Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for August 6th, 2013

A Domestic Surveillance Scandal at the DEA? Agents Urged to Cover Up Use of NSA Intel in Drug Probes

leave a comment »

Things have come to a pretty pass when law enforcement has to cover up their investigatory methods. (Speaking of which, I wonder how that FBI internal investigation of the agent who shot to death an unarmed person of interest during an interrogation. I suppose we’ll hear more in a few months. Unless they forget, of course.)

Amy Goodman has a report at Democracy Now!:

The transcript:

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun reviewing a controversial unit inside the Drug Enforcement Administration that uses secret domestic surveillance tactics — including intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency — to target Americans for drug offenses. According to a series of articles published by Reuters, agents are instructed to recreate the investigative trail in order to conceal the origins of the evidence, not only from defense lawyers, but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. “We are talking about ordinary crime: drug dealing, organized crime, money laundering. We are not talking about national security crimes,” says Reuters reporter John Shiffman. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, says this is just the latest scandal at the DEA. “I hope it is a sort of wake-up call for people in Congress to say now is the time, finally, after 40 years, to say this agency really needs a close examination.”


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: The Justice Department has begun reviewing a controversial unit inside the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that uses secret domestic surveillance tactics, including intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency, to target Americans for drug offenses. According to a series of articles published by the Reuters news agency, agents are instructed to recreate the investigative trail in order to conceal the origins of the evidence—not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. DEA training documents instruct agents to even make up alternative versions of how such investigations truly begin, a process known as “parallel construction.”

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the Reuters investigation.

PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: It’s my understanding, our understanding, that the Department of Justice is looking at some of the issues raised in the story. But for more, I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

AMY GOODMAN: The unit of the DEA that distributes the secret intelligence to agents is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. The unit was first created two decades ago, but it’s coming under increased scrutiny following the recent revelations about theNSA maintaining a database of all phone calls made in the United States. One former federal judge, Nancy Gertner, said the DEA program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the NSA has been collecting domestic phone records. She said, quote, “It is one thing to create special rules for national security. Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.”

For more, we’re joined by the reporter who broke this story, John Shiffman, correspondent for Reuters, which published his exclusive story Monday, “U.S. Tells Agents to Cover Up Use of Wiretap Program.”

Welcome to Democracy Now!, John. Why don’t you start off by just laying it out and what exactly this cover-up is.

JOHN SHIFFMAN: Thanks very much for having me.

Well, my colleague Kristina Cooke and I spoke with about a dozen or two dozen agents and obtained some internal documents that showed that what federal agents, not just DEA agents but other agents who work with the DEA and do drug investigations—what they’re doing is, is they are starting—they are claiming that their investigations start, say, at step two. They are withholding step one from the investigations. And, I should say, it’s not just NSA intercepts. It’s informant information, information obtained from court-ordered wiretaps in one case, and using those for information in a second case. They also have a large database of phone records. Whenever theDEA subpoenas or does a search warrant and gets phone records for someone suspected of involvement in drugs or gang involvement, they put all those numbers into one giant database they call DICE, and they use that information to compare different cases. All of the collection is—seems perfectly legitimate, in terms of being court-ordered. What troubles some critics is the fact that they are hiding that information from drug defendants who face trial. The problem with that is that—is that these defendants won’t know about some potentially exculpatory information that may affect their case and their right to a fair trial.

AMY GOODMAN: So explain exactly how this information is being hidden from judges, prosecutors and sometimes defense attorneys, as well.

JOHN SHIFFMAN: Sure. Well, just to give an example, through any of these four different ways, including the NSA intercepts, the DEA’s Special Operations Division will send the information to aDEA agent in the field or a FBI agent or an ICE agent or state policeman, and they’ll give him the information. Then they’ll say, “Look, you know, we understand that there will be a truck going to a certain park in Texas at a certain time. It’s a red truck. It’ll be two people involved.” And the state trooper or the DEA will find you reason to pull the truck over, say for a broken tail light or for speeding, that sort of thing. And, lo and behold, inside the trunk they’ll find, you know, a kilo of cocaine. The people who have been arrested will never know that—why the police or the DEApulled them over. They’ll think it’s just luck. And that’s important because if those people try to go to trial, there are pieces of information about how that evidence was obtained and what it shows and what other pieces of it show—might affect their trial.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, I spoke with Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald just after your story broke about how the DEA is using material gathered in part by the NSA in its surveillance of Americans. Glenn Greenwald has, of course, broken several major stories about the NSA’s domestic activity. This was his response: . . .

Continue reading

Written by Leisureguy

6 August 2013 at 3:54 pm

Posted in Drug laws, Government, Law

The Booming Business of Civil Forfeitures

leave a comment »

Connor Simpson describes what amounts to a government scam:

The idea that your most prized possessions could be taken away from you at any moment by authorities with little-to-no justification is a terrifying one, but stories today from The New Yorker and ProPublica show civil forfeiture laws are forcing innocent citizens never charged with a crime to fight those who are supposed to serve and protect for their property in court. [NOTE: Read the articles at those two links: they are excellent. – LG]

Forfeiture laws have noble intentions at heart. They’re meant to give police the right, pending a judge’s approval, to seize money, vehicles and real estate from drug kingpins, Wall Street con men, or mobsters. Bad people should not be able to keep the good things they buy with bad money. But more and more cases are popping up where civil law is used to seize assets in cases where no criminal charges are laid, and often against citizens who may not have enough money to properly defend themselves in court. As ProPublica’s Isaiah Thompson explains, the burden of proof in a civil forfeiture case is much lower than a criminal one:

Doing so offers prosecutors considerable advantages. Unlike the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” required in criminal law, prosecutors seeking civil forfeitures face a much lower standard. Usually, they need only prove that a “preponderance of evidence” connects the property — not its owner — to a crime. Technically, the property — not the owner — is named as the defendant.

