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

From Los Angeles Times

Federal government isn't touching Arkansas terrorism case

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad of Memphis, Tenn., says his trial in a fatal Little Rock Army facility attack is being handled in Arkansas state court to get him the death penalty. His father alleges a government coverup.

by Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau

July 11, 2011

Reporting from Little Rock, Ark., and Memphis

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad insists he is an Islamic radical, has confessed to killing an Army soldier and wounding another at a Little Rock recruiting station two years ago, and wants to be tried on terrorism charges in federal court.

But in an unusual twist, state prosecutors, with the blessing of the federal government, are treating him like a common American criminal and trying him in state court next week on capital murder charges.

Either way, Muhammad could become the first person sentenced to death in the U.S. for an act of terrorism — even if that is not the charge — since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Muhammad, 24, born Carlos Bledsoe in Memphis, Tenn., has a profile that is now familiar in home-grown terrorism cases. He converted to Islam at age 20 at a Tennessee mosque, changed his name and traveled to the Middle East.

In 2008, he was arrested in Yemen for overstaying his visa and holding false Somali papers. His father said he became radicalized in a Yemeni jail after mixing with other prisoners there.

Six months after Muhammad returned to the U.S., he allegedly drove his black Ford Sport Trac truck to the military recruiting station. Inside the vehicle were a rifle, scope, laser sight, silencer and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He allegedly fired several rounds before fleeing.

Later, at a police roadblock eight miles away, Muhammad was captured with a semiautomatic handgun tucked in his waistband.

Police said he told them he was "mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past." He said his "intent was to kill as many people in the Army as he could."

Melvin Bledsoe, who runs a Memphis tour bus company, said he learned of his son's incarceration in Yemen from a Tennessee FBI agent who interviewed Muhammad while he was in jail there. But that was the last Bledsoe heard from the FBI. And he believes that gets at the explanation behind the federal government's strange lack of interest in trying his son.

Bledsoe charges that federal officials deferred to state prosecutors because they feared a federal trial would make them look bad — because they knew his son was a radicalized Muslim and yet did not watch him when he returned to the United States.

"They should have done their job and this never would have happened," Bledsoe said. "I think that somebody in the federal government and the FBI should be charged with negligence. Negligent homicide."

Bledsoe's son has a different explanation for why he is not being charged as a terrorist.

Muhammad, who says he is affiliated with several terrorist organizations, has written jailhouse letters to Pulaski County Judge Herbert Wright demanding a federal trial. "In my eyes it's a sham trial [in Little Rock] set up only to make sure I'm handed down a death sentence," he wrote May 10.

Ten days later, he wrote again: "The facility where the shooting took place was a federal building. The army recruiters outside that federal building were federal employees. I was under federal investigation at the time of the shooting by the FBI. Why then is this a state case in state court, which the state seeks my execution? Injustice!"

To some outside legal experts, both father and son make valid points.

"That's unquestionably embarrassing for the FBI," said Brian Gallini, a University of Arkansas criminal law professor. "I can't come up with a comparable example of a mistake the feds would want to admit to."

But John Wesley Hall Jr., a longtime Little Rock criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said that "just because the FBI didn't follow him doesn't mean it was their fault."

In similar terrorism-related cases since the Sept. 11 attacks, federal prosecutors have wasted no time in taking the lead.

Just recently, federal officials in Seattle charged two alleged terrorists with plotting a raid on a military recruiting center there. They were charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction (a grenade) and unlawful possession of firearms.

In fact, the federal government has never won a death sentence in a terrorism case since Sept. 11. In 2006, federal prosecutors sought a death sentence for "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui, but his Alexandria, Va., jury gave him life without parole.

On the other hand, Arkansas, a mostly rural and conservative state, would seem the ideal setting to try a self-acknowledged terrorist on a capital offense.

The official explanation by the FBI for why Muhammad was not charged in federal court is that local authorities were first on the scene. "We did assist in the investigation," said FBI Special Agent Steve Frazier in Little Rock. "But when we arrived at the scene, the Little Rock police were already in charge."

However, the federal government routinely seizes jurisdiction from local authorities when it wants to prosecute a case.

A second federal law enforcement official, who asked not to be identified because the July 18 state trial was approaching, said the federal government had wanted to prosecute but deferred to state prosecutors.

"The Justice Department and the FBI were very interested in this case, obviously," he said. "There was a lot of back and forth with state prosecutors in Arkansas and they were extremely insistent in going forward on the state level. And that's how ultimately it was resolved."

FBI officials in Memphis and Little Rock declined to respond to Bledsoe's allegations of a coverup.

"That's not something we would find prudent to comment on," said FBI Supervisory Special Agent Joel Siskovic in Memphis.

