N.Y. bomb defendant pleads guilty

Faisal Shahzad, admitting to all 10 terrorism-related counts in the Times Square plot, describes himself as a 'Muslim soldier' fighting a war against the United States.

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

6:49 PM PDT, June 21, 2010

Reporting from New York

A Pakistani-born U.S. citizen charged with planting a car bomb in Times Square said Monday that he was a "Muslim soldier" who plotted the attack for months and was prepared to shoot if anyone tried to stop him after he abandoned his explosives-laden SUV on a busy Manhattan corner.

In a calm but defiant tone, Faisal Shahzad, 30, pleaded guilty to all 10 charges stemming from the May 1 plot and warned that it was one small part of a war being waged by Muslims against Americans. As long as U.S. forces remain active in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, "we will be attacking" the United States, he told U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum in a packed Manhattan courtroom.

Since his arrest, prosecutors say, Shahzad has spoken at length about his actions and motivations, but Monday's hearing was the first time he spoke out in court. His demeanor and words underscored the depth of bitterness toward a country that granted him citizenship in April 2009, months before he traveled to Pakistan on a quest to gain entry to the Pakistani Taliban. He underwent training in December and January.

Cedarbaum asked whether he understood that his actions violated U.S. law.

"I would not consider it a crime," he said.

His responses to Cedarbaum's questions, on topics including his family and his educational background, highlighted what terrorism experts say is the danger of so-called homegrown militants, who evolve from seemingly benign backgrounds to become intoxicated by international extremist groups.

In a statement, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said that if Shahzad's bomb had gone off, it "could have led to serious loss of life" and that his guilty plea "ensured that he will pay the price for his actions."

The U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, Preet Bharara, said that there had been no plea agreement between the government and Shahzad, and that the investigation continued.

Shahzad has said he built the bomb alone and carried out the attack himself after receiving training in Pakistan. Law enforcement officials continue to look into how he received the cash to finance the plot.

In her questioning, Cedarbaum appeared to find it hard to believe that Shahzad could have worked alone, asking him repeatedly whether he had any help within the United States. Shahzad insisted he had not, although he acknowledged receiving $12,000 from the Pakistani Taliban.

"You built the bomb all by yourself?" she asked more than once. "You didn't have a manual?"

Shahzad described in a clear, matter-of-fact voice how he planned for months to join the Pakistani Taliban, receive terrorist training and put his lessons into practice in the United States.

On May 1, Shahzad said, he built a bomb in his apartment in Bridgeport, Conn., loaded it into the back of his Nissan Pathfinder, parked the vehicle on a crowded Manhattan corner, then walked away and waited for a boom. He said he chose a Saturday evening in Times Square to inflict the most damage possible.

The bomb was supposed to go off within 2 ½ to five minutes, he said.

"I was waiting to hear a sound, but I didn't hear any sound," Shahzad said.

When he realized the bomb had not detonated, Shahzad walked to Grand Central Terminal, caught a train home, watched the news of the incident and began planning his escape, he said.

Shahzad said he had carried a semiautomatic 9-millimeter Kel-Tec rifle folded into a laptop case and planned to use it if anyone tried to arrest him as he walked away from the car bomb and made his way back to Connecticut.

"Just for killing," Cedarbaum said.

"For self-defense," Shahzad responded.

Shahzad was arrested two days later aboard a jet scheduled to leave for the Middle East.

"One has to understand where I'm coming from. I'm a … Muslim soldier," he said politely but firmly to Cedarbaum, who interrupted his statement repeatedly to ask him about his upbringing and alleged terrorist training.

Asked what he had learned about bomb-making in Pakistan, Shahzad said, "The whole thing" — from how to set a timer to how to package the explosive elements. In building the Times Square bomb, Shahzad said, he used fertilizer, gas cans and cylinders in hopes that if one element failed to detonate, another would.

None went off, and Times Square vendors alerted police after noticing the suspiciously parked SUV and seeing smoke coming from it.

At times, the courtroom exchanges sounded like cocktail party conversation. Shahzad, responding to Cedarbaum's quizzing, described his "wife and two beautiful kids," his former job as an account analyst with Elizabeth Arden and his years growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, attending schools where he learned English on top of his native Pashtun. But he admitted this did not help with his bomb-making training, since the only manuals he received were in the Urdu language.

At other times, the courtroom repartee veered into verbal sparring. When Shahzad referred to himself as a soldier, Cedarbaum noted that his intended victims were civilians.

"If people select the government, we consider them all the same," Shahzad responded.

When Cedarbaum asked whether that included children, Shahzad said women and children had died in U.S. strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"It's a war," he said, describing himself as "part of the answer" for Muslims fighting that war.

Shahzad is expected to be sentenced in October and faces life in prison.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ny-terror-20100622,0,3294272,print.story

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

Supreme Court upholds law against advising terrorists

In a 6-3 ruling, advice from a human rights group could constitute 'material support' to a terrorist group. Chief Justice Roberts says combating foreign threats trumps concerns over free speech.

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

June 22, 2010

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that human rights advocates led by a USC professor could be prosecuted if they offered advice to a foreign terrorist group, even if the advice was to settle disputes peacefully.

The 6-3 decision upholds the 1996 law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide "material support" to a designated foreign terrorist group, including by offering them expert advice or training.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the need to combat terrorism trumped the concern over restricting freedom of speech. The court, he said, agreed with Congress and the president that "providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization."

Monday's ruling sends a warning to international aid groups and charities that even good-will measures could ensnare them in a criminal prosecution. Until now, the government has used the law mostly to prosecute those who sent money to a terrorist group or who traveled abroad to undergo training at an Al Qaeda camp.

"All this ruling does is it continues to marginalize Americans. It doesn't marginalize terrorist groups," said Amjad Atallah, co-director of the Middle East task force at the liberal New America Foundation in Washington. "It tells Americans you can't be engaged in conflict resolution in these areas."

The suit challenging the law was filed 12 years ago by USC professor Ralph Fertig, a founder of the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles. Fertig, who says he opposes violence, said he wanted to advocate for the Kurdish people before a United Nations tribunal, but he feared that in the process he might make contact with members of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, which has been designated as a terrorist group by the State Department.

He argued that the words "advice" and "training" should not be read broadly to cover those who advised others to steer away from violence and terrorism.

Fertig won before federal judges in California, who said parts of the anti-terrorism law were vague and conflicted with the 1st Amendment. U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now a Supreme Court nominee, appealed on behalf of the Obama administration and won a reversal Monday in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.

Joining Roberts in the ruling for the government were Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In his opinion, Roberts emphasized that Fertig and others were free to speak out on their own on behalf of the Kurds. They violate the law only when they work with members of the PKK, he said. The group, which seeks an independent state for the Kurds, has waged a "violent insurgency" against Turkey, he said.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the 1st Amendment should protect the "pure speech" of these human rights advocates from prosecution, except when it could be shown that they knew they were aiding "unlawful terrorist actions." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his dissent.

"This is a very dark day … but we will not let this inhibit our commitment to the Kurdish people," Fertig said. "We will continue to advocate for the rights of the Kurds who are being oppressed. We do so with great fear that some of the people we are working with might be members of the PKK."

Some legal experts said they were surprised the court upheld a criminal law that targets speech and advocacy. In January, the court struck down on free-speech grounds a 63-year-old law that forbade corporations and unions from spending money on an election campaign. In April, the justices cited free speech in voiding a law that made it a crime to sell videos of animals being tortured.

In Monday's opinion, Roberts said national security raised a higher concern. The Constitution empowered the government "to provide for the common defense," he said, and the 1st Amendment does not stand in the way of a law that forbids any aid to foreign terrorists.

Among those applauding the ruling was the Anti-Defamation League. "One cannot provide 'humanitarian' support in the form of training, expert advice or assistance … to a terrorist organization without helping their bottom line and facilitating violence, destruction and murder," said Chairman Robert G. Sugarman and Director Abraham H. Foxman in a statement.

Georgetown law professor David Cole, who represented Fertig on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he was "deeply disappointed" with the ruling. "In the name of fighting terrorism, the court said that the 1st Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong. There is no evidence that teaching human rights would further terrorism."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-terror-20100622,0,5768475,print.story

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

EDITORIAL

Terror and free speech

The Supreme Court's ruling that advising terrorist groups to pursue their goals peacefully is 'material support' of their violent activities is wrongheaded.

June 22, 2010

Disregarding the dictionary as well as the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that advising foreign terrorist groups to pursue their objectives peacefully amounts to "material support" of their violent activities. The 6-3 ruling blurs a distinction that Congress needs to sharpen in the interest of free speech.

The ruling is a defeat for two groups of activists that want to engage in so-called peace building. One is a collection of organizations supportive of the humanitarian and political activities of Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka. The other, headed by USC professor Ralph Fertig, wants to advise the Kurdistan Workers' Party on how to take its grievances against Turkey to the United Nations.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. concluded that such efforts violate a law making it a crime to "knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" designated by the State Department. But that is an unconvincing reading of the statute, and one that offends the Constitution.

"Knowingly" in this context can be read in two ways, but one is truer to the 1st Amendment — namely that the advisor knows not only that a group he is dealing with is a terrorist organization but that his involvement will further acts of terrorism. As for "material support," the law contains several common-sense definitions including financial assistance, explosives, lodging, communications equipment and "expert advice or assistance."

The Obama administration, however, interpreted the last term to encompass the sort of advocacy the plaintiffs in this case wanted to engage in. Roberts endorsed that interpretation and said that providing even "seemingly benign services" to a terrorist organization "bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization" by making it easier for the group to recruit members and raise funds.

