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

From the Los Angeles Times

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

Georgia passes immigration bill similar to Arizona's

Police would be given the power to check the immigration status of 'criminal' suspects and many businesses would be required to do the same with potential hires.

by Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times

April 14, 2011

Reporting from Atlanta

Following Arizona's lead, the Georgia Legislature on Thursday passed a strict measure that would empower police to check the immigration status of "criminal" suspects and force many businesses to do the same with potential employees.

The bill passed in the waning hours of the legislative session despite critics' outcries. Immigrant advocates threatened a state boycott if it became law, and Georgia's powerful agricultural industry warned, among other things, that federal guest worker programs alone could not provide enough laborers to meet farmers' needs.

Now the measure heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, who campaigned last year on the promise of implementing an Arizona-style law in a state with, according to one 2009 estimate, 480,000 illegal immigrants — about 20,000 more than Arizona.

Since his election, however, Deal has warned that immigration laws should not place an "undue burden" on employers, raising concerns among foes of illegal immigration that he was wobbling.

A Deal spokesman declined to comment late Thursday on the governor's plans for the bill.

Whether or not it is enacted, Georgia's legislation underscores the increasingly disparate strategies that states are invoking in lieu of a comprehensive federal plan to deal with illegal immigration.

On Monday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's order striking down parts of the controversial Arizona law, known as SB 1070, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year. Among the rejected sections was a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop whom they also suspect to be illegal immigrants.

Some states, including Florida, are considering significant immigration bills, but others, including Nebraska and Colorado, have rejected such bills recently. Utah passed immigration-control legislation last month but softened its effects by also passing a law that creates "guest worker" ID cards for undocumented immigrants.

And just this week, Maryland's General Assembly passed a bill that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants (as California does). Maryland's governor was expected to sign it. Georgia is one of several states that denies in-state tuition to illegal immigrant residents.

In a provision with rough similarities to the most contentious part of the Arizona law, the Georgia bill gives police the authority to check a suspect's immigration status if the suspect is unable to produce a valid ID and if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a "criminal offense." If the person is verified as an illegal immigrant, police can detain that person or notify federal authorities.

Charles Kuck, a prominent Atlanta immigration attorney, said the way the bill is written, "criminal offenses" could be as minor as traffic violations.

Kuck, a Republican and outspoken critic of the legislation, said there was some question as to whether this provision gave police any more power than they already have. But the bigger problem, he said, was with "the message that it sends — this bill says, 'Immigrants, do not come to Georgia.... You're gonna have to show us your papers when you come.' "

He scoffed at another section prohibiting police from considering "race, color or national origin" when enforcing the bill.

"Let me ask you a question," Kuck said. "Do you think any white people are going be taken in for an immigration background check if they forgot their wallet at home?"

Among other things, the bill outlaws the use of fake IDs to secure employment and the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants while knowingly committing another crime.

The biggest sticking point proved to be the provision that all but the smallest companies use the federal system called E-Verify to check the immigration status of new hires.

Critics from the farm lobby said E-Verify was not totally accurate, and put employers at risk of lawsuits if they erroneously denied a legal resident a job. The bill's supporters characterized that as overblown rhetoric from an industry addicted to cheap labor.

An earlier Arizona law, passed in 2007, requires all employers to use E-Verify and dissolves businesses that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. That law, too, has been challenged on grounds that it usurps federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December.

If Georgia's bill becomes law, it too is likely to wind up in court. But Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said its fate may hinge on whether Arizona's laws pass constitutional muster.

But for the time being, fans of the Georgia bill were heartened by their achievement Thursday.

"We're a law-abiding state," said state Sen. Earl "Buddy" Carter, a Republican from Pooler. "And we want people to abide by the laws."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-georgia-immigration-20110415,0,1661491,print.story

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

U.S. urged dealer to continue gun sales despite concerns, inquiry finds

The Arizona gun dealer repeatedly raised red flags about weapons ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels as part of Project Gunrunner, but his concerns were brushed aside, congressional investigators say.

by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

April 15, 2011

The investigation into a federal operation that allowed Mexican drug cartels to acquire U.S. weapons escalated Thursday with new revelations that an Arizona gun dealer repeatedly expressed fears that his guns were falling into the "hands of the bad guys" but was encouraged by federal agents to continue the sales.