In Arkansas, prosecutors view Muhammad as more of a "cold-blooded killer" than a lone terrorist. "You can draw your own conclusions about him," said John Johnson, the chief deputy prosecutor in Little Rock. "But it's ultimately the jury's decision."

Muhammad's attorney, Patrick Benca, said his client is not a terrorist and not a premeditated killer. Though he confessed in writing and to investigators, Muhammad has pleaded not guilty and Benca plans to use an insanity defense.

Benca has two experts who believe Muhammad suffers from "organic brain damage." He has asked the judge to set aside the death penalty if Muhammad is found guilty. Prosecutors have their own experts, who found him sane and ready for trial.

Defense attorneys have shown some interest in the father's allegations. They have subpoenaed FBI records, including the bureau's "surveillance, or lack thereof, of [Muhammad] once back in the U.S."

The father of 23-year-old Army Pvt. William Long, who was killed in the Little Rock shooting, does not care whether Muhammad is a terrorist or a common criminal, tried by the state or the federal government. His son is dead all the same and he believes any juror will understand that.

"I think in Arkansas you've got to know the people here," said Daris Long of Conway, Ark., a former Marine. "They're pretty cut and dried on what's right and wrong."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-little-rock-death-20110710,0,5438406,print.story

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

'Fast and Furious' scandal grows with revelation that Mexican cartel suspects may be paid U.S. informants

Are high-profile suspects in Mexican drug cartels also paid informants for U.S. federal investigators? If so, could a brewing scandal in Washington implicate more U.S. agencies in the ongoing drug-related violence in Mexico?

Kenneth Melson , the embattled chief of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), made the earth-shaking revelation in testimony early last week, The Times reports. Melson reportedly told congressional leaders that Mexican cartel suspects tracked by his agents in a controversial gun-tracing program were also operating as paid informants for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the FBI.

The revelation is further complicating an already tangled scandal unfolding in Washington that ties U.S. weapons to the violent drug war in Mexico. The conflict has left about 40,000 dead in 4 1/2 years. In effect, the scandal also points to a deeper involvement of the U.S. government in Mexico's drug war than the public has previously known or suspected.

Times reporters have been actively covering the ATF scandal since it broke earlier this year. Using our stories, La Plaza explains below what is at stake.

Political implications

The ATF, currently led by Melson, is facing sharp criticism from leaders in Congress over its failed gun-tracing operation, code-named " Operation Fast and Furious ." In the program, ATF agents watched as assault weapons bought in the U.S. by suspected cartel straw-buyers were "walked" knowingly into Mexico and into the hands of criminals.

The goal of the operation was to track the guns to high-level cartel suspects. As some ATF agents protested, the program continued, with a senior ATF official reportedly justifying the operation with the adage, " If you're going to make an omelet, you've got to scramble some eggs."

Guns were walked across the border, and the program quickly got out of control, whistle-blowers said. Here's an official report quoting ATF agents on the botched operation.

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Vista) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) are leading investigations into Fast and Furious on Capitol Hill. A prime target of their attacks in hearings is Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder . Holder heads the Justice Department, which oversees the ATF. He's also a confidant of President Obama . (Watch this video of a testy exchange between Holder and Issa on May 3.)

In recent months, both sides of the partisan aisle have sought political gain with the scandal. Republicans appear eager to shame top officials in the Obama administration with their investigations. They also seek to weaken an agency that is harshly disliked by the gun-rights lobby. Democrats, meanwhile, are using the episode to push for tougher gun-control laws.

Holder's Justice Department wanted to position Melson as the "fall guy" over the gun-running program, the lawmakers investigating the program have said, by pressuring him to resign. Melson's attorney, however, said the agency's embattled acting chief wants only to cooperate fully with the congressional probes.

That's the political end of the story. But perhaps more significantly, the revelations are offering a peek into how deeply the U.S. might be involved in the ongoing drug war in Mexico.

Implications in Mexico

As many as 1,700 ATF-traced weapons were lost in "Operation Fast and Furious," according to U.S. and Mexican governments who share serial code numbers. Some have been linked to trafficking-related homicides on both sides of the border. U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry , killed in a gun battle in Arizona in December, is one of many such victims. In late June, testimony revealed that ATF weapons were also traced to the torture and killing of a prominent Mexican attorney, Mario Gonzalez Rodriguez , a sibling to a former attorney general in violence-plagued Chihuahua state.

Melson told congressional investigators in closed-door meetings last weekend about cartel suspects revealed to be DEA and FBI informants, Richard Serrano reports in The Times. As a result, the investigation has now expanded, a source told Serrano, but few other details on the informants have emerged.

What is known is that the Justice Department has already suggested that such U.S. informants are tied to other "sensitive" government investigations that are "ongoing." In other words, the FBI and DEA might still have contact with paid informants inside Mexico's violent drug cartels.