A sounder interpretation was offered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer in his dissenting opinion. Because all of the activities planned by the plaintiffs involved the communication of ideas and lawful political change, he wrote, the law should be interpreted as criminalizing speech and association otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment "only when the defendant knows or intends that those activities will assist the organization's unlawful terrorist actions."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-material-20100622,0,2957384,print.story

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

Arizona's immigration law: Washington should stay out of it

by Tamar Jacoby

June 21, 2010

The Obama administration is considering suing Arizona to block implementation of its harsh new immigration enforcement measure, SB 1070. The Justice Department doesn't have much time — barring a judicial stay, the law goes into effect July 29 — and a decision, to sue or not to sue, is expected any day.

SB 1070 is an abomination, no doubt about it, and the White House is under intense pressure to act. But a Justice Department lawsuit would be a horrendous mistake — one that could end all hope of passing comprehensive immigration reform as long as Barack Obama is president.

In a radical departure from settled law, the legislation makes illegal immigration a state crime in Arizona — until now, it has been a federal matter. Even more controversially, the measure authorizes and in some cases requires local police to probe the immigration status of people they have stopped for other legal reasons, including violations of municipal ordinances. A devilishly ingenious, and disingenuous, piece of lawyering, the bill is designed to appear reasonable and pass the test of constitutionality, but it gives police far-reaching power to harass unlawful immigrants with the goal of driving them out of the U.S. — a strategy the law's framers call "attrition through enforcement."

All of that is bad enough, but the most devastating effect of SB 1070 may be political — the way it is poisoning the American immigration debate.

President Obama, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, the Los Angeles Times, the Roman Catholic Church, the AFL-CIO and a Who's Who of Latino pop stars have denounced the legislation. More than 15 U.S. cities, including L.A., have passed measures forbidding their employees to travel to Arizona on work-related business. Dozens of conferences and conventions scheduled to take place there have been canceled. And tens of thousands of people across the country have participated in demonstrations pillorying the measure as a racially motivated assault on immigrants and an invitation to ethnic profiling.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the divide, polls show that some 60% of Americans support SB 1070. The polling hasn't probed deeply, so it's hard to say exactly why they endorse the law. Some supporters talk about stemming border violence and controlling crime — particularly the mob-style crimes committed by international smuggling cartels. Others, judging by talk radio and blog chatter, seem more bothered by the simple illegality of illegal immigration. Few surveys, now or in the past, show voters to be particularly angry at unlawful immigrants or eager to punish them. But many are very angry at the dysfunctional immigration system — and at a political class that doesn't seem bothered by millions of people making a mockery of the law.

What percentage of those who tell pollsters they support SB 1070 grasp that it will encourage profiling or the harassment of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants? Is that what they are endorsing? Or is their support merely a cry for government — any level of government — to get control of who is entering the country? According to the Rasmussen Report, a polling operation, roughly half of those who endorse the Arizona law are at least "somewhat concerned" about potential "civil rights violations." But nuanced or not, the measure's backers too have attracted some strident spokespeople. Just listen to Sarah Palin, who defends SB 1070 as "noble and just" and urges followers to defy the "boycott crowd."

For weeks, proponents and opponents have played off one another, passion fueling passion, charges sparking countercharges and rage, to the point that there's almost no point in talking anymore — people on both sides are that entrenched. Where one side sees law enforcement and personal security, the other sees racism. The very term "enforcement" has become a dirty word to many immigrants-rights activists. And to the nearly two-thirds of Americans who back the measure, reform advocates look increasingly suspect — unwilling to admit an obvious truth (that illegal immigrants have broken the law) and far too ready to play the race card against those with legitimate concerns. For both sides, immigration is becoming an issue of good versus evil. And in that kind of moralistic standoff, there is no middle ground — no room for politics or compromise.

It's a disastrous course — and one all too familiar in American politics. How long before the immigration debate is as stalemated as the standoff on abortion? Each side sees the other as morally reprehensible. Each is sure it's right. We as a nation can't resolve the problem, but we can't let go of it, either — and it soon poisons other issues, making it hard to do even basic things, like confirm judges.

An administration lawsuit against SB 1070 would only push immigration further in this direction. It would enrage the 60%. It would inject immigration into midterm campaigns from coast to coast. Worst of all, it would alienate key lawmakers, from Arizona and elsewhere, without whose help the administration will have no hope of advancing comprehensive reform.

How exactly does Obama imagine influential Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, or Sen. John McCain, would react to a federal lawsuit against their state? Without help or at least acquiescence from Kyl and McCain, where does the president expect to find Republican support for a reform bill? And how does the administration think proud, state-minded elected officials — not to mention "tea party" voters — would feel about a federal effort not just to check, but override a state legislature?

If the White House sues, it will do so under a flag of high moral righteousness. But many will see the suit as something far more cynical. Arizona acted only because the feds hadn't, moving, albeit misguidedly, to handle a problem Washington had left to fester for years. Yet now, instead of stepping up to do its job, Washington is trying to cover its flank by punishing those who filled the vacuum?

Only the federal government can fix what's wrong with immigration — but not with a lawsuit. What's needed is comprehensive immigration reform — a balanced, bipartisan bill supported by a broad national consensus. That's what the administration should be focused on — developing consensus on immigration, not exacerbating a widening divide and closing off all possibility of compromise.

Tamar Jacoby is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small-business owners advocating immigration reform.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jacoby-arizona-20100621,0,3683944,print.story

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

EDITORIAL

A strike against sex trafficking

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle should sign the sex trafficking bill in hopes that a better, more comprehensive law against slave labor — the bigger problem — will follow.

June 21, 2010

Hawaii is one of six states that do not have any laws against human trafficking, and each one of them — Massachusetts, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming — is a hole in what should be a national safety net. Without strong and vigorously enforced statutes, these states not only risk becoming unintended havens for traffickers, but when confronted with the crime they are more likely to rely on outdated prostitution laws instead of up-to-date laws regarding modern slavery. The Aloha State, however, is poised to leave this small club of outliers and become the 45 t h state to enact anti-trafficking legislation; we encourage Gov. Linda Lingle to sign the legislation now sitting on her desk.

The bill is not perfect; it focuses solely on sex trafficking, making it a felony, and does not address the thriving business of trafficking in slave labor, which in the U.S. is even more common. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, hundreds of thousands of people are at any given moment being forced or misled into working in hotels, agricultural fields and janitorial services in addition to brothels, strip clubs, massage parlors and other commercial sex outlets.

Still, the legislation, if enacted, would be a step forward, and other, more comprehensive measures may follow. What is important is to put anti-trafficking on the books. Then a state can distinguish criminals from victims — pimps and traffickers from the women and children they often enslave, exploit or coerce. By contrast, prostitution laws typically place both victim and pimp in the same criminal category, sometimes unfairly. The Trafficking in Persons Report released by the Justice Department last week says that this shift in attitude has yet to filter down to local justice systems. Even when victims are juveniles — as are an estimated 100,000 children each year — often they are punished in the criminal justice system rather than provided with social services. According to the report, 849 boys and girls under age 18 were reported to the FBI in 2008, the year with the most recent data, as having been arrested for prostitution.

Hawaii, like California, has a serious problem with trafficking — all ports of entry and border states do. The state's tourism industry has also spawned sex tourism and trafficking from Asia, and last year, the Honolulu Police Department identified 15 children a month who it determined were high-risk victims for trafficking, according to the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery.

What would a new law accomplish? It depends. Even in states that already have such laws, enforcement can be spotty. What's certain, however, is that without it, Hawaii will remain a weak link in what should be a national commitment to end trafficking.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trafficking-20100621,0,1607585,print.story

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

Supreme Court should have intervened in Maher Arar case

June 21, 2010

The Supreme Court has in some cases been willing to temper the excesses of the war on terror, most notably in ruling that inmates at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts. But last week, it fell down on the job when it refused to consider the case of Maher Arar, the victim of an egregious and shocking violation of rights by the U.S. government

In September 2002, Arar, a dual Canadian Syrian citizen, was detained while changing planes at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, based on inaccurate Canadian intelligence linking him to terrorists. After being held by U.S. authorities for 12 days, he was flown to Jordan and then transported to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year. His mistreatment was not the result of blunders by minor bureaucrats. According to Arar's complaint, the deputy U.S. attorney general signed off on his transfer to Syria.

Arar sued several U.S. officials, including former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, citing both the Torture Victim Protection Act and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York dismissed Arar's suit, holding that the "special factors" of extraordinary rendition — the program under which suspects were removed to another country for questioning — warranted "hesitation" by the court in recognizing his claims.

Although the court didn't specifically invoke the "state secrets" doctrine asserted by both the Bush and Obama administrations in other litigation, the "special factors" it cited included considerations of "diplomacy, foreign policy and the security of the nation" — matters it suggested were best left to the executive and legislative branches. If someone in Arar's position is to have a claim for damages, the courts said, Congress must legislate new procedures.

The appeals court opinion didn't just ignore the moral imperative of giving a torture victim his day in court. It also gave short shrift to the role of the judiciary in vindicating individual rights and begged a wealth of legal questions that the Supreme Court should have agreed to resolve, including whether U.S. officials can violate a suspect's rights by subcontracting his interrogation to a foreign regime. Yet the high court last week refused to intervene. Its abdication of responsibility leaves it to Congress to right this wrong.

Canada has apologized to Arar and paid him almost $10 million in compensation for his ordeal. President Obama — who has trumpeted his rejection of the Bush administration's anti-terror policy — should insist that Congress do no less.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-arar-20100621,0,1799532,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror

WASHINGTON — In a case pitting free speech against national security, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. , writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law's prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

The decision was the court's first ruling on the free speech and associations rights of Americans in the context of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks. The law has been an important tool for prosecutors: Since 2001, the government says, it has charged about 150 defendants for violating the material-support provision, obtaining about 75 convictions.