A series of emails released by congressional investigators showed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives encouraged the gun dealer against his better judgment to sell high-powered weapons to buyers he believed were agents for the drug cartels.

Employees of the dealer videotaped gun buyers — suspected "straw purchasers" who could legally buy the guns, though cartel members could not — exchanging money with other individuals on the dealer's premises.

The aim of the ATF program, called Project Gunrunner, was to gather intelligence on suspicious weapons sales and arrest senior members of international trafficking chains.

In an eerie case of premonition, the gun dealer expressed fears that the guns he was selling could be used against U.S. border agents.

"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys," the dealer, who has not been named, wrote in June 2010 to David Voth, the lead ATF case agent in Phoenix. "I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents' safety, because I have some very close friends that are U.S. Border Patrol agents in southern AZ."

Three guns sold to suspects who were part of Project Gunrunner have since turned up at the scenes of the deaths of two U.S. agents — in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi and near the Mexican border in Arizona.

"Not only were the ATF agents who later blew the whistle [on the investigation] predicting that this operation would end in tragedy, so were the gun dealers — even as ATF urged them to make the sales," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter with the new emails to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.

The Justice Department in its only official response to the congressional inquiry denied that the ATF "sanctioned" or "otherwise knowingly allowed" the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers, who then transported them to Mexico.

The new emails suggest that the Arizona gun dealer was seeking assurances from the ATF and the U.S. attorney's office that the company would not be held responsible if someone got hurt with guns that ended up in the hands of gunrunners.

Voth, the ATF agent, wrote to the dealer: "I understand that the frequency with which some individuals under investigation by our office have been purchasing firearms from your business has caused concerns for you. … However, if it helps put you at ease we (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into [in] detail."

News reports in June 2010 that guns purchased in the U.S. were being found at Mexican crime scenes prompted the dealer to again express concerns.

"I shared my concerns with you guys that I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys," the dealer wrote, adding that the reports are "disturbing."

On "one or two" occasions when the dealer's employees videotaped a suspected straw purchaser exchanging money with another person, the ATF urged that the sale go forward, but the employees refused, Grassley said in his letter.

"In light of this new evidence, the Justice Department's claim that the ATF never knowingly sanctioned or allowed the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers is simply not credible," Grassley wrote.

Thousands of guns were sold to straw purchasers under Project Gunrunner. The ATF has acknowledged that at least 195 U.S. firearms sold to suspected straw purchasers have been recovered in Mexico, but agents have said thousands slipped outside ATF oversight.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns-20110415,0,2146783,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

16 Officers Arrested in Mexico Deaths

MEXICO CITY — The authorities have arrested 16 police officers and charged them with protecting a criminal gang suspected of murdering dozens of people and dumping their bodies in farmland about 90 miles south of the Texas border.

The arrests, announced late Wednesday, suggest how it was possible for the gang to operate for months in San Fernando, an unpopulated area in Tamaulipas State, where people have vanished after being kidnapped from long-distance buses.

Security forces said Thursday that they had now found 145 bodies in mass graves.

Officials said last week that the discovery of dozens of bodies might offer an answer to the mystery of what happened to men who had been forced off buses at gunpoint in front of witnesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/americas/15mexico.html?pagewanted=print

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

Despite Setbacks, Arizona Sheriff Won't Yield the Spotlight

MESA, Ariz. — It is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies to have helicopters and planes to patrol from above, but Joe Arpaio , the sheriff of Maricopa County, has created what he calls his own air force: a collection of 30 private planes that his “air posse” uses to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

In what Mr. Arpaio is calling Operation Desert Sky, private pilots have begun flying over central Arizona to act as spotters for Maricopa County Sheriff's Department deputies. The overhead surveillance has not yet led to any arrests, two weeks after it began, but Mr. Arpaio said it would have a deterrent effect.

In short, Sheriff Joe — as he is widely known — is still at it.