From The Times report:

Sources said investigators had "very real indications from several sources" that some of the cartel leaders the ATF was trying to identify through Fast and Furious were "already known" to the other agencies and apparently had "been paid as informants."

Finally, Melson said, ATF agents along the U.S.-Mexico border realized that the FBI and DEA were running separate operations and that it "could have a material impact on Fast and Furious." Melson said he notified his superiors of this problem in April.

The congressional leaders also noted the pressure Melson has felt to resign, and they warned Holder not to make Melson the sole "fall guy" in Fast and Furious.

Indeed, Melson is now resisting pressure to step down. If congressional investigations into the ATF expand, and Melson sticks by his allegations that the U.S. pays informants inside Mexico's cartels, the fallout over Fast and Furious could expand deeper into the American intelligence and security communities -- and deeper into Mexico.

The U.S. is already carrying out hundreds of internal investigations into alleged corruption among customs agents working on the border with Mexico, as La Plaza has reported. (One former customs agent, Luis Enrique Ramirez , was sentenced last week to 17 years in federal prison for smuggling cocaine through U.S. border crossings.)

Yet, so far, Mexican authorities have been mostly muted in their reactions.

It's worth keeping in mind that another form of U.S. involvement in Mexico's war may also wind up at stake here. Under the Merida Initiative, a multibillion-dollar security aid package for Mexico, the Americans have sent weapons and helicopters to Mexico's security forces in their efforts against the country's powerful drug cartels.

In this scenario, it appears that the United States has been effectively -- or inadvertently -- sending weapons to Mexico's government to fight cartels while also sending weapons to cartels that are fighting the government.

The investigations in Washington, meanwhile, are continuing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/07/atf-agents-informants-dea-fbi-drug-war-guns.html

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

U.S. to require more gun-buyer information in border states

Gun dealers in states bordering Mexico will have to report whenever they sell more than two semiautomatic rifles to someone in a five-day period.

by Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau

July 12, 2011

Reporting from Washington

As a backlash mounts over the government's failed Fast and Furious gun-tracing operation, the Justice Department will begin requiring firearms dealers in California and other border states to alert officials anytime they sell more than two semiautomatic rifles to someone in a five-day period.

The new reporting requirement will help the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "detect and disrupt" border gun-smuggling operations, Deputy Atty. Gen. James Cole said Monday.

Once the ATF distributes its new reporting forms, about 7,000 dealers near the border must report multiple sales of semiautomatic weapons in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Such weapons "are highly sought after by dangerous drug-trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest border," Cole said.

Republican critics quickly denounced the measure, saying it was wrong for the Obama administration to let illegal guns get into the hands of Mexican cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, and then require more monitoring of legitimate gun owners in the U.S. Under the program, the ATF permitted illegal straw purchasers to obtain weapons as part of a plan to trace the guns as they flowed to Mexico.

"It's the height of hypocrisy," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who is leading the House investigation into Fast and Furious, called it a "political maneuver designed to protect the careers of political appointees at the Justice Department and not public safety."

Cole made no mention of Fast and Furious. U.S. authorities lost track of most of the weapons, and many were later found at crime scenes in Mexico. In December, two turned up at the slaying of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

Smith said the administration should target the cartels rather than monitor legal gun purchases in the U.S. He also said a recent government report found that only 40% of the border is under "operational control" of the Border Patrol.

"They simply need to secure the Southwest border, not restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens," he said.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed. He called the new measure a "reckless policy" that "would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns-dealers-20110712,0,6873445,print.story

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

L.A. County Probation Dept. should handle new parolees

For all its troubles, the Probation Department, which oversees residents on probation as well as the county's juvenile detention facilities, is the proper agency to handle the coming population.

July 12, 2011

Thousands of new parolees are coming to Los Angeles County as part of the state's effort to ease prison overcrowding. To deal with them, the Board of Supervisors faces two options, both abysmal. It could assign the former state prisoners to the foundering Probation Department, which has demonstrated an inability to keep adequate records, discipline wayward employees and properly supervise troubled youths, and is under scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice. Or it could pick the Sheriff's Department, which has its own history of difficulties and is currently being monitored by the federal government for its failures in county jails.

With the parolees comes state funding, and each department is eager to take on the new task and accept the new money. Past behavior suggests neither department is up to the job — but in the end it has to be one or the other. The supervisors must be tempted to wash their hands of the problem and send the parolees to Sheriff Lee Baca, who is elected and whom the supervisors ultimately can hang out to dry if his program fails. But that would be the wrong move. For all its troubles, the Probation Department, which oversees residents on probation as well as the county's juvenile detention facilities, is the proper agency to handle the coming population.

