Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime.

The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.

Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams.

The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out.

Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.)

There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.

How one feels about jury nullification ultimately depends on how much confidence one has in the jury system. Based on my experience, I trust jurors a lot. I first became interested in nullification when I prosecuted low-level drug crimes in Washington in 1990. Jurors here, who were predominantly African-American, nullified regularly because they were concerned about racially selective enforcement of the law.

Across the country, crime has fallen, but incarceration rates remain at near record levels. Last year, the New York City police made 50,000 arrests just for marijuana possession. Because prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense, they have more power than judges over the outcome of a case. They tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about.

In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up.

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, is a professor of law at George Washington University and the author of “Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.”

Quote from the article: In the 2009 cable, the U.S. Embassy official warns that funding for the Mérida Initiative, one of the U.S. “War on Drugs” initiatives in Mexico and Central America, would be “contingent upon guidance from Washington regarding how best to work around Melgar.”

According to the Salvadoran digital periodical El Faro, the US finally forced Melgar out by leveraging a second international program, Partnership for Growth; El Salvador is one of four countries worldwide handpicked by the US for the new program. El Faro’s sources in the Ministry of Security claim that Melgar’s removal was a U.S. condition for sealing the Partnership for Growth, officially signed just four days prior to Melgar’s resignation. The program’s initial report named violence and crime as El Salvador’s primary constraints to economic growth, quickly turning what the U.S. had publicly touted as an economic development program into another security initiative.

Editor’s note: Amazing that the President of El Salvador accepted as a USG condition for delivery of one neoliberal (’development’) program (Partnership for Growth) that another USG neoliberal ’security’ program (Plan Mexico) be implemented by a former Salvadorean General, in violation of El Salvadorean law (and likely to the dismay of most Americans informed about Plan Mexico or Partnership for Growth).

Ex-general Replaces Leftist Leader in El Salvador’s Security Cabinet as Washington Reasserts Influence in Central America

Yesterday, President of El Salvador Mauricio Funes swore in retired general David Munguía Payés as the country´s new Minister of Public Security and Justice, following the sudden resignation of Manuel Melgar from the position on November 8. The move prompted outspoken opposition from Salvadoran social organizations who view it as a violation of the 1992 Peace Accords that ended the country’s Civil War and transferred public security from military to civilian administration.

Rest of piece here.

From excellent article written by John Washington on Friday, 21 October 2011

There is nothing more disconcerting than the patriotic enthusiasm of a downtrodden population. The government’s tolerance of crime dishonors patriotism, which calls for decorum before hysteria or praise. Government corruption turns popular joy into a sarcasm which reflects the impunity and recklessness of the government.

-José Vasconcelos, 1935, writing of events in September 1910.

So begins this incisive dismantling of Calderon’s and Obama’s attempt to celebrate and perpetuate the indefinite militarization of Mexico.

The new global capitalism swept Latin America by storm in the 1980s and 1990s. Neo-liberal programmes were imposed by international financial institutions, western governments, and local elites. The region experienced a sweeping transformation of its political economy and social structure. . . . A new breed of transnationally-oriented elites and capitalists forged a neo-liberal bloc and led the region into the global age of hothouse accumulation, financial speculation, credit ratings, the internet, malls, fast-food chains, and gated communities. Neo-liberalism forged a social base among emerging middle classes and professional strata for which globalisation opened up new opportunities for upward mobility and participation in the global bazaar. But neo-liberalism also brought about unprecedented social inequalities, mass unemployment, and the immiseration and displacement of tens if not hundreds of millions from the popular classes, which triggered a wave of transnational migration and new rounds of mass mobilisation among those who stayed behind.”

The article: Leftist governments in Latin America are facing resistance not only from the right, but from their own bases, as well.
William I. Robinson

The triumph of left-leaning former army officer Ollanta Humala in Peru’s presidential elections this past June has observers wondering if Peru could be the latest “Pink Tide” country in Latin America. The so-called Pink Tide refers to the ambiguous turn to the left in recent years in several Latin American countries. The neo-liberal model that has changed the face of the continent’s political economy and devastated the poor and working classes over the past two decades has come under challenge by these nominally left governments, whose populist and redistributional policies, however, may now be reaching a crossroads.

For the rest of this important article, click here.

“US intervention in Colombia has caused more problems than it has helped and the FTA would only make things worse. Recent investigations by the Colombian Attorney General have uncovered extensive US involvement regarding domestic spying by former President Álvaro Uribe’s administration. Information was shared with and analyzed by embassy staff and domestic spying programs were funded by the CIA. Activities included gaining access to the bank accounts, following the families and bugging the offices of Colombian magistrates.”

Read the entire rebuttal of the Obama Administration and Congressional propaganda pushing this unpopular policy here.

Most of you probably already follow the excellent work of the TransBorder
Institute and its director David Shirk. If not, highly recommended, and
included here is the most recent note from David and a link to the
institute’s monthly report.