Despite court setbacks to Arizona's aggressive illegal immigration law, two continuing federal investigations into his law enforcement practices and an audit of his budget released this week that found that millions of dollars had been misspent, the sheriff — as vividly highlighted by the creation of the Arpaio air force — is not backing down in his pursuit of illegal immigrants, or the limelight.

“This is just another controversial program that I don't think is controversial,” Mr. Arpaio said in his characteristic gruff way.

On Wednesday, budget officials in Maricopa County — a sprawling place as large as some states that includes Phoenix, the country's sixth-largest city — found that Mr. Arpaio's department had used nearly $100 million in funds meant to run the jails for other activities, including paying the salaries of deputies assigned to his contentious efforts to uncover human smuggling and public corruption.

Mr. Arpaio, who blames accounting errors for the audit finding and accuses critics of trying to exploit it, skipped the budget hearing and instead showed up outside Monte Carlo Dry Cleaners here, where his deputies led away six women who were charged with using false identification to get jobs, a state crime.

As always, the news media were called to capture the tough-talking sheriff, who declared that this represented the 44th business he had raided in search of illegal immigrants in recent years. If he was feeling the heat from the growing criticism of his department, Mr. Arpaio, dressed in a uniform jacket with four gold stars on each shoulder, was not showing it.

Before the dry cleaners, Mr. Arpaio's deputies had raided a string of Pei Wei Asian Diners, detaining scores of workers and prompting the chain to take out a full-page help-wanted ad to keep its kitchens going. Across the region are fast food shops, car washes, furniture stores and other establishments that have had sheriff's deputies unexpectedly rush in demanding papers.

“We're creating vacancies so these businesses can hire people legally,” Mr. Arpaio said. “I've just done something for the economy. I don't get enough credit for that, from the Justice Department and the rest of the critics. They just think it's the bad sheriff going in and grabbing dishwashers.”

Maricopa has a love-hate relationship with Mr. Arpaio, 78, an 18-year veteran who has regular protesters outside his downtown offices but still receives kudos from fans on the street and invitations from politicians eager for his endorsement.

Outside the dry cleaners, a man who was not able to drop off some shirts on Wednesday morning, because the store was not accepting new laundry, lauded Mr. Arpaio's raids and declared of the detained workers: “If they were in the country illegally, they need to get out of here.”

But a woman who was picking up her cleaning was fuming as she waited for the commotion to end. “We're tired of Sheriff Joe,” said the woman, who like several others at the scene declined to identify themselves. “These workers were supporting their families. They weren't violent. This is ridiculous.”

The criticism was just as fierce last month when Mr. Arpaio allowed the actor Steven Seagal to ride in an armored vehicle to execute a search warrant in a major raid on a suspected cockfighting operation.

“I've never seen a bigger spectacle,” said Robert J. Campos, the lawyer for the accused man, Jesus Llovera. “You had Steven Seagal on a tank and a SWAT team swarming a home, but the reality is they arrested an unarmed man.”

Mr. Arpaio said Mr. Seagal was one of his many volunteer posse members who help out deputies. But Mr. Campos said the raid was filmed as part of Mr. Seagal's reality television show, “Lawman,” on the A&E Network.

To get tips on which business to raid next, Mr. Arpaio uses a confidential hot line, the number of which is emblazoned on the side of the wagon used to transport suspects to Mr. Arpaio's tent-city jail.

“My activist friends don't like it,” Mr. Arpaio said of the use of tipsters. “Some politicians don't like it. But I decide what goes on.”

Disgruntled current and former workers make up the most effective informants, deputies say, since they offer the most precise information on suspected illegal immigrants working at a business. Many tips, however, are from customers upset to find so many Latinos working in a particular place.

“We get calls all the time that say, ‘There's Hispanics in a McDonald's and they don't speak English,' ” said Lt. Joe Sousa, commander of the department's human smuggling division. “That's racial profiling, and I ignore that. We need specifics.”

The hot line also receives plenty of calls commenting on Mr. Arpaio. “A lot of calls are ‘Way to go, Joe!' or ‘We hate you, Joe.' ” Lieutenant Sousa acknowledged.