The court's majority said deference to the other branches was called for, given the threat posed by terrorism.

“At bottom,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization.”

Justices John Paul Stevens , Antonin Scalia , Clarence Thomas , Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority decision.

The material-support law bars not only contributions of cash, weapons and other tangible aid but also “training,” “personnel” “service” and “expert advice or assistance.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench. He said the majority had drawn a false analogy between the two kinds of assistance.

“Money given for a charitable purpose might free up other money used to buy arms,” Justice Breyer said from the bench. But the same cannot be said, he continued, “where teaching human rights law is involved.”

The decision was a victory for Solicitor General Elena Kagan , who argued the case in February and whose confirmation hearings for a seat on the court are scheduled to start next week. But Chief Justice Roberts said the government had advanced a position that was too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake.

“The government is wrong,” the chief justice wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he went on to say that the government's interest in combating terrorism was enough to overcome that protection.

In his written dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor , Justice Breyer said the majority had been too credulous in accepting the government's argument that national security concerns required restrictions on the challengers' speech and had “failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”

The law was challenged by, among others, Ralph D. Fertig, a civil rights activist who has said he wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey find peaceful ways to achieve its goals.

On Monday, Mr. Fertig said the decision, which effectively ended 12 years of litigation, was a grave disappointment. “This is a very dark day in the history of the human rights struggle to assist groups overseas that are being oppressed,” he said.

The other plaintiffs were a doctor and six domestic organizations. Some of them said they had sought to help the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam , a group that seeks to create an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka.

Both groups, along with Hamas , Hezbollah , the Khmer Rouge and some 30 others, were designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department. The United States says the Kurdish group, sometimes called the P.K.K., has engaged in widespread terrorist activities, including bombings and kidnappings. The Tamil group, the government said, was responsible for a 1996 bombing that killed 100 people and injured more than 1,400.

The plaintiffs said they had sought to aid only the two groups' nonviolent activities. For instance, they said, they wanted to offer training in how to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully and “how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.”

That sort of help, they said, was speech protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the court's rejection of that argument was disappointing. “This decision basically says the First Amendment allows making peacemaking and human rights advocacy a crime,” Mr. Cole said.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled in 2007 that bans on training, service and some kinds of expert advice were unconstitutionally vague. But it upheld the bans on personnel and expert advice derived from scientific or technical knowledge.

All nine justices said the appeals court was wrong to strike down the law as too vague. They differed, though, about the role the First Amendment had to play in analyzing the law and whether it should be read to apply only where a defendant intended to support a designated group's terrorist activities.

Chief Justice Roberts emphasized what he said was the limited reach of the decision, which applies only to activities coordinated with the designated groups. Other sorts of speech remain protected, he said.

“Plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic,” he wrote. “They may speak and write freely about” the Kurdish and Tamil groups, “the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law.” Indeed, the chief justice added, the plaintiffs are free to become members of the two groups.

What they cannot do is make a contribution to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that contribution takes the form of speech. “Such support,” he wrote, “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups” and strains “the United States' relationships with its allies.”

Justice Breyer, in dissent, said the activities at issue “involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends.” It is elementary, he went on, that “this speech and association for political purposes is the kind of activity to which the First Amendment ordinarily offers its strongest protection.”

The majority opinion said it expressed no view about whether Congress could bar assistance to domestic groups.

But Justice Breyer said he feared that the decision in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498, had implications for all sorts of speech said to threaten national security. The majority's logic, he said, amounts to “a rule of law that, contrary to the Constitution's text and First Amendment precedent, would automatically forbid the teaching of any subject in a case where national security interests conflict with the First Amendment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

What Counts as Abetting Terrorists?

Updated, 8:30 p.m. | Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School takes on the positions of other panelists in this discussion. Scroll down to read his added comments .

In its most significant ruling on free speech rights in terrorism cases, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist groups.

The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, was brought by an American organization that sought to teach members of the Kurdish Workers' Party (known as the P.K.K.) how to resolve disputes under international law and engage in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds in Turkey. The P.K.K. has been designated a foreign terrorist group by the State Department.

In the 6-3 majority opinion , Chief Justice John Robers wrote that barring such “expert advice or assistance” and “service” did not violate the First Amendment, “even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups' nonviolent ends.”

What are the implications for the free speech and association rights of Americans?

• David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
• Andrew C. McCarthy, legal affairs editor at National Review
• Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
• Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law
• Robert Chesney, University of Texas School of Law
• Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of California, Davis

Advocacy Is Not a Gun

David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.” As a volunteer attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, he served as counsel for Humanitarian Law Project in this case.

According to today's Supreme Court decision, advocating for human rights and peace can be prosecuted as a “terrorist” crime, punishable by 15 years in prison.

It does not matter that the speaker intends to support only nonviolent activity, and indeed seeks to discourage a resort to violence. It does not matter if the speech in fact convinces its listeners to abandon violence.

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity. The court reasoned that it is conceivable that such speech might burnish a designated group's image, and thereby “legitimize” it, and therefore Congress can make all such speech a crime.

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protected even the right to advocate criminal activity, so long as one's advocacy was not intended and likely to produce an imminent crime. And it ruled that citizens had a right to associate with a group engaged in both legal and illegal activities, as lone as they intended to further only the group's lawful activities.

Today, by contrast, the court rules that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.

The decision has deeply disturbing implications. It means that when President Jimmy Carter did election monitoring in Lebanon, and met with all of the parties to the election — including Hezbollah, a designated “terrorist group” — to provide them with his advice on what constitutes a fair election, he was committing the crime of providing “material support,” in the form of “expert advice.”

It means that when The New York Times and The Washington Post published op-eds by a Hamas leader, they were engaged in the crime of providing “material support” to a designated terrorist group, because to publish the op-ed they had to coordinate with a spokesperson from Hamas.

And it means that my clients, a retired judge and an established human rights group, cannot continue to work for peace and human rights without risking long prison terms.

Those who defend this law often focus on the provision of funds — not at issue before the Supreme Court — and argue that money is fungible, and can be used for any purpose.

But human rights advocacy is not fungible. It cannot be turned into guns and bullets. It is designed to persuade, not coerce. It is, in short, what the First Amendment is all about. But it is now a crime, and according to this Supreme Court, the First Amendment poses no obstacle to its suppression.

The only way the court could reach this result was by failing to subject the law to the skeptical scrutiny traditionally applied to content-based prohibitions on speech. Once the government invoked the “terrorist” label, the court deferred, rather than require the government to meet the heavy burden that prohibitions on speech generally require.

This is the same sort of deferential approach that the Supreme Court took to anti-Communist laws in the early days of the McCarthy era. It was not until Senator McCarthy was censured, and McCarthyism was on the wane, that the court began to enforce the First Amendment rights that were so gravely threatened by the anti-Communist laws of that time.

I had hoped that we would have learned from the errors of that period. Apparently not.

A Common Sense Defense

Andrew C. McCarthy , a former federal prosecutor and author of “Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad,” is legal affairs editor at National Review. He co-wrote an amicus brief in support of the government in the case.

The Supreme Court's ruling is a smashing victory for the rationale of material support laws, which bar various forms of aid to formally designated “foreign terrorist organizations” (F.T.O.s) on the ground that any meaningful assistance — however, ostensibly innocent or virtuous — strengthens these groups.

The idea is that terrorism is barbaric, contravening international law's imperative to protect civilians and international norms that promote resolution of political disputes by negotiation, not assassination. Therefore, terrorist organizations must be treated as pariahs and suffocated, not cultivated.

This would seem to be common sense. Yet transnational progressives, under the auspices of “humanitarian law” have sought to collaborate with F.T.O.s in a way that subordinates national security concerns.

They would have us look no further than their good intentions and ignore the unintended consequences of fortifying mass murderers. But as the court correctly observed, the “government's interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” and Congress is correct to conclude that working in coordination with F.T.O.s “serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

As the court majority said, while terrorist organizations typically maintain social welfare wings, providing them with humanitarian assistance “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends.”

Moreover, the point of maintaining social welfare wings is that it enables terrorists systematically to “conceal their activities behind charitable, social, and political fronts.” This makes the F.T.O. more attractive to outsiders, greatly strengthening its capacity to recruit new personnel for terrorist operations.

The most refreshing aspect of the ruling is the court's deference to the superior institutional competence of the political branches in matters of foreign relations and national security. The court has maintained sensible First Amendment lines — independent advocacy, it stressed, is still protected; it is coordination with terrorists that has been prohibited.

But regardless of good intentions, teaching terrorists how to manipulate the international legal system makes them more efficient, and more deadly. Congress is right to say so, and the court is right to endorse that conclusion.

Speech vs. Other Support

Richard A. Epstein is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University School of Law.

Let me lay some cards on the table. On most foreign affairs issues I would admit to having hawkish sentiments. But on the question of individual rights against the government, my libertarian instincts cut in the opposite direction.

I think that one has to be careful about limitations on private activity that is within the purview of specific constitutional guarantees, including the First Amendment. I therefore signed a brief prepared by the Constitution Project that urged the Supreme Court to be careful about the breadth of the material support provisions insofar as they applied to “pure speech” provided by organizations and institutions whose major function was to advocate and instruct in peaceful methods for dispute resolution.

The Supreme Court took a deferential approach to the government on this question, and thought that all contributions are fungible so that money spent on these activities would in effect free up resources for terrorist organizations to do work that everyone regards as criminal.