That should not be mistaken for a vote of confidence in the Probation Department. To the contrary, that department is, and long has been, a mess.

For more than a decade, the Justice Department has been monitoring the agency as a consequence of a host of appalling conditions in the juvenile justice portion of its operation. Juvenile halls were cited for deficient medical and mental healthcare. Education of youths in county custody was found to be woefully inadequate. The department was warned about its failure to protect youths from one another — and in some cases, from Probation Department staff. The juvenile halls, which are generally reserved for youths accused of crimes who are awaiting their court hearings, were instead being used as places of punishment.

At the youth camps, where young offenders are sent after being found guilty of crimes, the Justice Department found constitutional violations. And yet those problems persist.

Meanwhile, employees have been arrested for misuse of public funds, for theft and for inappropriate conduct with probationers.

That would seem to offer an argument for another department to take on the new duties, and that's what Baca has proposed. The sheriff says his department is prepared to take over the job in October, when the state is expected to begin releasing inmates. Under Baca's plan, his department would receive $37.5 million in the first year. The funds would not be used for any new hires; instead, the sheriff would transfer 146 deputies and support staff out of the jails and patrol services and into the role of supervising parolees. Los Angeles Police Department staff would also be brought in, Baca's office said.

But Baca's department has its own litany of difficulties, and it too is under federal scrutiny. In June, the FBI confirmed it was investigating allegations that two sheriff's deputies assigned to the Twin Towers jail beat an inmate unconscious and then attempted to cover up the incident. The Department of Justice has been monitoring the jails since 1996 over failure to provide adequate mental health services to inmates. And since 1978, a federal court has repeatedly ordered the Sheriff's Department to improve conditions and reduce overcrowding at the jails.

Moreover, the department's chief responsibility is to enforce the law, not to help rehabilitate those who are trying to stay out of jail, which is a big part of what parole is about. L.A. County would be the first in the state to hand off the supervision of parolees to a sheriff's department. This duty thus not only would tax the sheriff's resources but would involve his department in areas beyond its traditional expertise. Baca has said his plan would take from six months to a year to be fully operational. Quite frankly, the county can't afford to wait.

The tragedy of the county's predicament is that the arrival of new state parolees ought to be an opportunity to focus on the reentry of these ex-prisoners into society. It should fall to churches, mosques and synagogues, to nonprofit organizations, to schools, but above all to county government to ensure that those leaving institutions and reentering their neighborhoods do so in a way that maximizes their chance to become productive and law-abiding citizens.

Even the parolees expected to come to Los Angeles County — those whose crimes were nonviolent, non-sexual and relatively low-level — are more likely than the state's population at large to be sick, addicted, mentally ill, poorly educated and unemployable. Given that California's state prison system has disinvested in prisoner care and rehabilitation, the parolees are unlikely to come home any better prepared to lead productive lives than when they went in. Indeed, the failure of the state's parole efforts is one of the best arguments for turning this responsibility over to local governments, which at least have a fighting chance.

Los Angeles County has done little to prepare for this opportunity, and it must now suffer the consequences of its past mismanagement. Forced to pick between two troubled agencies, it should take the one that at least encompasses the mission. The county employees best experienced and oriented toward that task are probation workers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-parole-20110712,0,4790068,print.story

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

From Google News

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

Alberta, Canada

Targetted policing lauded in MHPS report

Substance abuse grant lets police partner with non-profits

Police Departments could be subcontracted by the non-profit to deliver drug identification or prevention curriculum

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency recently announced up to $1,491,130 in funding for state Substance Abuse Education and Demand Reduction.

The funding is available to nonprofit organizations to support projects designed to educate the public about the dangers of substance abuse, and/or reduce demand for these substances.

Although law enforcement agencies are not eligible to apply directly for funding through this grant, it does provide an opportunity to partner with a local non-profit agency to deliver programs in the community.

Police departments could be subcontracted by the non-profit to deliver drug identification or prevention curriculum. Officers assigned to schools and community policing initiatives could work with the non-profit to refer youth and families in need of assistance.

Many times, the officers see first-hand the destructive effect of drug abuse and often feel hampered by their inability to find solutions, outside of making an arrest, due to the lack of resources that could be funded through the SAEDR grant.

Eligible expenditures for law enforcement could include over-time reimbursement for an officer to conduct drug prevention programs in schools or at community functions. Equipment and supplies could be acquired to carry out these efforts or a database might be designed to help the SRO's communicate with providers and track progress without violating HIPAA requirements.

Several hospitals or health-related organizations have formed coalitions to address substance abuse issues. These groups are well-versed in the research-based approach and could provide additional information on how the law enforcement community can assist and be funded for their efforts.

About the author

.