Mr. Arpaio has growing competition for the title of the most outspoken Arizona sheriff when it comes to illegal immigration.

Larry Dever, the sheriff of Cochise County, on the Mexican border, recently drew the ire of Michael J. Fisher, chief of the federal Border Patrol , when he claimed that the patrol's agents were intentionally not arresting some illegal immigrants to keep apprehension numbers down. “Completely, 100 percent false,” Mr. Fisher responded in a letter.

And Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County has declared his county to be ground zero when it comes to smuggling. In early February, he predicted that his deputies would engage in a major shootout with drug cartel members in a month or two. His remarks prompted three border mayors to write a letter telling him to stop stretching the truth and “creating panic.”

Mr. Arpaio asked Mr. Babeu to investigate allegations that three of Mr. Arpaio's aides, including his chief deputy, David Hendershott, had engaged in misconduct on the job. Mr. Babeu delivered the results to Mr. Arpaio this week, although they have not yet been made public.

In an interview in his office, Mr. Arpaio was dismissive of the growing chorus of criticism of his stewardship. He said he might introduce a new set of pink underwear for his inmates, a sample of which he pulled out of a filing cabinet with a flourish.

“The president may have a no-fly zone over Libya, but there will never be a no-fly zone over my area,” he said, pausing for a moment and then adding, “That's a good line, isn't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15arpaio.html

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

Spending Agreement Hurts Police and Fire Agencies

It may have kept the federal government from shutting down, but the budget agreement that President Obama struck with Congress will make it harder for some struggling cities to keep their police stations and firehouses staffed.

A program that helps cash-starved cities hire police officers — which has become highly sought-after in recent years as the economic downturn has forced cities from Camden, N.J., to Oakland, Calif., to take the rare step of laying off police officers — was cut by $52 million.

The reduction means that the program, under which the Justice Department awards cities grants that pay the full salary and benefits of new officers for three years, will be able to pay for roughly 200 fewer officers this year than it did last year, when it paid for 1,388 officers.

The budget deal also changed the rules governing a similar program that helps struggling cities hire firefighters — reducing the grants so much, union and city officials said, that many cities may find themselves unable to take advantage of the program.

Many cities have eagerly sought the grants to pay for firefighters as the budget crunch has forced fire departments in Philadelphia, San Diego and Baltimore to institute what they call “rolling brownouts,” in which they shut down different firehouses each day because they cannot afford to staff them.

The firefighter grants, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have been used in the past year to rehire 252 previously laid off firefighters, retain 161 firefighters in danger of losing their jobs and hire 1,253 new firefighters.

But Harold A. Schaitberger, the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said changes made to the law during the conference committee process would probably render the program useless to many cities.

Under the old law, the grants could pay the full salaries and benefits of firefighters for two years. But the new budget agreement caps the amount of money that can be awarded at levels well below the true cost of a firefighter's salary and fringe benefits, Mr. Schaitberger said.

Other provisions would make it hard for the most truly distressed cities — which have drastically cut their fire budgets, and which may not be able to promise to retain the new firefighters after the grants run out — to qualify for the program.

The result, Mr. Schaitberger said, is that many cities will not be able to afford the program.

“It is money appropriated in a bill that municipalities will not be able to access,” he said, warning that departments would find themselves stretched when responding to their communities. “They're going to be doing it shorthanded, short-staffed.”

While police and fire protection are paid for mostly by local communities, the federal help has allowed some cities to maintain services they would have otherwise lost.

Lawrence, Mass., a city 25 miles north of Boston that laid off 23 firefighters and shut down half of its six firehouses last summer, is a perfect example. The city is in the process of rehiring the 23 firefighters, along with 15 new firefighters, with the help of federal grants. And it will soon reopen one of its closed firehouses.

Officials there doubt that they could have done so if the grants had not covered the full cost of the firefighters. “We don't have the resources to cover the rest of it,” said Leonard Degnan, the chief of staff to Lawrence's mayor, William Lantigua. “Without that grant, you would have an absolute public safety fiasco in the city of Lawrence.”

