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.”

Excerpt:

The private and public sector promoters of war reap hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds. They grow stronger as their lobbyists buy off politicians with campaign donations and the Defense Department assures itself a lion’s share of taxpayer dollars.

Peace is their enemy.

. . .

In a recent article on the winners and losers in the war on terrorism, Gareth Porter put it succinctly,

“Aggressive U.S. wars are not merely the result of mistaken policies, but of the national security institutions pursuing their own interests at the expense of the interests of the American people. The ‘war on terror’ is a means for those institutions to maintain the present allocation of national resources and power to the national security sector for the indefinite future.”

Entire analysis here.

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.

more of this excellent piece on the role of USAID and NGOs they support in whitewashing coups by buying off ‘civil’ society 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.

After a decade of unjust marijuana arrests, Raymond Kelly has finally issued a memo to New York City police, ordering them to end the illegal stop-and-frisk procedures that resulted in the arrests of so many young black and Latino youths.

The memo said:

“Questions have been raised about the processing of certain marihuana arrests. At issue is whether the circumstances under which uniformed members of the service recover small amounts of marihuana … from subjects in a public place support the charge of Criminal Possession of Marihuana in the Fifth Degree.”

The stop-and-frisks that helped generate the astounding 536,000 marijuana arrests between 1979 and 2010 violate the intent of the law in two ways. First, stop-and-frisks are legal only to find and confiscate guns. Second, possession of small amounts of marijuana is decriminalized in New York.

But when officers sweep poor neighborhoods to stop-and-frisk colored youths, they often demand kids empty their pockets, or pull the contents out themselves. If weed had been inside, police arrest them for marijuana “in public view,” which is not decriminalized, and the consequences of which bar arrestees from receiving federal loans and housing, as well as finding careers. This is all despite the fact that the weed wasn’t “in public view” until the cops put it there. Kelly clarified the standards for this type of arrest in the memo.

The Drug Policy Alliance, VOCAL-NY, and The Institute for Juvenile Justice Reform led the fight to stop the racially biased, damaging arrests. According to data from the Drug Policy Alliance, marijuana arrests cost New York City $75 million a year. What’s worse, 86% of those arrested are blacks and Latinos, many of whom are from poor neighborhoods. National data, however, shows that whites use marijuana at much higher rates.

Gabriel Sayegh, New York State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance, spoke about the policy change:

“This represents a tremendous victory for the many New Yorkers who are fighting to end the NYPD’s notoriously wasteful, illegal and racially discriminatory marijuana arrest policies,” she said, “But, the devil remains in the details as to whether and how the NYPD implements this new directive. If followed, then the NYPD will at last comply with both the letter and spirit of the marijuana decriminalization law enacted in New York back in 1977.”

And while Kelly’s new order is a positive for kids who will be spared the stop-and-frisk misuse, it will not change the history – or future – of those who have already been damaged.

The Village Voice recently published an article that analyzed the issue in a larger frame. It examines how Mayor Bloomberg’s Young Men’s Initiative is a hand-out to the very people he pushes down: blacks and Latinos. Giving with one hand, taking with another, Bloomberg is using the Young Men’s Initiative to fix problems his own policies created. Read more about it 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

Death and Drugs in Colombia, New York Review of Books, June 23, 2011 by Daniel Wilkinson
Quote: “Paramilitaries also confessed to judicial investigators that they had collaborated extensively with military officers, both before and during Uribe’s presidency, including two generals Uribe chose to lead branches of the armed forces. Perhaps most damning was evidence of collaboration with top DAS officials—including the President’s intelligence chief, who allegedly supplied the AUC with names of trade unionists who were then assassinated. Other troubling allegations involved Uribe’s younger brother—who has been accused of running a paramilitary group in Antioquia—and the use of his own cattle ranch as a meeting place for paramilitaries.

To date, only one former paramilitary has implicated Uribe himself directly in paramilitary activity—yet his testimony was full of inconsistencies. He was assassinated in 2009.

Uribe and his top officials have denied all those allegations.

The people who would know the full extent of whatever collaboration took place on Uribe’s watch are the ones he extradited to the US.

Since the extradition, however, they have essentially stopped cooperating with Colombian investigators. Several—including Mancuso—have explained that if they revealed all they know, they would be unable to protect their families from reprisals in Colombia.” (my underline)

and

“López’s book shows that the Ralito Pact’s reference to “refounding the nation”—from which the book takes its title—was not merely pompous rhetoric. Rather, it reflected a broader objective shared by the AUC commanders and local politicians and landholders: to legalize the enormous wealth and power they had amassed during years of paramilitary expansion.

The paramilitaries had driven more than one million poor farmers off their lands, preparing the way for what the authors refer to as a “counter-agrarian reform.” Large landholders and investors—including paramilitaries and other traffickers—acquired the land, and corrupt officials helped them obtain title. As one former paramilitary put it: “We went in killing, others followed buying, and the third group legalized.””

Read more about this brutal effort to legalize the stolen wealth of Colombians by US-backed paramilitaries in this account highlighting US government supported laundering scheme overseen by the ARD, a yet-to-be indicted (it is arguably illegal to give material support to terrorist organizations like the paramilitaries benefited by this scheme) USAID vendor, based in the state of human rights champion, Senator Leahy of Vermont.

The rest of the review is here.