My concern here is that this simple proposition that money is fungible misses the key point. The types of support that are given here could well have an educative effect that will persuade at least some individuals that violence is not an answer.

At this point, the argument that all money is fungible is far from decisive. No one can be certain about whether this is true, but at this point, a bit of caution in the absence of any reported dangers seems to me to be appropriate.

By all means let the government monitor terrorist organizations to see if the trickle down theory is correct. But the decision itself suffers from the unhappy defect of going too far too soon for too little reason. The timing of remedies is a key issue for First Amendment jurisprudence. I think that the government overstepped its hand on this point.

Closer to Guilt by Association

Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. He has written several articles and amicus briefs on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism.

The Supreme Court decision has a “heads we win, tails you lose” quality for the federal government, and is one of the most significant legal victories that the government has obtained to date in the war on terrorism.

The real issue here is whether Congress has the power to prohibit even the most benign forms of association with (and support to) groups that the Secretary of State has designated as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Yes, many of these groups are up to no good, and Congress is well within its prerogative when it prohibits support that might directly enable these groups to commit future acts of terrorism. But the activities at issue in this case are several degrees removed, and include the training of members of these groups to represent themselves before the United Nations, along with a host of other efforts to promote long-term peace-building in some of the world's most conflict-torn regions.

This case is not about financial donations to these groups, or weapons and explosives training; it's about some of the most classical forms of constitutionally protected speech, designed to encourage these groups to pursue their agendas through non-violent means.

Nevertheless, the majority concluded that even these forms of “training,” “service,” and “expert advice or assistance” are within Congress's constitutional power to proscribe, because, among other things, a “foreign terrorist organization introduced to the structures of the international legal system might use the information to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt.” I don't disagree with that assessment, but similar comments could be made about any number of other examples of constitutionally protected speech.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of guilt by association. To be sure, the material support statute requires more than just association with these groups; it requires some affirmative act of “support” before an individual can be subjected to its harsh sanctions.

But the majority's sweeping reading of the statute's scope blurs that line almost to the point of invisibility. In its view, the material support statute doesn't impose guilt by association; the defendant had to do something to support the group. But almost anything can be that something.

The majority nevertheless purported to rest its decision on fairly narrow grounds, drawing a distinction between “independent” and “coordinated” advocacy, and suggesting that the former falls outside the statute.

Even if that line is enforceable, as Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent, such “independent” efforts are only more likely to provide legitimacy to these organizations — and certainly are no less likely to “support” these groups than coordinated advocacy. And if a ban on “independent” advocacy raises troubling First and Fifth Amendment concerns (as the majority hints), it seems counterintuitive that those concerns would simply dissipate where there is any coordination.

In the end, the decision is likely to have profound implications. First, and most specifically, it will produce a strong chilling effect on the efforts of groups like the Humanitarian Law Project to work toward long-term peace in Kurdistan, Sri Lanka and other parts of the world where such stability may well be the most effective means of suppressing future terrorism.

Second, and more generally, such a broad reading of this important federal criminal statute — what some have called the government's “anti-terror weapon of choice” in criminal cases — opens the door to an even more aggressive use of the statute to prosecute terrorism suspects, since the government will have to show even less of a connection between the defendant and the designated organization in order to make its case.

In an overwhelming majority of terrorism trials brought in the civilian courts since Sept. 11, 2001, the material support statute has figured prominently.

After today, it will become all the more ubiquitous. Of course, such broad authority in the civilian courts may paradoxically undermine the case for military commissions, since it expands the range of conduct that the government could prosecute in our normal criminal justice system (and should thereby reduce the number of cases that can't be brought). But it also takes a perilous step down a slippery slope that the court (rightly) attempted to fence off a half-century ago.

No Harmless Activities

Robert Chesney is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a Distinguished Scholar at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security & Law. He has written a number of articles about criminal laws relating to material support in terrorism cases.

This is a very big win for the government, after 12 years of litigation that had left the constitutionality of this important statute in doubt (at least in the Ninth Circuit).

The key? Rejecting the notion that assisting a foreign terrorist group's socio-political activities is innocuous.

The court's majority recognized not only that some such aid can be diverted to harmful effect, but also that even non-fungible forms of well-intentioned aid (such as Humanitarian Law Project's desire to assist foreign terrorist organizations in conducting advocacy in international forums) can cause harm in various indirect yet significant ways.

Efforts to bolster terrorist groups in their “harmless” activities, if successful, enhance the standing, stability, and prestige of such groups — and that in turn enhances their viability, ability to recruit, to raise funds, and so forth.

In this respect, the statute functions just like an embargo against a hostile state. The court wisely did not treat the foreign state/foreign group distinction as relevant.

Minimizing Harm to Speech

Diane Marie Amann is professor of law and director of the California International Law Center at King Hall at University of California, Davis, School of Law.

Considered within the narrow confines that the majority marks out, the court's decision simply accepts Congress' circa-1990s determination that there is no such thing as a dual-use terrorist organization.

To the contrary, once the Secretary of State labels groups foreign terrorist organizations (F.T.O.s), by statutory finding, everything they do is “so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”

Everything means everything — from giving poor people soup to lobbying the United Nations. The court's acceptance of this premise leads to its conclusion that to give “expert advice” directly to such a criminal group may itself be punished.

Though logical, the result is not entirely comfortable, for its allowance of criminal prosecution for speech bumps up against First Amendment values.

The majority tries to minimize this friction by placing two hypothetical situations outside the scope of its ruling. It suggests that “material support” to “domestic organizations,” as well as “independent speech,” may be exempt from criminal prohibition.

This latter limitation is particularly significant. As described by the majority, a person freely may advocate for political goals. She may even espouse goals also espoused by any of the 45 groups currently designated as terrorist organizations — as long as she does so on her own, independently of, and not in “connection” with, an F.T.O. As stated by the court's majority, the result strikes a balance between concerns about national security and constitutional guarantees of individual liberty.

That balance depends on the ability of individuals to speak without fear of prosecution for speech that falls outside the confines of the opinion. If the line drawn in fact chills such speech, or if prosecutors choose to press cases outside the stated confines, the attempted accommodation will have proved a failure.

Gather Facts First

Richard Epstein responds to other panelists:

In reading the other panelists on this topic, I think that the nub of the difference among us is just how these various human rights organizations will be perceived. David Cole shares with me the view that these groups could well work to reduce the level of violence by weaning some individuals at least from their aggressive activities, and defends their exemption from the overall rules.

Steve Vladeck pushes on the line that working with groups to get them involved with the UN and other activities is evidence that beneficial activities will take place. I am not quite as confident as either Cole or Vladeck that this will happen, but I would be willing to take evidence on the point. Andrew McCarthy regards all of this as idle speculation, but he moves too fast in that direction for my taste.

The question here is not whether we accept his account of the barbarity of terrorist activities; we all do that. And it is not whether we should look with indifference on the various groups that “collaborate” with terrorists. But it is whether the efforts of any and all of these groups counts as collaboration when there is the alternative hypothesis that these groups reduce the risk of terrorism.

His mind is made up, without a scintilla of evidence other than the convenient elimination of the difference between the activities of these various groups and those of the terrorist operations that they are said to deal with. And Robert Chesney takes it on faith that the fungible nature of support is all that matters, which also strikes me as dubious.

So what should be done? Gather some information. My fear is that the government position is so rigid that no one inside the Obama administration (nor the Bush administration before it) is interested in evidence. Nor is the majority of the Supreme Court.

But the whole point of a First Amendment is to limit the activities of political authority, and it should be at least within reason to allow any such group to show that the general presumptions do not apply to their particular activities. It is this dismissive view that I regard as dangerous. As to how the evidence shakes out, far be it for me sitting in Chicago to reach a conclusion. But it is not too much to ask that this information be regarded as highly relevant. It is dangerous to read the First Amendment solely from the vantage point of a present or former prosecutor.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/what-counts-as-abetting-terrorists/?pagemode=print

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

As Law Takes Effect, Obama Gives Insurers a Warning

WASHINGTON — President Obama , whose vilification of insurers helped push a landmark health care overhaul through Congress, plans to sternly warn industry executives at a White House meeting on Tuesday against imposing hefty rate increases in anticipation of tightening regulation under the new law, administration officials said Monday.

The White House is concerned that health insurers will blame the new law for increases in premiums that are intended to maximize profits rather than covering claims. The administration is also closely watching investigations by a number of states into the actuarial soundness of double-digit rate increases.

“Our message to them is to work with this law, not against it; don't try and take advantage of it or we will work with state authorities and gather the authority we have to stop rate gouging,” David Axelrod , Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said in an interview. “Our concern is that they not try and, under the cover of the act, get in under the wire here on rate increases.”

The law does not grant the federal government new authority to regulate health care premiums, which remains the province of state insurance departments. But with important provisions taking effect this summer and fall, the Obama administration has repeatedly reminded insurers — and the public — that it will expose industry pricing to what the health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius , has called a “bright spotlight.”

The White House meeting coincides with Monday's release of a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health policy research group, that found that premiums for the policies most recently bought by individuals had increased by an average of 20 percent.

“The survey shows that the steep increases we have been reading about over the last several months are not just extreme cases,” said Drew Altman, the foundation's president.

Mr. Obama's message to insurers will serve to put the industry on notice and position the White House politically should voters start to link premium increases to the new law. With the law expected to play a significant role in the midterm elections, the president has been using his platform to sell the bill's most immediate benefits and, by extension, to defend Democrats in Congress who risked their careers to vote for it.

He will do so again Tuesday; after his private meeting, Mr. Obama will appear in the East Room, where he will highlight new regulations to protect consumers from discriminatory insurance practices, end lifetime limits on coverage and ban unjustified revocations of coverage.

