.

ICE encourages the public to report suspected child predators and any suspicious activity through its toll-free hotline at 1-866-DHS-2ICE. This hotline is staffed around the clock by investigators.

Suspected child sexual exploitation or missing children may be reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an Operation Predator partner, at 1-800-843-5678 or http://www.cybertipline.com .

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1005/100517indianapolis.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the FBI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Violent Robbery Initiative

Gets Help from an Older Federal Law

05/17/10

Last month in Philadelphia, local police and the FBI began looking into a string of convenience store robberies that involved suspects holding store employees—and in some instances, customers—at gunpoint. One of the store clerks was pistol-whipped.

In general, violent crime is down in Philadelphia, but armed robberies of businesses—especially those committed by repeat violent offenders—remain an ongoing problem. So the FBI and our partners in the Philadelphia Police Department have teamed up in a new task force that will tackle these cases using the federal Hobbs Act.

A bit of Hobbs history. The Hobbs Act was passed in 1946 as an amendment to the 1934 Anti-Racketeering Act. Both laws target labor racketeering and organized crime activities, but the Hobbs Act has been used successfully in recent years against armed robbers who victimize businesses. The law criminalizes obstruction, delay, or impact on interstate commerce by robbery or extortion with the use of actual or threatened violence.

Benefits of the Hobbs Act. There are three main advantages:

• The penalties are harsher than in local prosecutions. Sentences of 20, 30, or 50 years, and even life sentences, have already been handed out by federal courts around the country.
• Since the federal system has no parole, anyone receiving a federal sentence serves out the full term (no early-out for good behavior).
• Faced with long prison sentences, some of the suspects in these cases will cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors—giving up names and knowledge of other crimes—in return for reduced sentences.

Philadelphia's unique solution. Since 2003, the FBI and Philadelphia Police Department have been working together investigating armed robberies of commercial businesses as part of our Violent Crimes Task Force. And there are a number of other FBI field offices that use the Hobbs Act in armed robbery cases.

So then what's really unique about Philadelphia's new initiative? It's the first time that an FBI office has created a whole squad focused on investigating—under the Hobbs Act—violent criminal enterprises and crews involved in armed robberies of commercial establishments. 

Investigators on the Hobbs Act Task Force—like on all joint task forces—combine their expertise and resources. Philadelphia police detectives bring to the table first-hand knowledge of criminals and crimes in their city, while Bureau agents offer their experience in applying sensitive investigative techniques like court-authorized electronic surveillance and undercover operations.

Role of intelligence. Both agencies can take advantage of the information-sharing effort of our Hobbs Act initiative, which is designed to turn raw intelligence from defendants into actionable information. The intelligence is obtained through a proffer—a federal agreement in which defendants offer incriminating information about other defendants in the same case or about other crimes they have knowledge of…in return for a lesser sentence. Defendants are asked not just about robbery cases being prosecuted, but also about other areas of investigative interest to the Philadelphia Police Department or the FBI, like violent gangs, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

Investigators on our Hobbs Act Task Force also work closely on this initiative with prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

“The bottom line, as far as the task force is concerned,” says Philadelphia FBI Special Agent J.J. Klaver, “is to protect our community by getting dangerous criminals off the streets and into prison for a very long time.”

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may10/hobbs_051710.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Parade Magazine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.