FLE

U.S. helps ransom Reyes' kin U.S. law enforcement authorities helped facilitate a $32,000 ransom payment in Mexico for a relative of a U.S. congressman who was kidnapped last week by gunmen in Ciudad Juarez, a border city with rampant drug smuggling, gunfights and corruption. Erika Posselt, a Mexican national described only as "a relative of the wife" of Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat and powerful chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was abducted June 19 from an auto glass store she owns in Juarez. Held for three days, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents - at Mr. Reyes' request - helped arrange her safe return. Saying they would kill Mrs. Posselt if a $500,000 ransom wasn't paid, the kidnappers negotiated with Mrs. Posselt's brother in Juarez and agreed to release her for $32,000 - in U.S. and Mexican currency. According to a confidential ICE memo, Mrs. Posselt was heard yelling in the background on one phone call between her brother and her captors. The family raised the money, according to the memo. On June 21, two men on a motorcycle collected the ransom money at a Juarez street corner but sped off and eluded investigators who had staked out the drop site. U.S. policy prohibits federal agencies from negotiating with kidnappers in ransom demands for U.S. citizens. It is not clear how the policy pertains to the involvement of U.S. agencies in the kidnapping of noncitizens such as Mr. Reyes' relative. But some law enforcement authorities on Thursday said the Mexican case could have set a dangerous precedent....The real question is: would ICE have done this for you or me?
Drug cartel hit list found in Southern New Mexico Law enforcement officials in El Paso on Thursday said they have no knowledge of a drug cartel hit list in El Paso similar to one circulated in southern New Mexico. Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos confirmed the existence of the list Thursday, but he denied it was uncovered by his agency. Cobos said the list was included in an intelligence briefing from the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security that was shared with several law enforcement agencies that engage in periodic conference calls. The conference calls are in response to a recent spike in drug-related borderland violence. The report that referred to the list was received about a week ago, Cobos said. Cobos would not divulge the 15 to 20 names on the list, but said they included current or former residents of El Paso, Luna and Doña Ana counties, as well as Albuquerque, among other places. Some were referred to by family name, he said. Cobos said he was not sure whether the note made specific death threats against those listed....
National Guard Will Be Withdrawn From Unsecured Border Members of Congress are split on whether the National Guard should end its deployment along the U.S.-Mexico border in July, as planned. On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff predicted the border would not be secured until 2011. At its peak, Operation Jump Start -- which began in June 2006 -- involved 6,000 members of the Guard on a two-year mission to provide military assistance and equipment to the Border Patrol in states bordering Mexico. Prior to Operation Jump Start, only a few hundred Guard troops were posted at the border. Since the operation began, the U.S. Border Patrol has boosted its own presence there. Randal Noller, a public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau, told Cybercast News Service that as of June 4, the Guard had helped Customs and Border Protection apprehend 176,000 illegal aliens, seize 1,116 vehicles, intercept 315,744 pounds of marijuana and seize 5,225 pounds of cocaine. (The Guard does not make actual arrests of illegal border crossers, but only aids Border Patrol personnel.) The Guard also built 38.1 miles of new fencing, 18.5 miles of new roads, 94.5 miles of vehicle barriers and repaired 717 miles of road. The final withdrawal of Guard troops assigned to Operation Jump Start is planned for July 15....
Justices open US courts to detainees The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right under the US Constitution to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, dealing perhaps the final blow to President Bush's policy of holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charge. The 5-to-4 court ruling is expected to immediately trigger a flood of hearings in US federal court on behalf of the approximately 260 men who have been detained for years without trial or formal charges. Legal specialists said the government must now present evidence against the men in a US court or release them - a situation the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have fought bitterly to prevent in the name of national security. In a passionately written opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court's majority took aim at Bush's long-held assertion that, as US commander in chief during wartime, he has broad powers to detain terrorist suspects as he sees fit in order to protect the nation. Rejecting that theory, Kennedy wrote that the framers of the Constitution saw the need "to guard against the abuse of monarchical power" and, therefore, gave individuals the right to contest their detentions, even during "extraordinary" times. Siding with the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Kennedy. The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Traveling in Italy yesterday, Bush said he "will abide by the court's decision," but added, "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." Bush sided with the four dissenting justices, who wrote that the ruling raises "serious concerns about US national security." He said his advisers are studying the ruling "to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate." Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the ruling would not affect the Guantanamo trials against enemy combatants, the Associated Press reported. "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed," Mukasey said in Tokyo today....