Mr. Axelrod likened them to “essentially a patients' bill of rights, the strongest in history.”

White House officials said Tuesday's attendees will include top executives from 13 leading health insurers, as well as Karen M. Ignagni, the president of America's Health Insurance Plans , the industry trade group. Five state insurance commissioners also are expected to attend.

The insurers have attributed this year's increases to skyrocketing medical costs and to the economic downturn, which has prompted healthier consumers to forgo health insurance , leaving a sicker and costlier pool to cover.

“Our companies are receiving rate increase requests from hospitals across the country of 40, 50 and 60 percent,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the trade group. “That has a direct impact on the cost of health care coverage.”

But a report released Monday by Health Care for America Now , a coalition that supports the new law, stressed that the growth in premiums in the first eight years of this decade had far exceeded medical inflation — 97 percent to 39 percent.

The new law requires the health secretary to work with states to establish a process for annual reviews of “unreasonable increases in premiums.” Administration officials said Monday that they were still writing regulations to define “unreasonable increases.”

Mr. Obama's approach to the health insurance industry has rarely been subtle, starting with his campaign, when he spoke of his dying mother's struggle to persuade her insurer to cover her cancer treatments.

In March, with his health bill hanging by a thread in Congress, Mr. Obama ducked into a White House meeting with insurance executives to deliver a letter from an Ohio cancer survivor who had dropped her coverage after learning her premiums were rising 40 percent.

But for all of Mr. Obama's browbeating, the new health care law stopped short of giving the administration the power to reject or limit rate increases. Instead, it established the annual reviews, starting next year, and makes available $250 million in grants to states to implement the review process.

States that accept the grants must recommend whether insurers with patterns of excessive pricing should be allowed to market policies through newly created exchanges, which will help individuals and businesses shop for coverage starting in 2014. Insurers also will be required to justify increases deemed unreasonable on their Web sites.

In the closing weeks of the health care debate, the White House offered a proposal to give the health secretary authority to deny unreasonable increases. It did not make it into the final legislation, but Senate Democrats have reintroduced it as a standalone bill.

The regulatory clout of state insurance departments varies widely, with some having minimal power to block rate increases. But in recent months, several states have taken unusually assertive steps.

In California, state regulators announced that they would order independent reviews of increases being sought by four large health insurers. That move came after the department discovered miscalculations in rate requests by Anthem Blue Cross, prompting the company to withdraw its plan to raise premiums by as much as 39 percent.

In Massachusetts, the administration of Gov. Deval Patrick , a Democrat, used long-untapped power to deny 9 of 10 rate increases requested by the state's insurers, provoking a lawsuit from the industry. A court in Maine recently upheld a smaller rate increase for that state's largest insurer — 10.9 percent instead of 18.1 percent — that had been ordered by the insurance superintendent.

In New York, Gov. David A. Paterson , a Democrat, signed legislation this month giving the state power to block unreasonable rates. And in Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward G. Rendell , also a Democrat, announced two weeks ago that his insurance commissioner, Joel Ario, would investigate large increases by the state's biggest insurers.

“The plans are cherry-picking the best risk,” Mr. Ario, who will attend the White House session, said in an interview.

The federal law, which will require that most Americans obtain insurance, includes a number of provisions intended to slow the growth of premiums. For instance, insurance companies soon will have to spend at least 80 percent of revenue from premiums on claims, as opposed to administration and profit.

Insurers have warned since early in the debate that the overhaul might result in increased premiums for many consumers. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found otherwise, projecting that it would have minimal effect on group premiums, which account for 83 percent of the market. Their analysis forecast that premiums for individual policies would rise faster than they would without the new law, but that the increases would largely be offset by government subsidies.

Whatever the law's ultimate effect, many of this year's most egregious rate increases were announced well before it was clear the bill would pass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/health/policy/22health.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants

CHICAGO — Residents of a small city in eastern Nebraska voted Monday to banish illegal immigrants from jobs and rental homes, defying an earlier decision by the city's leaders and setting off what is all but certain to be a costly and closely watched legal challenge.

In Fremont , a meat-packing town of about 25,000 people, unofficial results from The Associated Press late Monday showed that 57 percent of voters approved a referendum barring landlords from renting to those in the country illegally, requiring renters to provide information to the police and to obtain city occupancy licenses, and obliging city businesses to use a federal database to check for illegal immigrants.

Opponents of the new law, including some business and church leaders, had argued that the City of Fremont simply could not afford the new law, which is all but certain to be challenged in court. In a flurry of television commercials and presentations by opponents in the final days before Monday's vote, opponents said paying to defend such a local law would require a significant cut in Fremont city services or a stiff tax increase — or some combination of the two.

“There were a lot of tears in this room tonight,” said Kristin Ostrom, an opponent who gathered with others in an old V.F.W. building to await the results. “Unfortunately, people have voted for an ordinance that's going to cost millions of dollars, and that says to the Hispanic community that the Anglo community is saying they are not welcome here. They thought they were coming to a small-town community with small-town values.”

But advocates argued that federal authorities had failed to enforce their own immigration restrictions, leaving places like Fremont — with a small but growing Hispanic population — to take care of such matters themselves. They complained that illegal immigrants were causing an increase in crime, taking jobs that would once have gone to longtime residents, and changing the character of their quiet city, some 30 miles of farm fields from Omaha.

Within minutes of the results being announced, officials from the A.C.L.U. Nebraska pledged to file a lawsuit as quickly as possible.

“If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Laurel Marsh, executive director of A.C.L.U. Nebraska , said in a statement issued late Monday. “The A.C.L.U. Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”

Fremont's Hispanic population, practically nonexistent two decades ago, has grown to about 2,000 people, according to some estimates. No one knows how many illegal immigrants live in Fremont, and the estimates (depending on which side of this debate one is on) vary enormously.

Still, some in Fremont point, with worry, to other Nebraska towns — places like Schuyler and Lexington — as communities that no longer look or feel the way they once did.

In recent years, numerous towns and cities around the nation have considered adopting laws restricting illegal immigrants. But in most cases, political leaders and town councils have been the ones to pass the provisions — not the voters. And the laws have proven politically-tangled: measures in towns like Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Tex., are still being fought in court, while some other cities (facing the prospect of drawn-out legal battles) have dropped the issue.

That almost happened in Fremont. Two years ago, a City Council member in Fremont suggested the city should pass a law on illegal immigrants. But after two emotional hearings — with what both sides said was participants from all over the state, the Council voted 4 to 4 on the proposal. The longtime mayor then voted against it, saying that he, too, was opposed to illegal immigrants but had come to believe that the question was one that had been, legally speaking, left to federal authorities, not Fremont.

Some residents were outraged by the choice, and began collecting signatures on a petition to put the question to a vote — the vote that ultimately came on Monday.

As residents of Fremont began considering what the decision would now mean, details of the new law were a new matter for debate. Some noted, with puzzlement, that the law would not apply to the area's two biggest meatpacking plants (including Hormel, the largest employer) because they are just outside the city's official boundaries, and that the law would also not apply to “casual labor for domestic tasks” around Fremont homes. But some said they believe the housing requirements — and new $5 occupancy license rule — might apply to people living in nursing homes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/22fremont.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

From Redbook Magazine

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

Help Save a Woman from Sex Slavery

With her new organization , Sarah Symons is helping human trafficking victims find healing and hope.

Seven years ago, on a business trip to New York, Sarah Symons saw the film that would change her life. The documentary The Day My God Died , which tells the stories of girls as young as 7 who were rescued from the sex trade overseas — and who then risked their lives to help others escape — shocked her. "Before I saw that film, I knew almost nothing about human trafficking," says Sarah, a 45-year-old Massachusetts mom of two. "And I certainly didn't realize the scale of slavery — that it affects millions. As I watched these brave girls, I thought about my own life and my own daughter, and it was unbearable. If the survivors were able to do so much to help, then surely I, who had so many blessings, could do something too."

Sarah was so moved and inspired that she signed up with a U.S.-based volunteer organization, Friends of Maiti Nepal, to travel to Nepal and visit a shelter for rescued girls that was featured in the film. "It was horrifying to see the girls who were newly rescued," she recalls. "They looked like wounded animals — many had been burned, cut, disfigured, or were dying of AIDS." But she also witnessed hope. "You could see the joy in the girls who had been rescued six months earlier," she says. "They were dancing and laughing in the courtyard. The beauty within the survivors is so much greater than the evil that's been inflicted on them."

While visiting the shelter, Sarah discovered a room stuffed with satin bags, jewelry, and other handicrafts that the girls had made. "I bought as many items as I could with the $300 I had in my wallet and piled it all into my suitcase," says Sarah, who planned to sell the goods to friends and family and then donate the profits to the women.

Back home in Massachusetts, Sarah quickly put her vision into action. At a "Shop for Freedom" party she threw a few weeks after her trip, she showed about 30 friends a short film she created from scenes from The Day My God Died. She also sold the survivors' crafts; each item came with a card telling a story of how its creator would use the money to rebuild her life: by moving out of the shelter, getting an education, and reintegrating back into society. The party was huge hit: Sarah raised $1,600 and sent every penny to Maiti Nepal.

The success of that night eventually led to the birth of the Emancipation Network, a nonprofit organization Sarah founded to encourage more women to host their own Shop for Freedom parties. Each of the 30 women who had attended Sarah's party hosted her own, and the parties spread from there. The organization gained national exposure after Lifetime Television featured a miniseries on human trafficking and posted a link to the Emancipation Network on its website as a resource for viewers who wanted to help rescued women.