Some of the case file names will surprise you. In one case defense attorney David Guillory, who recently settled a high-profile case against allegedly abusive civil forfeiture practices in Tenaha, Texas with the help of the ACLU, told to The New Yorker‘s Sarah Stillman, the case was simply “State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix.” That was all the officers seized.

The case in Tenaha, Texas drew national attention last year. People driving out-of-town rental cars along the known drug trafficking highway strip outside of town were often stopped and had their cars searched. If the officers found any amount of cash, or if they suspected drugs were in the car for any reason, they offered the drivers a choice: faces felony charges or have their possessions seized. It didn’t matter that there was no evidence linking their possessions to the drug trade. Most cases went off an officer’s claim that he could smell marijuana coming from the car. “This was, plain and simple, highway robbery,” Elora Mukherjee, an attorney with the ACLU, said at the time. The county settled with the ACLU and agreed to reform its forfeiture policies.

The reality is that most civil forfeiture cases are a lot like the ones in Tenaha, Texas. “There’s this myth that they’re cracking down on drug cartels and kingpins,” Lee McGrath, a legal expert on forfeiture cases in Georgia, explained to The New Yorker‘s Stillman. “In reality, it’s small amounts, where people aren’t entitled to a public defender, and can’t afford a lawyer, and the only rational response is to walk away from your property, because of the infeasibility of getting your money back.”

Civil forfeiture saw a dramatic rise after Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984 that established a fund-sharing program between local law enforcement agencies who helped federal forfeiture investigations. States established local forfeiture laws shortly after, and business boomed. In 1985, the Department of Justice took in $27 million in forfeiture proceeds. It has grown into a billion dollar business. Per ProPublica:

One measure is the growth of a program in which federal law enforcement officials seize property on behalf of local authorities in exchange for a share of the proceeds. In 2000, officials racked up $500 million in forfeitures. By 2012, that amount rose to $4.2 billion, an eightfold increase.

The New Yorker article begins:

On a bright Thursday afternoon in 2007, Jennifer Boatright, a waitress at a Houston bar-and-grill, drove with her two young sons and her boyfriend, Ron Henderson, on U.S. 59 toward Linden, Henderson’s home town, near the Texas-Louisiana border. They made the trip every April, at the first signs of spring, to walk the local wildflower trails and spend time with Henderson’s father. This year, they’d decided to buy a used car in Linden, which had plenty for sale, and so they bundled their cash savings in their car’s center console. Just after dusk, they passed a sign that read “Welcome to Tenaha: A little town with big Potential!”

They pulled into a mini-mart for snacks. When they returned to the highway ten minutes later, Boatright, a honey-blond “Texas redneck from Lubbock,” by her own reckoning, and Henderson, who is Latino, noticed something strange. The same police car that their eleven-year-old had admired in the mini-mart parking lot was trailing them. Near the city limits, a tall, bull-shouldered officer named Barry Washington pulled them over.

He asked if Henderson knew that he’d been driving in the left lane for more than half a mile without passing.

No, Henderson replied. He said he’d moved into the left lane so that the police car could make its way onto the highway.

Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car.

The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two tables were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcotics.” The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)

The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.

“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.

Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.

Outraged by their experience in Tenaha, Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson helped to launch a class-action lawsuit challenging the abuse of a legal doctrine known as civil-asset forfeiture. “Have you looked it up?” Boatright asked me when I met her this spring at Houston’s H&H Saloon, where she runs Steak Night every Monday. She was standing at a mattress-size grill outside. “It’ll blow your mind.” . . .

Continue reading.

Later in the article, a critical point:

In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence.

Yet another reason to avoid Texas.

Written by Leisureguy

6 August 2013 at 11:12 am

Posted in Government, Law

10 Tips From Billy Wilder on How to Write a Good Screenplay

leave a comment »

Very interesting article at Open Culture. The Apartment is one of my favorite movies. Some Like It Hot is still good. The tips:

1: The audience is fickle.
2: Grab ‘em by the throat and never let ‘em go.
3: Develop a clean line of action for your leading character.
4: Know where you’re going.
5: The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.
6: If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.
7: A tip from Lubitsch: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

6 August 2013 at 11:09 am

Posted in Movies & TV, Writing

New favorite Omega boar brush

leave a comment »

SOTD 6 Aug 2013

A WEdger pointed out this brush to me, and I really like it. It’s not broken in—I tried it out once when I got it, so this is its second use—but already I had no problem in getting three passes from the initial loading, with plenty of lather left for more. It’s comfortable to use and the handle looks a lot better than the silver plastic of the Pro 48. This one is the 20102, and it runs $15. Dynamite brush.

Of course, the lather is also due to the excellent Honeybee Soaps Sandalwood Musk shaving soap. I did the extended loading that Zach recommended long ago in his post on “how to make shaving cream from shaving soap,” and the result was luscious.

Three passes with my Fasan slant. I just discovered that this comes in two models: the metal ring shown above, and a red ring version that is said to be more aggressive. More aggressive I do not need. The Personna Lab Blue gave me a BBS result in three passes, but now I’m a little jumpy about that brand—when it ages, it bites, or so it seems—so I swapped it out after the shave for a new Astra Superior Platinum. Still: BBS.

A good splash of Sandalwood, and now I’m scurrying around to get things ready for the cleaning ladies.

Written by Leisureguy

6 August 2013 at 9:19 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: