Court to rule on federal sex offenders law

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that permits sex offenders to be kept behind bars after they complete their prison terms.

The justices, acting Monday, say they will consider the Obama administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that invalidated the law.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing for indefinite commitment of people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

In April, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case will be argued in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

U.S. Giving Away $ Billions in Law Enforcement Aid to Central & South America

 While U.S. cities, towns, & counties are struggling to maintain law enforcement services, delaying hiring additional needed officers, and putting off purchasing much needed equipment and vehicles, the federal government is giving away billions of dollars in aid to law enforcement agencies in Central & South America.

 Through “The Merida Initiative” signed into law by former President George W. Bush on June 30, 2008 the U.S. Dept. of State is signing “letters of agreement”, that will eventually disburse $1.4 billion U.S. taxpayer funds, with several foreign countries. Countries that have received the aid include Belize, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

 On December 3, 2008 the U.S. Embassy in Mexico issued a press release from Ambassador Antonio O. Garza that announced he signed a letter of agreement with the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations that in addition to providing millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to be used by Mexican law enforcement agencies, will provide at least 8 BlackHawk helicopters to the Mexican military.

 In relation to the BlackHawk helicopters that were promised to Mexico, Congress members Nita Lowery, Democrat, and Republicans Kay Granger & Jerry Lewis complained that the Pentagon has delayed the delivery of the helicopters.

 In testimony before the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations & Related Programs of the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations on March 10, 2009, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, said that because of the aid Mexican police agencies are receiving from the U.S. through the Merida Initiative criminal organizations in Mexico are now brazenly targeting police, military, and other security service personnel with graphic displays of violence such as public executions & beheadings.

 Additional Congressional testimony was given by David Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics & Law Enforcement, who said that Mexican authorities have estimated that more than 6,200 people were killed in drug related violence including 522 civilian law enforcement officers & military personnel in 2008.

 Johnson also testified that U.S. federal law enforcement authorities estimate that Mexican based criminal organizations are present in at least 230 U.S. cities.

 On February 5, 2009 the State Dept. announced that the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, Stephen McFarland, signed a letter of agreement with the Guatemalan Ministry of Governmental Affairs to provide $3,650,000 in fiscal year 2008, the first year of the Merida Initiative, and obligates the U.S. to provide an additional $550,000 to the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala.

 As for 2008, Guatemalan law enforcement officers  will participate in 5 projects that will be fully funded by U.S. taxpayers: the Central American Fingerprint Initiative ($400,000), the Central American Vetted & Sensitive Investigative Units ($500,000), the Transnational Anti-gang Initiative ($1,225,000), Improved Policing & Police Equipment programs ($975,000), Improved Prison Management programs ($550,000).

 On February 10, 2009 the State Dept. announced that a letter of agreement was signed with the Belizean Ministry of National Security to provide $150,000 to be used for the Central American Fingerprint Exchange; $608,000 for improved policing & police equipment; and $250,000 for improved prison management.

 On March 13, 2009 the State Dept. signed a letter of agreement with the Panamanian Ministry of the Presidency that will provide an initial payment of $2,011,000 from U.S. taxpayers in 2008 that will be used by Panamanian law enforcement agencies in the following areas: participation in the Central American Fingerprint Exchange program ($300,000), the Central American Vetted & Sensitive Investigation Units ($1,000,000), Improved Policing & Police Equipment ($613,000), Improved Prison Management ($100,000).

 In addition, a second letter of agreement will be signed with Panama that will provide U.S. funds for the targeting of “at risk youth” & anti-gang programs, community policing & “demand reduction”.

 For more information on the Merida Initiative visit the State Department’s web-site and search for “Merida Initiative”.

Feds reverse policy cutting ammo supply

Posted: March 17, 2009
9:00 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Respond to senators representing outraged gun owners nationwide

 

Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.

The policy already had taken a bite out of the nation’s stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail last night to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.

The small arms cases were identified as a senstive item and were held pending review of policy, he said.

“Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale,” Cunningham wrote.

One of the companies that brought attention to the issue is Georgia Arms, which for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass shell casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cut a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

Learn here why it’s your right — and duty — to be armed.

The policy compelled Georgia Arms to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, rounds used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. had announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

“They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?” Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. “We’ve been ‘going green’ for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we’re going to destroy it based on what? We don’t want the civilian public to have it? It’s a government injustice.”

As WND reported, firearm sales have spiked since the election of a perceived anti-gun president, and Americans stockpiling bullets have produced a stressed ammunition market.

The Orlando Sentinel reports months of steady, heavy buying have left gun dealers in Florida facing shortages of ammunition.

“The survivalist in all of us comes out,” John Ritz, manager of a Florida shooting range, told the Sentinel. “It’s more about protecting what you have.”

“People are just stockpiling,” said a spokeswoman for Georgia Arms, which has seen bullet sales jump 100 percent since the election. “A gun is just like a car. If you can’t get gas, you can’t use it.”

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense’s largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment at this time.

Other gun advocates, however, sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.

“It is an end-run around Congress. They don’t need to try to ban guns – they don’t need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit ‘assault’ weapon sales,” writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. “Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.”

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspects the policy change is an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

“This policy didn’t come out of the blue,” writes Owen. “The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can’t do it through regulatory action, he’ll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production.”

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company may be forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

Bill forces citizens to submit DNA

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Police to obtain samples for state, federal databases – without charges filed

Posted: February 05, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Citizens who have been arrested may be required to submit DNA samples to authorities before being convicted of any crime – and those records would be kept in state and federal databases.

The Washington state Legislature has introduced a measure that would require police to obtain the samples from even suspects accused of minor crimes such as shoplifting, according to the Seattle Times.

The proposal is part of a new movement in several states to adopt similar measures. More than 12 states already permit police to collect samples prior to convictions and three more are considering adding the provision.

Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told the Times he welcomes the proposal.

“It is good technology. It solves crimes,” he said. “We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is a lot more intrusive.”

Critics claim Washington’s HB-1382, sponsored by Rep. Mark Miloscia, D- Federal Way, is unconstitutional because police and jail staff would be required to keep DNA records on adults and juveniles arrested on suspicion of a felony or gross misdemeanor.

Currently, police are required to obtain a search warrant or the suspect’s permission before collecting DNA by swabbing citizen’s cheeks.

“This bill would take the next step in the use of DNA technology to help catch individuals who have gone out and harmed people,” Miloscia told the Times.

According to the bill, authorities would remove a suspect’s DNA information if they were not charged or found guilty.

Each DNA test costs taxpayers $82, and the price tag for the plan could reach $1 million over two years. Miloscia said Washington could look to the federal government to recover some of those costs.

Jack King, staff attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., told the Times his group has been battling DNA-collection measures since 2004. He said requiring authorities to obtain DNA before convicting a person would violate their constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

“DNA samples reveal the most personal, private information about a person’s physical and mental makeup,” King said. “It is terribly unfair to an arrestee.”

Upon learning of the controversial, several readers posted the following responses:

• This goes beyond stupid. They say that if the person isn’t convicted that they will destroy the sample. That is a lie. The federal government will not destroy records simply because a state destroyed theirs.

• I don’t like it one bit. There should be a warrant provided before they take my DNA.

• What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if found guilty, this is extreme for minor offenses.

• The idea is to build a national database with everyone in it. This is just another step in the process. Next you will be required to provide a DNA sample when you get your driver’s license, and then they will simply take it at birth when you apply for a birth certificate. The point of the measure is not identification. They can already ID you. The point is to make it normal for people to give DNA samples to the national database. After all, only people with something to hide would object to this type of intrusion and surveillance. Right? Everyone needs to e-mail their legislator and tell them you do not want this or else they will just do it. This is not about criminals.

• To the morons who say, “If you aren’t a criminal don’t worry about it,” our Founding Fathers gave us a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom from such sorts of unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has no right to my DNA chain until I am convicted of a felony and not before. As one of our great Founding Fathers has said, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

• I wouldn’t trust the government promising to destroy the sample. When I joined the military, they took my fingerprints “for a security clearance check” – and they went into the great big database with all the criminals. Later, they took my DNA — “so there would be no more unknown soldiers” – and later Congress passed a law making this DNA available to any police department that requests it. And there is no provision to request destruction of the sample. Once you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.

Congressman Introduces Bill To Create Military Run Detention Camps In U.S.

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.

The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.

Heed the warning of a former Hitler Youth who sees America on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany in “Defeating the Totalitarian Lie” from WND Books!

The bill also appears to expand the president’s emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that – as WND reported – gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress.

As WND also reported, DHS has awarded a $385 million contract to Houston-based KBR, Halliburton’s former engineering and construction subsidiary, to build temporary detention centers on an “as-needed” basis in national emergency situations.

According to the text of the proposed bill, the purpose of the National Emergency Centers is “to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.”