The budget agreement also cut millions from programs that allow local law enforcement agencies to upgrade technology, including for crime analysis and DNA processing, and millions more from a program designed to help police and fire departments streamline radio systems so they can communicate with each other in emergencies.

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum , said that while the federal government could not, and should not, supplant what state and local governments did, it had provided vital resources to departments. These cuts come, he said, “at a particularly daunting time for state and local agencies.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/politics/15safety.html?pagewanted=print

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

The Guns of Academe

Los Angeles

By Monday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign a bill partly lifting her state's ban on guns on college and university campuses . Gun advocates insist that will make campuses safer by discouraging mass killers and giving students the ability to fight back. Gun control proponents warn the law will lead to more lethal violence.

Both sides are probably wrong. Gun violence at colleges and universities — there are fewer than 20 homicides on campus per year — will probably not be affected much, one way or another. What is really at stake is America's gun culture.

Colleges and universities have long been gun-free zones. In 1745, Yale adopted a policy punishing any student who “shall keep a gun or pistol, or fire one in the college-yard or college.” Today, most universities, public and private, prohibit anyone but authorized security and law enforcement officers from bringing guns onto campuses. Arizona would join Utah as the only states to require public colleges to permit guns on campus, but Texas and eight other states are considering similar laws.

Many find the idea of students with guns shocking. They fear that undergraduates are too young to handle firearms responsibly and that the presence of guns will lead to the deadly escalation of minor disagreements. Others worry about the volatile mix of guns and alcohol. Glocks don't belong at a frat party.

Even if the bans are lifted, however, few students will tote guns around the quad. Under federal law, those under 21 cannot buy guns from a dealer. And most states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. (Arizona only requires such a permit for persons under 21.)

As a professor, I'd feel safer if guns were not permitted on campus. I worry more about being the target of a student upset about failing grades than about a mass killer roaming the hallways.

But there is little evidence to support my gut feeling. Utah, for example, has not seen an increase in campus gun violence since it changed its law in 2006. And a disturbed student can simply sneak a gun on campus in his backpack, as the Virginia Tech killer did in 2007. Indeed, lost in the debate is the fact that guns, being easy to conceal, are almost certainly on campus already.

On the other hand, gun rights advocates are too quick to assume that laws allowing guns on campus will discourage mass murderers. Arizona has among the most liberal gun-carrying laws in the nation, but that didn't prevent Jared L. Loughner from shooting Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killing six other people in Tucson in January. Nor did permissive carry laws lead to people defending themselves by shooting back. (Mr. Loughner was tackled and brought to the ground by unarmed bystanders.)

Even if a student with a gun can use it to defend against a mass murderer, it's hardly clear that anyone, including the armed student, is made safer. Policemen or other students with guns might not be able to differentiate among gunmen, putting the person defending herself at risk of being shot by mistake. Even well-trained gun owners suffer enormous mental stress in a shootout, making hitting a target extremely difficult.

Gun control groups are fighting to retain the bans. This is one of the few areas in which they've had success in recent years. There have been more than 40 attempts to lift the bans in 24 states, and nearly all have failed. Even the proposed Arizona law was a victory of sorts, as the final bill omitted provisions allowing guns in classrooms; it would permit guns only on campus streets and sidewalks.

Yet gun rights proponents are redoubling their repeal efforts. They aren't reacting to a wave of violence on campus. The true motivation is to remove the stigma attached to guns. Many in the gun rights movement believe there should be no gun-free zones and seek to make the public possession of firearms a matter of course. The protesters who last year carried guns into Starbucks shops and Tea Party rallies had the same goal. They weren't expecting to defend themselves; they were aiming to build broader public acceptance of guns.

Exposure can breed tolerance. Arguably, that is exactly what's behind the growing acceptance of gays and lesbians. The visibility of gay couples in society and popular culture has led many Americans to realize that homosexuality is not wrong. Gun advocates are betting the same can happen with firearms.

The strategy, however, is risky. Teenagers might begin to see carrying a gun as a mark of adulthood, like smoking and drinking. Without the maturity of age, they might turn to violence too quickly.

Gun rights advocates are willing to take these risks because colleges are where the next generation of America's leaders will be produced. What better place to affect people's attitudes about guns than the very institutions responsible for teaching our most cherished values and ideals?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15winkler.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

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

From the Department of Justice

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

Celebrating National Crime Victims' Rights Week

The following post appears courtesy of Joye E. Frost, Acting Director, Office for Victims of Crime

National Crime Victims' Rights Week (NCVRW) is being observed nationwide April 10-16, 2011. Every year during this week, cities, towns, organizations, and community members come together to honor crime victims and those who serve them. A local celebration with national support, NCVRW is firmly rooted in our nation's communities. NCVRW is a time for every citizen to focus on raising awareness and promoting victims' rights.

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) helps lead NCVRW efforts throughout the country and hosted prelude events in Washington, D.C., last week, including the Annual National Candlelight Observance and the Attorney General's National Crime Victims' Service Awards Ceremony. The events kicked off NCVRW and placed a national spotlight on what is ultimately a local observance.

To help communities plan and execute their own celebrations, OVC provides a variety of resource materials. The NCVRW Resource Guide features educational content, campaign materials, artwork, and a theme video. These tools make it easy for communities to plan local events and work with local media outlets to promote awareness. To provide national consistency, OVC selects a theme highlighting particular crime victims' issues every year.

The NCVRW theme for 2011 – “Reshaping the Future, Honoring the Past” – acknowledges the contributions of victim service providers to meeting tomorrow's public safety challenges and pays tribute to our nation's crime victims. The theme also highlights the capacity of victim service providers to help mold the future of the crime victims' services field. The amazing individuals who received awards during last week's ceremony are just a few of the thousands of professionals throughout the country who are helping to make sure that victims are protected, acknowledged, and involved in every phase of the justice system – that justice for all always includes justice for victims.

As Attorney General Eric Holder said during the Candlelight Observance:

“As we join together to commemorate this year's National Crime Victims' Rights Week, it is clear that we are also bound by our common goals, by our shared concerns, and by our collective resolve to do more to protect those at risk and in need – and to support every person, every family, and every community now struggling to overcome the devastating effects of crime.”

During NCVRW and throughout the year, OVC acknowledges that our most vital partners are the providers in the field, the local policymakers who stand up for victims, the survivors who refuse to be silenced, and the victims whose memories will never fade.

For additional information about NCVRW, please visit http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw/index.html

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1299

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

Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli Speaks at the D.C. National Crime Victims' Rights Week Ceremony

Washington D.C. ~ Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thank you, U.S. Attorney Ron Machen, for having me here today. And let me thank you for hosting this event to give faces and voices to those in our community who have been the victims of crime-- and to recognize individuals and organizations that have made a commitment to reshaping the futures of crime victims by seeking rights, resources, and protections needed to set them on the right path.

I grew up in the DC area, and, so, this commemoration has special meaning to me. There's a lot that we do at the Justice Department that is unglamorous and trying—but, I value these moments which allow us all to celebrate the good, the courage, and the resolve in our community.

As the U.S. Associate Attorney General, one of my many hats is to oversee our grant programs: those administered by the Office on Violence Against Women, Community Oriented Policing (COPS), and our Office of Justice Programs, which is responsible for providing resources to tribal communities and our youth.

These programs are deeply personal to me. Last year, on the 15 th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, I and my Justice Department colleagues took a nation-wide tour of college campuses to underscore the need to tackle sexual assault victimization among our young women. It is unacceptable that on college campuses today, Justice Department research tells us that, over the course of a college career, 1 in 4 women will be raped. That's a flabbergasting statistic. We spoke with students about ways to prevent violence against women on college campuses, and the role that federal, state and local government, working with university staff, faculty and students, should play in ensuring that these crimes are taken seriously and that young victims have access to the resources and support that they need.

This year, I have become ensconced in focusing on our nation's youth. We know we need to start our prevention efforts younger and younger, because the brain science tells us that the critical periods of learning and development come early and we know that young people are dating younger and younger and exposed to violence—involving peers, significant others, family members, and other adults—that can affect the course of their lives.