*ACTTing Out in Arizona –*

*Where the Drug War now has a “Unified Command”*

* *

· Arizona is “ground zero” in the reconfigured war on drugs.

· Numbers tell the story of the failed drug war and a misguided
combat against transnational crime.

· ACCT is a paper alliance created to demonstrate Obama’s border
security/transnational crime strategy.

· It’s all about marijuana and immigrants – the same old story of
border control, now called border security.

Arizona and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands are the “ground zero in the war on
drugs.”

That’s the assessment of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC), the
state office that receives federal criminal-justice grants — and which then
redistributes these Department of Justice (DOJ) grants to Arizona’s
multiagency drug task forces and other counternarcotics programs.

Making the essentially same threat assessment about the border’s frontline
status in protecting the U.S. against the transnational threat of illegal
drug flows, the Obama administration launched its Southwest Border
Initiative in March 2009, calling it the “way ahead” in combating drug
trafficking.

As part of that 2009 initiative, which brought together the resources of the
Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ), DHS launched the
Arizona-based Alliance to Combat Transnational Threats (ACTT) in September
2009, describing it as an “innovative” and “unprecedented” multiagency
assault on crossborder drug trafficking.

*Old Drug War Numbers and Body Counts*

* *

ACTT does point to the large number of immigrant apprehensions and drug
seizures as evidence of its progress against transnational threats.

The Border Patrol and allied sheriff’s departments provide post-ACTT
operation reports of the numbers of illegal aliens arrests, marijuana
seized, weapons confiscated, and assets seized and forfeited.

Typically, ACTT boasts of the number of “illegal aliens” apprehended and
thousands of pounds of marijuana seized.

The title, for example, of a May 27, 2011 CBP release reads:

*“ACTT Operation Yields More than $4.4 million in Marijuana” *
* *
Followed by the subhead:
*“Intelligence-Driven Operations Continue to Yield Results”*
* *

The total results of this 60-day operation in Pinal and Pima Counties were:
“732 illegal aliens arrested, one U.S. citizen, 8,925 pounds of marijuana,
and 17 firearms.”

Another “intelligence-driven operation” by ACTT aimed to “counter
transnational criminal organizations in the Arizona corridor” called
Operation Trident Surge targeted TCO traffic on Forest Service and BLM lands
over three months. The headline of the May 27 CBP media release about this
ACTT operation read: “1,759 people arrested; 23,650 pounds of marijuana
seized.” There were no other reported results, and nothing about how any of
the arrests or marijuana seizures related to government intelligence about
transnational criminal organizations.

Marijuana seizures also headlined another ACTT operation in Pinal County,
which boasted “more than 5,900 pounds of marijuana seized.” The operation
also reported 55 illegal aliens apprehended, five U.S. citizens arrested,
$115,000 in illicit currency seized, four firearms confiscated, and five
stolen vehicles recovered. Typically, no other illegal substances except
marijuana were seized and there was no attempt to show how the operation
targeted transnational crime.

Media releases and internal Border Patrol summaries of ACTT arrests and
seizures echo the agency’s decades-long tradition of measuring border
control progress by way of immigrant arrests and drug seizures –
disconnected from such other measures as the illegal immigrant population,
drug consumption levels, and drug prices.

What has changed, though, is that DHS and the Border Patrol use the same
categories of statistics as part of an unconvincing attempt to demonstrate
progress in combating transnational organized crime and deterring
transnational threats.

*U.S. Military Gets in on the ACTT*

* *

Given that ACTT was created to combat transnational threats and protect
national security, it is not surprising that the Defense Department claims a
role in ACTT operations.

According to the U.S. Northern Command’s General Victor Renuart
:
At the request of DHS Assistant Secretary Alan Bersin, JTF-North [the El
Paso-based Joint Task Force Bravo] provided support to the Alliance to
Combat Transnational Threats…. JTF-North facilitated intelligence and
operational planning, and provided sensor capabilities during execution of
this intelligence-driven operation.

Through JTF-North’s missions and activities, USNORTHCOM continues to sustain
important relationships with Federal law enforcement agencies in securing
our nation’s borders against drug traffickers and their associated
activities. Robust collaboration exists today between JTF-North and
operational-level leaders in CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the FBI… [by way of USNorthCom’s]
Counternarcotics (CN) Programs. USNORTHCOM’s CN Program is an integral part
of the defense and security of our nation.

As part of ONDCP’s new border counternarcotics strategy, the “Intelligence
Community” and DOD are involved in formulating and coordinating “Common
Operating Pictures” and “Common Intelligence Pictures” with other federal
partners and local law enforcement agencies. This collaboration bringing
together the nation’s military and intelligence apparatuses with border law
enforcement agencies will adhere to the information-sharing restrictions
specified in the August 2010 Executive Order on Classified National Security
Information Programsfor state, local, tribal, and private sector entities.