Three additional purposes are specified in the text of the proposed legislation:

• To provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of federal, state and local first responders;
• To provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts of government, private, not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations;
• To meet other appropriate needs, as defined by the secretary of homeland security.

The broad specifications of the bill’s language, however, contribute to concern that the “national emergency” purpose could be utilized by the secretary of homeland security to include any kind of situation the government wants to contain or otherwise control.

Rep. Hastings created controversy during the 2008 presidential campaign with his provocative comments concerning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Hastings said, as reported by ABC News. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services.

Bush Commutes Sentences of Border Patrol Officers

Posted: January 19, 2009
1:01 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 Officers To Be released on March 20, 2009

 

President Bush commuted the prison sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean today.

The announcement came on the last full day of Bush’s presidency. The sentences for Ramos and Compean are scheduled to expire March 20 but there was no immediate explanation for the time period between today’s announcement and that date.

Two years ago, Ramos and Compean began serving sentences of 11- and 12- years respectively for a 2005 incident in which they fired on a drug smuggler as he fled back into Mexico after bringing 750 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. near Fabens, Texas. As WND reported last week, the Department of Justice’s pardon attorney, Ronald Rogers, opened a file on the case and was considering recommending that the president commute the sentences.

 

Rogers said at the time the former agents apparently were not eligible for a pardon, which would nullify the punishment. But they might be eligible for a commutation, he said, which would result in a reduction of their sentences.

“Thank God for this commutation,” said Joseph Farah, editor of WND, who launched a petition and letter-writing campaign that re-energized the Ramos-Compean issue in the last 30 days of Bush’s term. “This will end the sleepless nights for their wives and children. This is the first step toward making these families whole, again.”

His petition collected more than 40,000 signatures by the time today’s announcement was made, and the letter campaign produced more than 3,000 FedEx letters to the White House.

“We can only thank Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and the staff at WorldNetDaily because from the beginning you have been with us and you never gave up on the case,” Joe Loya, Ramos’ father-in-law, said today. “Your reporting had a lot to do with the decision today by President Bush to commute the sentences.”

The petition had described how the agents “are now serving outrageously long prison terms for shooting and wounding, in the line of duty, a fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler trying to bring almost 800 pounds of marijuana into the U.S.”

The smuggler was granted immunity for his illegal activities in return for testifying against the agents. After the trial, it was revealed the smuggler participated in another drug run into the U.S. while he held immunity.

The law under which the agents were ordered to serve minimum 10-year sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a crime never had been applied to law enforcement officers.

Monica Ramos embraces her husband, former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times

Farah’s letter also noted several jurors complained they had been intimidated into voting “guilty” while they actually believed Ramos and Compean were innocent, yet the trial judge refused to set aside the verdict.

Among other factors raising public concern was the prosecutor’s statement that the sentences were too harsh.

The agents had attracted the support of a members of Congress, too. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., recently asked U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the prosecutor in the case, to support a commutation in their sentences.

“As Johnny Sutton said in his own words, this punishment is excessive,” Rohrabacher said. “Millions of Americans, members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats have spoken.”

“It becomes a debate about punishment,” Sutton said on the CNN Headline News Glenn Beck Program May 18, 2007. “I have a lot of sympathy for those who say, look, punishment is too high, you know, 10 years. I agree.”

More than 150 members of the House of Representatives, including both Democrats and Republicans, have signed onto various resolutions in support of either a full pardon or a commutation of sentence for Ramos and Compean.

On the Senate side, John Cornyn, R-Texas, had released an open letter to the president pleading for their freedom. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also joined the effort.

The burden of the sentences fell heavily on the families of the agents. Ramos wife, Monica, reported just this month that there was an attempted hit on her life and that of her children when someone broke into their El Paso home and filled it with gas, trashing photographs and pummeling their dog.

The attackers, while she was away, stole various items, ripped cherished wedding pictures and family photographs and even left the gas turned on.

“It was very intentional in that somebody was trying to hurt us,” she said on a radio program.

“He’s in there because he was stopping a drug smuggler,” she said. “And yet my kids have to go through an extensive search when we see him. … We’re not able to have any physical contact with him while we’re there.”

In a special letter released to WND before the commutation was announced, Compean thanked his supporters, especially for the cards and letters during his incarceration.

He said he feared being forgotton.

“I truly believed people would forget all about us. Once we reported to prison, I was very happy to see how wrong I was. I have received thousands of letters from people all over the country. I have also received letters from other countries such as Italy and even a few from soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.”