Today, Sarah's organization has partnered with 18 shelters in nine countries, including one in New York, and sells survivors' products on its website, madebysurvivors.com — everything from jewelry and purses to paper goods and ornaments made from materials unique to the various regions the Emancipation Network serves. "Sometimes I worry, because women's lives are literally depending on me," says Sarah, who makes trips to shelters around the world four times a year. "But that's very small compared with the satisfaction I feel when I see how much the girls' lives have improved." Many of the women who've been helped by Sarah's work now have their own apartments, others are attending school, and a group of survivors even started a radio show to educate their community about human trafficking. "When I see how much their spirits are transformed," Sarah says, "that's what brings me the most joy."

What You Can Do
You can help survivors build better lives by shopping from the Emancipation Network's website, hosting your own Shop for Freedom party, or sponsoring a child. For more info, go to madebysurvivors.com

http://www.redbookmag.com/print-this/human-trafficking-organizations

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

From the White House

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

10:24 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello!  Hello, everybody!  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Everybody, please have a seat.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Let me just begin by making a few acknowledgements.  First of all, I've got some outstanding fathers here in the first row who aren't seeing their kids enough because I'm working them all the time -- three members of my Cabinet:  Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner --  (applause) -- Attorney General Eric Holder -- (applause) -- and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke are here.  (Applause.) 

In addition, we've got one of my heroes and I'm sure one of yours, somebody whose shoulders I stand on and allowed me to become President of the United States, and that's Congressman from the great state of Georgia, John Lewis, is here.  (Applause.)  A fierce advocate on behalf of the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is here.  (Applause.) 

I want to acknowledge the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian Fenty in the house.  (Applause.)  The executive director of ARC, Edmund Fleet, is here.  (Applause.)  I want to thank all the panel discussion participants who are involved in today's events, and I want to thank Nurney Mason -- a Washington, D.C. icon.  Nurney founded Mason's Barbershop in 1961.  That's the year I was born.  It's still going strong.  He is here with his children and his grandchildren.  Where is he?  There he is right there.  (Applause.)  I could use a little trim.  (Laughter.) 

One year ago this week, we kicked off a national conversation on fatherhood and personal responsibility, and members of our administration fanned out all across the country to hear from fathers and families about the challenges that they face.  Secretary Arne Duncan, our Secretary of Education, held a discussion in New Hampshire about the link between fatherhood and educational achievement.  Gary Locke talked to fathers in California about balancing the needs of their families with the demands of their jobs.  Secretary Shinseki, of Veterans Affairs, held a town hall for military and veteran dads in North Carolina.  And Attorney General Holder traveled to Georgia for a forum about fathers in our criminal justice system. 

And in each of these places, each of these leaders posed a simple question:  How can we as a nation -- not just the government, but businesses and community groups and concerned citizens -- how can we all come together to help fathers meet their responsibilities to our families and communities?

And we did this because we know the vital role fathers play in the lives of our children.  Fathers are our first teachers and coaches -- or in my house, assistant teachers and assistant coaches -- (laughter) -- to mom.  But they're our mentors, our role models.  They show us by the example they set the kind of people they want us to become. 

But we also know that what too many fathers being absent means -- too many fathers missing from too many homes, missing from too many lives.  We know that when fathers abandon their responsibilities, there's harm done to those kids.  We know that children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty.  They're more likely to drop out of school.  They're more likely to wind up in prison.  They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.  They're more likely to run away from home.  They're more likely to become teenage parents themselves.

And I say all this as someone who grew up without a father in my own life.  He left my family when I was two years old.  And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence.  It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill. 

So we can talk all we want here in Washington about issues like education and health care and crime; we can build good schools; we can put money into creating good jobs; we can do everything we can to keep our streets safe -- but government can't keep our kids from looking for trouble on those streets.   Government can't force a kid to pick up a book or make sure that the homework gets done.  Government can't be there day in, day out, to provide discipline and guidance and the love that it takes to raise a child.  That's our job as fathers, as mothers, as guardians for our children.

The fact is, it's easy to become a father, technically -- any guy can do that.  It's hard to live up to the lifelong responsibilities that come with fatherhood.  And it's a challenge even in good times, when our families are doing well.  It's especially difficult when times are tough, families are straining just to keep everything together. 

In a time of war, many of our military families are stretched thin, with fathers doing multiple tours of duty far away from their children.  In difficult economic times, a lot of fathers are worried about whether they're going to be able to keep their job, or find a job, or whether they'll be able to pay the bills and give their children the kinds of opportunities that if they didn't have them themselves, at least they wished for their children.  And there are a lot of men who are out of work and wrestling with the shame and frustration that comes when you feel like you can't be the kind of provider you want to be for the people that you love. 

But here's the key message I think all of us want to send today to fathers all across the country:  Our children don't need us to be superheroes.  They don't need us to be perfect.  They do need us to be present.  They need us to show up and give it our best shot, no matter what else is going on in our lives.  They need us to show them -- not just with words, but with deeds -- that they, those kids, are always our first priority.

Those family meals, afternoons in the park, bedtime stories; the encouragement we give, the questions we answer, the limits we set, the example we set of persistence in the face of difficulty and hardship -- those things add up over time, and they shape a child's character, build their core, teach them to trust in life and to enter into it with confidence and with hope and with determination.  And that's something they'll always carry with them:  that love that we show not with money, or fame, or spectacular feats, but through small daily acts -- the love we show and that we earn by being present in the lives of our children.

Now, unfortunately, the way we talk about fatherhood in this country doesn't always reinforce these truths.  When we talk about issues like child care and work-family balance, we call them “women's issues” and “mothers' issues.”  Too often when we talk about fatherhood and personal responsibility, we talk about it in political terms, in terms of left and right, conservative/liberal, instead of what's right and what's wrong.  And when we do that, we've gotten off track.  So I think it's time for a new conversation around fatherhood in this country.

We can all agree that we've got too many mothers out there forced to do everything all by themselves.  They're doing a heroic job, often under trying circumstances.  They deserve a lot of credit for that.  But they shouldn't have to do it alone.  The work of raising our children is the most important job in this country, and it's all of our responsibilities -- mothers and fathers.  (Applause.)

Now, I can't legislate fatherhood -- I can't force anybody to love a child.  But what we can do is send a clear message to our fathers that there is no excuse for failing to meet their obligations.  What we can do is make it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid those choices.  What we can do is come together and support fathers who are willing to step up and be good partners and parents and providers. 

And that's why today we're launching the next phase of our work to promote responsible fatherhood -- a new, nationwide Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative.  This is a call to action with cities and states, with individuals and organizations across the country -- from the NFL Players Association to the National PTA, to everyday moms and dads -- we're raising awareness about responsible fatherhood and working to re-engage absent fathers with their families. 

As part of this effort, we've proposed a new and expanded Fatherhood, Marriage and Families Innovation Fund.  And we plan to seek out and support the very best, most successful initiatives in our states and communities -- those that are offering services like job training, or parenting skills classes, domestic violence prevention -- all which help provide the kind of network of support for men, particularly those in vulnerable communities. 

We're also going to help dads who get caught up -- we want to make sure that they're caught up on child support payments and that we re-engage them in their children's lives.  We're going to support efforts to build healthy relationships between parents as well -- because we know that children benefit not just from loving mothers and loving fathers, but from strong and loving marriages as well.  (Applause.)  

We're also launching a new transitional jobs initiative for ex-offenders and low-income, non-custodial fathers --(applause) -- because these are men who often face serious barriers to finding work and keeping work.  We'll help them develop the skills and experience they need to move into full-time, long-term employment, so they can meet their child support obligations and help provide for their families.

And under Eric Holder's direction, our Justice Department is planning to create its first “Fathering Re-Entry Court” for ex-offender dads -- (applause) -- and to help replicate this program in courts across the country.  The idea here is very simple:  to reach fathers right as they're leaving the criminal justice system and connect them immediately to the employment and services they need to start making their child support payments and reconnecting them with their families. 

This program was inspired by leaders like Peter Spokes, who was the executive director of the National Center for Fathering -- a good friend to many in our administration, all of whom were deeply saddened by his recent passing.  And we are honored to have Peter's wife, Barbara, with us here today.  Where's Barbara?  I just saw her earlier.  There she is.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

So these initiatives are a good start.  But ultimately, we know that the decision to be a good father -- that's up to us, each of us, as individuals.  It's one that men across this country are making every single day -- attending those school assemblies; parent-teacher conferences; coaching soccer, Little League; scrimping and saving, and working that extra shift so that their children can go to college.  And plenty of fathers -- and men who aren't fathers as well -- are stepping up to serve as mentors and tutors and big brothers and foster parents to young people who don't have any responsible adult in their lives.   

Even when we give it our best efforts, there will still be plenty of days of struggle and heartache when we don't quite measure up -- talking to the men here now.  Even with all the good fortune and support Michelle and I have had in our lives, I've made plenty of mistakes as a parent.  I've lost count of all the times when the demands of work have taken me from the duties of fatherhood.  And I know I've missed out on moments in my daughters' lives that I'll never get back, and that's a loss that's hard to accept. 

But I also know the feeling that one author described when she wrote that “to have a child…is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.”  (Laughter.)  Think about that -- to have a child is to have your heart walking around outside your body.

I'm sure a lot of fathers here know that same memory that I have, of driving home with Michelle and Malia right after she was born, going about 10 miles an hour.  (Laughter.)  Your emotions swinging between unadulterated joy and sheer terror.  (Laughter.)  And I made a pledge that day that I would do everything I could to give my daughter what I never had -- that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father.  (Applause.) 

And like a lot of the men here, since that time I've found there's nothing else in my life that compares to the pleasures I take in spending time with my girls.  Nothing else comes close to the pride I feel in their achievement and the satisfaction I get in watching them grow into strong, confident young women. 

Over the course of my life, I have been an attorney, I've been a professor, I've been a state senator, I've been a U.S. senator -- and I currently am serving as President of the United States.  But I can say without hesitation that the most challenging, most fulfilling, most important job I will have during my time on this Earth is to be Sasha and Malia's dad.  (Applause.) 

So you don't need a fancy degree for that.  You don't need a lot of money for that.  No matter what doubts we may feel, what difficulties we may face, we all have to remember being a father -- it's not just an obligation and a responsibility; it is a privilege and a blessing, one that we all have to embrace as individuals and as a nation. 

So, Happy Father's Day, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

END

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-fathers-day-event

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

The President's Record on Border Security

A video circulating today shows Republican Senate Whip Jon Kyl claiming that the President told him he would not enforce immigration policy on the border unless comprehensive immigration reform is passed.  The President didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it.  There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.

Background on President's Strategic and Integrated Southwest Border Strategy:

Over the past year since the Southwest Border Initiative was launched:

• Doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces by deploying 110 additional special agents.
  
  
• Tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts along the Southwest border in April 2009 by deploying 28 additional personnel. 
  
  
• For the first time, DHS began screening 100% of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash.
  
  
• Deployed 13 additional cross-trained canine teams, which identify firearms and currency, to the Southwest Border to augment the five teams already in place.
  
  
• Deployed 116 additional Border Patrol Agents to augment CBP officers during inspections operations—particularly outbound inspections.
  
  
• Deployed five additional Z-Backscatter Units, which help CBP identify anomalies in passenger vehicles, to the Southwest border to augment the six already there.
  
  
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) combined have seized $85 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border—a 22 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.
  
  
• CBP and ICE together have seized 1,404 firearms and 1.62 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border—increases of 22 and 14 percent respectively over the same period during the previous year.
  
  
• CBP seized $29.5 million in illicit southbound cash along the Southwest border—a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

Additionally, the San Diego DHS Maritime Unified Command, comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and other law enforcement partners, saw a more than six-fold increase in maritime drug interdictions in the Pacific waters extending from the Southwest border—seizing 57,437 lbs. of drugs in fiscal year 2009 compared to 8,884 lbs. seized in fiscal year 2008. Already in fiscal year 2010, the Coast Guard has seized 11,500 lbs. of drugs across the San Diego sector.

Since 2004:

• The Border Patrol has doubled in size to approx 20,000 Border Patrol agents on board.

And U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics show that illegal immigration into the United States is down with apprehensions between points of entry having dropped 23 percent in FY09. During FY09 the Border Patrol apprehended 556,041 compared with 723,825 during FY08. El Paso Sector saw a 51 percent reduction in apprehensions, the Tucson Sector saw a 24 percent reduction in apprehensions, and the Rio Grande Valley Sector saw a 19 percent reduction in apprehensions. Those statistics reflect a reduction in the number of people attempting to illegally cross our borders.

• And as part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama will request $500 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities. The President will also deploy up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Funds will be utilized to enhance technology at the border, share information and support with State, Local, and Tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/21/presidents-record-border-security

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

From the Department of Justice

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

Good morning. Thank you, Chris [Hook], for your kind words and for all the work that you, Marc [Salans], the Board of DOJ Pride and our EEO staff team have done in organizing today's ceremony. It's a pleasure to join Tom [Perez] in welcoming so many members of the Justice Department family, and so many distinguished guests, here today as we commemorate LGBT Pride Month. I'm glad that Senator [Amy] Klobuchar and Director [John] Clark are with us. And I want to congratulate Chris [Hook] and this year's other award recipients, Councilmember [David] Catania and Attorney General [Doug] Gansler, on their achievements and contributions. I also want to thank our keynote speakers – Jenny Durkan , U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and Sharon Lubinski , U.S. Marshal for the District of Minnesota – for sharing their thoughts and stories with us and for providing an example of service for us all.

We have much to celebrate today. In the year since we last gathered, our nation – and the Justice Department – have taken steps to address some of the unique challenges faced by members of our country's LGBT community. As you all know, up until last fall, there was not a single line in the nearly 225-year history of the U.S. Code that referred explicitly to gender identity. Today, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act – which the President signed into law last October – does just that, finally protecting our nation's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals from the most brutal forms of bias-motivated violence.

In another important development, in April of this year, the Justice Department concluded that the Violence Against Women Act covers, and more importantly protects, same sex partners. And, just several weeks ago, as part of the department's, and the Administration's, commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion, I announced a new Diversity Management Plan and the appointment of Channing Phillips as Deputy Associate Attorney General for Diversity. With this initiative, and with Channing's leadership, we're working to ensure that the Department can effectively recruit, hire, retain, and develop a workforce that reflects our nation's rich diversity, a Department that welcomes and encourages the contributions of its LGBT employees.

I'm grateful for the assistance and guidance that so many of you have given. Our progress would not have been possible without your contributions. And while we have meaningful achievements to celebrate today, we must remember how much more work we have to do to transform today's opportunities into tomorrow's successes. Too many of the challenges that confronted the LGBT community 16 years ago – when DOJ Pride was founded – confront us still today. Too many of the same obstacles that existed then remain for us to overcome. Too many talented men and women cannot, in the words of this year's motto, "serve openly, with pride."

With your help and engagement, we're working to ensure that the Justice Department lives up to its responsibility to provide a work environment where every employee is respected and given an equal opportunity to thrive. That's the goal we share and the achievement we'll keep working toward - together.

Thank you.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100621.html

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

Thank you, Jim [Coleman], for that warm welcome.  It's an honor to be with you today and to salute the great work that the North Carolina Advocates for Justice supports and inspires.  For nearly half a century, this organization's leadership has been working to protect the rights of all citizens, to improve public understanding of our legal system, and to help attorneys across this state develop and enhance their skills.

This organization also serves as a meeting ground for North Carolina's legal community to consider the challenges faced by every member of our profession and to discuss the responsibilities that we all share – responsibilities to protect our nation's security, its interests, and its values.

This afternoon, I'm pleased to be part of the conversation.  And I'm grateful for this opportunity to tell you all, in person, how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice and to the promise of equal justice.

I'm here today to discuss our shared obligation, and opportunity, to fulfill this promise and to talk about the unprecedented challenges that – together – we can, and must, overcome.

Like many of you, I am proud to serve our nation's criminal justice system, and I have great faith in its integrity and its effectiveness.  While I believe this system is worthy of praise, I also recognize that it is not without problems.  And it is time to face, address, and solve these problems.

Nearly half a century has passed since the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright.  The Court followed with other decisions recognizing the right to counsel in juvenile and misdemeanor cases.  Today, despite the decades that have gone by, these cases have yet to be fully translated into reality.  Today, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is, quite simply, not a right of all.

But you already know this – especially the judges, prosecutors, plaintiffs' attorneys and, especially, the members of the criminal defense bar who are here.  Many of you have reviewed the most recent reports outlining gaps in funding and services.  Or you've read heartbreaking news stories of justice delayed and, in some cases, denied.  And some of you have learned this truth in the hardest of ways – by experiencing it on the ground. 

You've seen how, in too many communities and counties across and beyond North Carolina, some people accused of crimes – including juveniles – may never have a lawyer, either entirely or during a critical stage of the proceedings against them.  In fact, juveniles sometimes waive their right to counsel without ever speaking to an attorney to help them understand what they are giving up.  And too many of our courts accept these waivers.

When lawyers are provided to the poor, too often they cannot represent their clients properly due to insufficient resources and inadequate oversight – that is, without the building blocks of a well-functioning public defender system, the type of system set forth in the ten principles of the American Bar Association and the National Juvenile Defender Center.

Unfortunately, the challenges facing North Carolina's public defender program – a lack of staff and increasingly limited resources – are the rule, not the exception.  Across the country, too many public defenders are carrying huge caseloads that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fulfill their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients.  Lawyers buried under these caseloads often can't interview their clients properly or conduct adequate fact investigations.

In Raleigh, we've seen the case of a death row inmate whose attorney did not interview any witnesses, file any motions, seek an evaluation of his client, gain access to the prosecutor's file, or conduct any background investigation until very shortly before trial.  And the problem is about more than just resources.  In some parts of the country, the primary institutions for the delivery of defense to the poor – I'm talking about basic public defender systems – simply do not exist.

Shining a light on these problems is important – and is often an impetus for reform.  That's been the case here in North Carolina.  In the three years since your state auditor found that North Carolina was, “falling short related to its responsibilities for providing independent, competent and adequate legal defense for the poor," lawyers across the state, and across practice areas, have been calling for systemic change.  You've also been calling on state lawmakers to make indigent defense services, even in these hard economic times, a funding priority. 

Just as surely as you must keep this up, we must all acknowledge that resources, alone, are not enough.  We already know that, when the justice system fails to get it right the first time, we all pay, often for years, for new filings, retrials, and appeals.  But to most effectively demonstrate the need for additional funding, we must, first, clearly demonstrate the scope of what is needed and what we expect to achieve.  Hard data will help transform the field and improve our capacity, not only to deliver justice but also to ensure the integrity of our justice system.

As a prosecutor and former judge, I know that a fair criminal justice system, and our faith in it, depends on effective representation on both sides.  And I recognize that some may perceive the goals of those who represent our federal, state, and local governments and the goals of those who represent the accused as forever at odds.  I reject that premise.  Although they may stand on different sides of an argument, both the prosecution and the defense have a role, and a responsbility, in strengthening our justice system.

So, where do we go from here?

Of course, I'm not the only person in this room who's been grappling with this question for some time.  Here in North Carolina, you have seen some difficult challenges. You've also made meaningful progress – especially since 2000, when the state Indigent Defense Services agency was established.  But there's more work to be done.  And that's true all across the country.