I will also note that this is a very personal undertaking for me. As a parent, one naturally wants to protect children, but I was stunned by the results of a National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence. We have now been able to document the extent to which the same kids are often victimized again and again. A child who is exposed to one type of violence is more likely to be exposed to other types of violence, or to be exposed multiple times.

More than 38 percent of children reported more than one direct victimization within the previous year. The study also found that a child who was physically assaulted in the past year would be five times as likely to also have been sexually victimized and more than four times as likely to also have been maltreated during that period. Children who should be getting treatment and being protected are instead being subjected to victimization once again.

We also learned, sadly, that children are more likely to be exposed to violence and crime than adults. For instance, a 2005 study showed that juveniles and young adults ages 12 to 19 were more than twice as likely to be the victims of violent crimes as the population as a whole.

And we know that children who are exposed to violence are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer from depression and anxiety, have problems in school, experience or perpetuate dating violence, and engage in criminal behavior later in life.

This is why we have to stop these trends—and we have to stop them early.

I am proud to say that the Department of Justice is taking action.

Usually, when folks think of the Attorney General and DOJ, they think about protecting national security, about putting criminals in jail, about defending the President's health care policies. But our job is public safety in all its forms – and I feel so fortunate to work for an Attorney General who has a vision of justice that starts with preventing crime before it happens, protecting our children, and ending cycles of violence and victimization. No matter what the disagreements are in Washington about funding for particular programs, we can all agree that every young person deserves the opportunity to grow and develop free from fear of violence.

One of the top priorities of this Department and a legacy item for Attorney General Holder is the Defending Childhood Initiative. Its genesis goes back more than a decade. When Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General, he was struck by the research that showed that for every child that came in contact with the criminal justice system, there were 20, 30, 40, 100 moments in time where early intervention could have made a difference; had one of those missed opportunities been taken, one often would have found a child affected by violence at a young age who ultimately found their way to committing violence themselves, taking drugs, having trouble in school, etc. He began an initiative on children exposed to violence, which led to much of the critical research that has taught us about the impact of violence on young people.

When he returned as Attorney General, he began immediately where he left off, in what has now become the Defending Childhood initiative.

The Justice Department is committed to a comprehensive approach to a pervasive problem. With a fragmented approach, children exposed to violence can slip through the cracks of every service system. Other times, these children may be viewed as collateral damage in shattered lives – or, most tragically, when the sources of their trauma goes unnoticed, as troublemakers or delinquents. This initiative is about targeting and breaking the cycle of violence that affects our most vulnerable Americans.

The Defending Childhood initiative seeks to redefine how the Justice Department responds to children who experience violence, witness violence, or suffer ongoing negative ramifications from violence. We hope to harness resources from across the Department - and across other federal agencies and state, local, and tribal partners – to first, prevent exposure to violence when possible; second to mitigate the negative impact of violence when it does occur; and third, to develop knowledge and spread awareness that will ultimately improve our homes, cities, towns, and communities. We are integrating efforts to protect and assist children exposed to violence into everything we do at the Justice Department.

Through the Defending Childhood initiative, the Department of Justice is focused on implementing concrete knowledge to combat children's exposure to violence. For years, we've worked to develop our knowledge about this issue and to promote promising approaches. Defending Childhood takes this a step further by calling for direct action in targeted communities.

We believe collaboration is key. This effort cuts across the entire Department, involving our Office of Justice Programs, Office on Violence Against Women, COPS, the FBI, and our US Attorneys' Offices. We are also building partnerships with other federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. But there are many critical partners outside the federal government. We're working to inform and support law enforcement officers as first responders—since officers have the unique opportunity to help with the early identification of children exposed to violence, and we have encouraged their involvement.

We are tapping the knowledge of national experts and continuing to advance science in this area. One of our first steps in launching the Defending Childhood initiative was to host a meeting of a small group of national experts on this topic. Then, this past summer, several DOJ representatives attended the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference and met with the experts assembled there. We plan to continue to hold small group meetings and to use them to identify pressing issues and innovative approaches.

But by far our most important partners are many of you in this room– who daily face the problems of violence in your communities and work to combat it.

And, we at DOJ and those who live in the nation's capital are lucky to have the leadership of U.S. Attorney Ron Machen and his dedicated team.