Habeas Ruling Lays Bare the Divide Among Justices The Supreme Court's decision that detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to challenge their imprisonment before a judge revealed in vivid detail the justices' deep divide over the role of the judiciary in wartime. As a practical matter, the 5 to 4 decision returns to the spotlight Washington's federal district judges, who are now conferring to develop a framework for handling about 200 cases filed by those the government suspects of terrorism held at the island naval base. It is a role that practically consumed the court until Congress, at the behest of the Bush administration, stripped it of the responsibility. Indeed, the cases the Supreme Court decided Thursday, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S., arose from conflicting decisions by D.C. district judges. As both sides of the court acknowledged in Thursday's decision, the cases exposed fundamental differences in the court's vision of judicial power. The conservatives favor adherence to strict rules and regulations promulgated by the political branches. The liberals are content to let judges judge, working out the boundaries between constitutional rights and national security. The tie-breaker was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the nomadic conservative who in this case espoused a strong role for independent judges....
House easily passes compromise surveillance law The House Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country. The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies. The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails. The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit. It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year. Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion. "These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif....
The Bush administration now wants to watch you from the sky A Bush administration program to expand domestic use of Pentagon spy satellites has aroused new concerns in Congress about possible civil-liberties abuses. On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment denying money for the new domestic intelligence operation—cryptically named the "National Applications Office"—until the Homeland Security secretary certifies that any programs undertaken by the center will "comply with all existing laws, including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards." Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on intelligence, told Newsweek that majorities in both the House and Senate intend to block all funding for the domestic intelligence center at least until August, when the Government Accountability Office, an investigative agency that works for Congress, completes a report examining civil-liberties and privacy issues related to the domestic use of picture-taking spy satellites. Harman, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans controlled Congress earlier in Bush's tenure, said she still felt burned by the president's secret expansion of domestic electronic spying after 9/11. At the time, she and other intel committee leaders were assured that the increased intelligence activity was legal, only to learn later that the basis for the new surveillance was a set of opinions by administration lawyers that are now widely considered to be legally questionable. Because of the administration's poor handling of the electronic spying program (mainly conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency, which operates a worldwide web of electronic eavesdropping systems), Harman says she and other members of Congress will be more cautious about accepting civil-liberties assurances from administration officials. "We have to make sure this is not a back door for spying on Americans," Harman told Newsweek....
U.S. and Europe Near Agreement on Private Data The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The potential agreement, as outlined in an internal report obtained by The New York Times, would represent a diplomatic breakthrough for American counterterrorism officials, who have clashed with the European Union over demands for personal data. Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information. Negotiators, who have been meeting since February 2007, have largely agreed on draft language for 12 major issues central to a “binding international agreement,” the report said. The pact would make clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice versa. But the two sides are still at odds on several other matters, including whether European citizens should be able to sue the United States government over its handling of their personal data, the report said. The report, which lays out the progress of the talks and lists the completed draft language, was jointly written by the negotiators from the United States Homeland Security, Justice and State Departments, and by their European Union counterparts. The talks grew out of two conflicts over information-sharing after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The United States government demanded access to customer data held by airlines flying out of Europe and by a consortium, known as Swift, which tracks global bank transfers....
Lawsuits Follow Landmark Gun Ruling Following Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on gun rights, Second Amendment groups are preparing to challenge gun bans in cities other than Washington, D.C. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) announced Thursday they already have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Chicago's long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago. The National Rifle Association has said it also plans to challenge gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco. "Chicago's handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. In Chicago, it is illegal to possess a handgun within city limits, unless the gun was purchased before the 1982 ban took effect. (There are some exceptions for police officers and city leaders.) Other guns -- not handguns -- can be registerd, but the process is onerous, critics complain. Plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago include four city residents who want to keep handguns in their homes. (Otis McDonald is a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers and who wants a handgun for protection.)....
The Civil Liberties Myth Much of the federal government's growth over the years can be attributed to special circumstances or good intentions. Most government wars, laws, and programs were unwise, counter-productive and set bad precedents. They gouged taxpayers and diminished our freedoms. But usually there was at least a sensible health, economic, or security issue at stake. Indeed, many believed that Big Government actually enhanced individual rights and promoted human progress. But then in 1970 Congress took a giant leap backward, re-instituting a form a legal theft that had virtually disappeared in both the U.S. and U.K. by the 19th century. Called "civil asset forfeiture," its purpose was to seize not only contraband, but all the property suspected (not proved) of having been used in criminal activity. If the car transported marijuana without the owner's knowledge, this law allowed the government to confiscate the car and sell it at auction. If thousands of dollars were found on a young man in a ghetto, this fact by itself could be used as "probable cause" that the money was proceeds from a drug sale. The property could be taken even if its owner was never charged with a crime, and the burden of proof that the property in question was not involved in a crime lay with the owner, not the government....