*ACCT as Symbol *

If DHS could make a case that multiagency counternarcotics and other border
security operations like ACTT were indeed reducing the criminal activity of
the illegal drug trade, decreasing the rates of addiction to harmful drugs
such as meth, or helping to end the drug-related violence in Mexico, there
would be less skepticism about ACTT.

DHS and DOJ have a hard time describing what exactly ACTT is. That’s
because, more than anything else, it is more symbolic than real – and one
more tragic symbol of drug prohibition and its consequences.

*Tom Barry directs the TransBorder Project at the Center for International
Policy. Author of numerous books on Latin America and U.S. foreign policy,
Barry wrote Border Wars(MIT Press, 2011). He blogs at:
http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/*

*Also see related articles and policy reports:*

Escalating the Drug War in Arizona

Drug War Intensity: A Look at HIDTA

Alarming New Border Counternarcotics Strategy

Drug War Turns to Transnational Combat

Policy on the Edge: Failures of Border Security & New Directions for Border
Control

* *

*Trans-Border Institute*

http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2011-08-
august-news-report.pdf

On behalf of the Trans-Border Institute (TBI) at the University of San
Diego, I’m pleased to send you our August 2011 news report from the
Justice in Mexico Project. Here are a few highlights:

• Weekly average of national ejecuciones up from 2010, Chihuahua’s
and Sinaloa’s rates decrease
• Over 50 killed in arson attack in Monterrey casino
• SESNSP suspends release of funds to nearly 80% of its
recipients
• PGR turbulent amidst purges by new leadership, mass-departure of
state prosecutors
• 14-year-old U.S. citizen sentenced to three years in Mexican prison
• Federal District performs first oral trials

As always, remember that our monthly reports, as well as our latest
drug violence maps, are available on our project website
(www.justiceinmexico.org). You can also view regular updates on rule
of law and security issues in Mexico on our blog and RSS feed at our
project website. You can now follow us on Twitter (@JusticeinMexico)
and Facebook (Justice in Mexico). Also, our database of crime
indicators can be accessed on the TBI website (www.sandiego.edu/
tbidata). Recent results from our joint project with the Mexico
Institute can be found at (http://bit.ly/projectpage). – David Shirk

Quotes from the story:

With headline stories across the nation exposing massive fraud and money laundering schemes infilitrating the American financial systems: how could it have been so difficult for the Feds to establish criminal intent for these lawbreakers?

Although in selected cases, a civil complaint filed by the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) is usually offered to corporations and banks that allow them to wiggle out of a criminal indictment in exchange for a fine. A civil fine is usually the norm but the bulk of wrongdoing goes unpunished.

Experts familiar with large corporations and banks that violate the law have said the fine these companies pay the government is merely the cost of doing business.

. . .

We are currently living under government more interested in preserving the integrity of financial operations that it has investigated for fraud and money laundering. Even more appalling is the fact our government found the institutions guility of intentionally breaking the law. And still no real punishment.

. . .

Adam Kaufman, chief of the investigative division of the Manhattan D.A. office defended the approach in the AP story, by saying, “prosecutors could have indicted low-level bank employees who handled the transactions on a daily basis. But that wouldn’t get the executives making the decisions and figuring out exactly who that is can be daunting.”

. . .

The DA summed up what many believe is true, that banks and corporations are “too-big-to fail and too-big-to jail.”

From the oped:
“In an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America’s “war on drugs,” which was declared 40 years ago today.
. . .
The commission’s facts and arguments are persuasive. It recommends that governments be encouraged to experiment “with models of legal regulation of drugs … that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.” For effective examples, they can look to policies that have shown promising results in Europe, Australia and other places.”

Read the entire oped here.

Cipriana Jurado is a Mexican activist who for years struggled to assert the rights of maquila workers in Ciudad Juarez on the US border. She directed the Centre for Research and Worker Solidarity until, in mid-March 2010, she took refuge in the United States and applied for asylum because her life was in danger. On Saturday 11 June 2011, the United States granted her political asylum.

Her asylum application was accepted on the basis of evidence that the Mexican army persecuted her after she sought to defend a family from which three members, including two women, disappeared in Chihuahua in late 2009. The Mexican army has been used in Chihuahua as part of the federal anti-drug strategy, and it has been repeatedly linked to human rights violations.

Cipriana Jurado is the first human rights defender to receive political asylum for being persecuted by the Mexican army – the same army the United States is supporting to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the war against drugs.

Her asylum sets a precedent. It also illustrates the complex relations between Mexico and the United States in the war on drugs.

To read the rest of this excellent article, click here.

The “War on Drugs” was launched by President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week. In 1980, at the end of its first decade, I began a nine-year career as a “captain” in the war on drugs. I was the attorney in the U.S. House of Representatives principally responsible for overseeing DEA and writing anti-drug laws as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.
Read the rest here.