Many years ago, the office established a specialized Victim Witness Assistance Unit as a stand-alone section, and today, it is the largest victim-witness program in all of the United States Attorneys' Offices. Comprised of 26 highly trained individuals, the Victim Witness Assistance Unit assists thousands of victims and witnesses each year, ensuring that they are aware of and are accorded their rights, and that they receive the support they need during the criminal justice process.

Today, I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the Victim Witness Assistance Unit and the other victim service professionals here today who work often heroically, and with little recognition, to advance victims' rights, defend our youngest members of the community, and pursue justice. Please know that your professionalism and your tireless efforts on behalf of victims are critically important to the Department's mission. Your work makes a difference – you help people through some of their most difficult times – and I'd like to take a moment to thank you for all you do on behalf of victims and survivors.

Events like this remind us that the fight against crime, violence and victimization is everyone's fight.

Thanks to you all for being here today– to the victims and survivors: for your tenacity to wake up every day, speak out, and be part of an ongoing fight to protect and assist others; to the victim assistance professionals, good Samaritans and organizations here today: for your dedication, vigor and selflessness to reach out in a time of need.

Together, we can usher in a new era of service and support of the most vulnerable among us; and, in doing so, we can transform the country that we love for the better—one child, or one victim, at a time.

Thank you.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/asg/speeches/2011/asg-speech-110414.html

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

From the FBI

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

Botnet Operation Disabled

FBI Seizes Servers to Stop Cyber Fraud

04/14/11

In an unprecedented move in the fight against cyber crime, the FBI has disrupted an international cyber fraud operation by seizing the servers that had infected as many as two million computers with malicious software.

Botnets are networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by an attacker. They can be used to steal funds, hijack identities, and commit other crimes. The botnet in this case involves the potent Coreflood virus, a key-logging program that allows cyber thieves to steal personal and financial information by recording unsuspecting users' every keystroke.

Once a computer or network of computers is infected by Coreflood—infection may occur when users open a malicious e-mail attachment—thieves control the malware through remote servers. The Department of Justice yesterday received search warrants to effectively disable the Coreflood botnet by seizing the five U.S. servers used by the hackers.

“Botnets and the cyber criminals who deploy them jeopardize the economic security of the United States and the dependability of the nation's information infrastructure,” said Shawn Henry, executive assistant director of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. “These actions to mitigate the threat posed by the Coreflood botnet are the first of their kind in the United States,” Henry noted, “and reflect our commitment to being creative and proactive in making the Internet more secure.”

Now that we have interrupted the operation of the botnet servers, our cyber specialists can prevent Coreflood from sending stolen financial information to the cyber thieves. But victims' computers still remain infected. That's why we have been working closely with our private-sector partners.

Anti-virus companies are developing updated signatures to detect and remove Coreflood. To disinfect Microsoft Windows-based systems—and to keep them virus free—users are encouraged to run anti-virus software and to keep their Microsoft Windows Updates current (see sidebar).

Victimized computers that have not been disinfected using anti-virus software updates will continue to attempt to contact the Coreflood botnet servers. When this happens, we will respond by issuing a temporary stop command to the virus and then alert that user's Internet service provider (ISP), who will inform the customer that their computer is still infected. At no time will we be collecting any personal data from victim computers.

“For most infected users who are conscientious about keeping their anti-virus programs up to date, the process of disinfection will be as invisible as the Coreflood infection was itself,” said one of our cyber agents. Still, there is a process in place with ISPs to make sure notification occurs if necessary.

We began our Coreflood investigation in April 2009 when a Connecticut-based company realized that hundreds of computers on its networks had been infected. Before we shut down the Coreflood operation, cyber thieves made numerous fraudulent wire transfers, costing companies hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yesterday, a civil complaint was filed in Connecticut against 13 “John Doe” defendants, alleging that they engaged in wire fraud, bank fraud, and illegal interception of electronic communications. Search warrants were obtained for the command and control servers in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, and California. And a seizure warrant was issued in Connecticut for 29 Internet domain names used by the thieves.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/april/botnet_041411/botnet_041411

.