It's no exaggeration to say that we are now dealing with a nationwide crisis in our criminal defense system.  In the last year, I have thought about, studied, and discussed this crisis a great deal.  What I've learned, and what I know for sure, is that there are no easy solutions.  No single institution – not the federal government, not the Department of Justice, not a single state legislature, state bar or professional organization – can solve the problem on its own.  Progress can only come from a sustained commitment to collaboration with diverse partners.  We need government and private sector leaders to work together. And we need lawyers and policymakers to communicate more regularly about what we're up against.

I urge each of you – in fact, I'm counting on each of you – to bring more people into your discussions about our indigent defense crisis.  Don't just turn to fellow attorneys and judges.  Talk to local officials, state budget officers, and business and community leaders.  The right to counsel is the right of every citizen – and it must be the concern of every citizen and especially every person who works on behalf of the public good and in the pursuit of justice. 

As I've said repeatedly over the last year, I believe that addressing our indigent defense crisis must have three areas of focus. 

First, we must commit to an ongoing dialogue about these issues – with partners at the federal, state, and local levels, both within and outside of government.  By sharing information and inviting fresh ideas and perspectives, I believe we can build on the good work that has gone into developing model standards for our public defense systems.

Second, we must raise awareness about what we're facing.  As Americans understand how some of their fellow citizens experience the criminal justice system, they will be shocked and angered – feelings I hope would compel them to become advocates for change and allies in our work.

Third, we must expand the role of the public defender.  We must encourage defenders to seek solutions beyond our courtrooms and ensure that they're involved in shaping policies that will empower the communities they serve.  I'm committed to making sure that public defenders are at the table when we meet with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system.  And I'm determined to try to make sure that every state has a public defender program.  As part of this work, I've pledged to meet regularly with members of the criminal defense bar.  And today's convention is just a part of fulfilling that promise. 

I have also charged the Justice Department's leadership with calling on our components to include members of the public defense system in a range of meetings.  We will also involve defenders in conferences, application review panels, and other venues where a public defense perspective can be valuable. 

Let me assure you all today that this is not a passing issue for the Justice Department.  I have asked the entire Department to focus on indigent defense issues with a sense of urgency and a commitment to developing and implementing the solutions we need.  As many of you know, we recently took an historic step to make access to justice a permanent part of the Department's work, with a focused effort by our leadership offices to ensure that this issue gets the attention it deserves.

In March, the Department of Justice launched a landmark Access to Justice Initiative, led by the eminent Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe.  The initiative was established to fulfill our responsibility to enhance the fairness and integrity of our legal system, and it reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority.  And I'm pleased to report that this new office has hit the ground running with an ambitious agenda.

The Access team has met with prominent officials across the legal profession, from Chief Judge Lippman of New York to circuit judges on both coasts to the White House Domestic Policy Council, in order to form partnerships that will begin to open the doors of justice to all – regardless of income.  Professor Tribe recently participated in the Constitutional Right to Counsel Summit hosted by Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee.  And, several days ago, the office announced that it had secured a joint grant solicitation with the National Institute of Justice to fund access-to-justice-related research, a first – and necessary – step toward a more just America.  With the same dedication that many of you showed in calling for such an initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.

Your partnership is, and will continue to be, critical to the Justice Department's work.  In this time of growing needs and demands and of increasingly limited resources, meeting our responsibilities – as servants and stewards of our nation's justice system – has never been more difficult.  But I have every expectation that, together, we can make extraordinary – and much-needed – progress. 

I believe our criminal defense system can, and will, become a source of tremendous national pride.  I look forward to working with you all in achieving this goal.  And I am grateful for your guidance, your engagement, and for your commitment.  But we all need to do more.  As lawyers it is our obligation to make real the promise of a system where all are adequately represented.  I call on all of you to partner with me in this effort. Together, we will surely succeed and get closer to the realization of the more perfect union we all seek.

Thank you.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100619.html

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

From ICE

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

RICHMOND, Va.- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced Secure Communities was activated as of last week in every county in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This biometric information sharing strategy enables ICE to identify any alien booked into local law enforcement's custody for a crime. This capability is part of ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States.

Formerly, during the booking process, arrestees' fingerprints were checked for criminal history information only against the biometric database maintained by the FBI. With the implementation of Secure Communities, this fingerprint information is now automatically and simultaneously checked against both the FBI criminal history records and the biometrics-based immigration records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If any fingerprints match those of someone in the DHS biometric system, the new automated process notifies ICE. ICE evaluates each case to determine the individual's immigration status and takes appropriate enforcement action. This includes aliens who are in lawful status and those who are present without lawful authority. Once identified through fingerprint matching, ICE will respond with a priority placed on aliens convicted of the most serious offenses first - such as those with convictions for major drug offenses, murder, rape and kidnapping.

"The Secure Communities strategy provides an effective tool to help ICE identify aliens in the criminal custody of law enforcement with little or no cost to our law enforcement partners," said John Morton, assistant secretary for ICE. "Applying this biometric information sharing tool in Virginia improves public safety by enabling ICE to prevent the release of convicted criminal aliens back into our communities when they complete their sentences."

"This information sharing enables criminal aliens to be identified at the time they are booked in a jail anywhere in Virginia, and those convicted of serious crimes can be prioritized for deportation after serving their sentences. Secure Communities will help us get these convicts off our streets and make Virginia safer - a goal I've pursued for eight years in public service," said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

With the expansion of the biometric information-sharing capability throughout Virginia, ICE is now using it in 336 jurisdictions in 22 states. ICE expects to make it available in jurisdictions nationwide by 2013.

Since ICE began using this enhanced information sharing capability in October 2008, immigration officers have removed from the United States more than 8,500 criminal aliens convicted of Level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape and kidnapping. Additionally, ICE has removed more than 22,200 criminal aliens convicted of Level 2 and 3 crimes, including burglary and serious property crimes, which account for the majority of crimes committed by aliens. ICE does not regard aliens charged with, but not yet convicted of crimes, as "criminal aliens." Instead, a "criminal alien" is an alien convicted of a crime.

"US VISIT is proud to support ICE, helping provide decision makers with comprehensive, reliable information when and where they need it," said US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny. "By enhancing the interoperability of DHS's and the FBI's biometric systems, we are able to give federal, state and local decision makers information that helps them better protect our communities and our nation."

"Under this plan, ICE will be utilizing FBI system enhancements that allow improved information sharing at the state and local law enforcement level based on positive identification of incarcerated criminal aliens," said Daniel D. Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's CJIS Division. "Additionally, ICE and the FBI are working together to take advantage of the strong relationships already forged between the FBI and state and local law enforcement necessary to assist ICE in achieving its goals."

For more information, visit www.ice.gov/secure_communities .

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1006/100621washington.htm

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

From the FBI

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

THE LATEST PHONE SCAM

Targets Your Bank Account

06/21/10

Imagine getting hundreds or thousands of calls on your home, business, or cell phone, tying up the lines. And when you answer, you hear anything from dead air to recorded messages, advertisements, or even phone sex menus.

It's annoying, no doubt. But it could be more than that—it could be a sign that you're being victimized by the latest scam making the rounds. This ”telephone denial-of-service attack“ could be the precursor to a crime targeting your bank accounts.

Denial-of-service attacks, by themselves, are nothing new—computer hackers use them to take down websites by flooding them with large amounts of traffic.

In a recent twist, criminals have transferred this activity to telephones , using automated dialing programs and multiple accounts to overwhelm the phone lines of unsuspecting citizens.

Why are they doing it? Turns out the calls are simply a diversionary tactic: while the lines are tied up, the criminals—masquerading as the victims themselves—are raiding the victims' bank accounts and online trading or other money management accounts.

Here, in a nutshell, is how the whole thing works :

• Weeks or months before the phone calls start, a criminal uses social engineering tactics or malware to elicit personal information from a victim that this person's bank or financial institution would have—like account numbers and passwords. Perhaps the victim responded to a bogus e-mail phishing for information, inadvertently gave out sensitive information during a phone call, or put too much personal information on social networking sites that are trolled by criminals.
  
  
• Using technology, the criminal ties up the victim's various phone lines.
  
  
• Then, the criminal either contacts the financial institution pretending to be the victim…or pilfers the victim's online bank accounts using fraudulent transactions. Normally, the institution calls to verify the transactions, but of course they can't get through to the victim over the phone.
  
  
• If the transactions aren't made, the criminals sometimes re-contact the financial institution as the victim and ask for it to be done. Or they add their own phone number to victims' accounts and just wait for the bank to call.

By the time the victim or the financial institution realizes what happens, it's too late.

Law enforcement and industry response

The FBI first learned about this emerging scheme through one of its private industry partners, which told us how a Florida dentist lost $400,000 from his retirement account after a denial-of-service attack on his phones.

And as of April of this year, there has definitely been a noticeable surge in telephone denial-of-service attacks, with numerous incidents having been reported in several Eastern states.

To help fight these schemes, the FBI has teamed up with the Communication Fraud Control Association—comprised of security professionals from communication providers—to analyze the patterns and trends of telephone denial-of-service attacks, educate the public, and identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Ultimately, though, it's individual consumers and small- and medium-sized businesses on the front line of this battle . So take precautions: never give out personal information to an unsolicited phone caller or via e-mail; change online banking and automated telephone system passwords frequently; check your account balances often; and protect your computers with the latest virus protection and security software.

And if you think you may have been targeted by a telephone denial-of-service attack, contact your financial institution and your telephone provider, and file a complaint with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center .

Resources:
- Common Fraud Schemes

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june10/phone_062110.html

.