Posts Tagged ‘ Crime ’

Help wanted: One second-chance job

Monday, November 15th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Back in March, I stepped out of my comfort zone and wrote this op-ed for the Local Opinion page in the Washington Post. For the first time in a good long while, I wasn’t writing about national security, foreign policy, or the military.  Rather, I penned a piece on a mentoring relationship I have with Tim Cofield, a 55 year old bipolar-schizophrenic with serious substance abuse and housing issues.  This weekend, the Post published an update to that piece about the last eight months of Tim’s life.  Here’s an excerpt:

Tim Cofield needed his public defender again way too soon.  After his release from jail in March, I wrote on this page that Tim would soon be back in front of a judge if he did not get consistent access to substance-abuse counseling, mental health care and stable housing. Tim, who turned 55 on Wednesday, is a bipolar-schizophrenic who has rotated in and out of jail, usually for narcotics and parole violations, for most of his adult life.

Eight months later, Tim still isn’t receiving the care he needs. The result has hardly been surprising. His latest incarceration was from mid-October, when he submitted “dirty urines” at substance tests, until last week. It was the cognac Courvoisier, he told me.

…

It might be unrealistic to think that counseling, mental health services or the long public housing list will be improved overnight, but they don’t have to be. The past eight months convince me that Tim needs to catch one simple break to have a chance at turning his life around immediately: a job.

…
[A] job would mean much more than a few extra dollars in his pocket. A job would give him a stake in his own life. It would build a sense of accomplishment, occupy time otherwise spent with questionable associates and create a reason to save money for long-term goals. Moreover, as Michelle Singletary wrote in The Post just this month, a job would reduce Tim’s and others’ recidivism and crime throughout the community.

Read the entire piece here.

Photo  credit: Rob

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

Miranda Rights, the Public Safety Exception and Congress

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010
Matthew Dahl


Matt Dahl is a judicial clerk in Virginia and writes about national security law on his blog. The views expressed here are his own.

by Matthew Dahl

The arrest of Faisal Shahzad has revitalized the conversation about the legal rights of terrorism suspects apprehended in the U.S. In February, I wrote that a public safety exception to ordinary Miranda procedures exists, and called it a useful tool in terrorism cases because it could allow for interrogation of terrorism suspects for a reasonable period of time before they are read their Miranda rights, as happened in the case of the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

The incident in Times Square has given even more momentum to the idea of Miranda-less interrogations. On Sunday, Attorney General Holder came out and said that he wants Congress to pass a law specifically allowing interrogations without Miranda warnings in international terrorism cases. Such a law would obviate the need for law enforcement to rely on the current public safety exception.

Holder’s proposal is unique. The public safety exception is not the result of congressional action, but rather was created by a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In fact, all exceptions to Miranda rights under federal law come from court decisions and not from Congress. The question is this: Is it necessary for Congress to create a Miranda exception for terrorist suspects, or is the existing public safety exception enough? The congressional approach has several pros and cons.

The major benefit to Congress passing a law that explicitly creates a Miranda exception would be the specificity it would provide. Currently, law enforcement officials decide whether to invoke the public safety exception depending on whether they think a risk to public safety exists. Whether or not an officer’s belief is legitimate is determined on a case-by-case basis in court. Congress could make a law that lays out specific timeframes and circumstances under which a terrorist suspect could be interrogated without Miranda rights. Law enforcement officials would benefit greatly from knowing exactly what kinds of constraints exist.

Another benefit would be that, as long as law enforcement acted within the bounds of the statute, prosecutors would be more easily able to justify Miranda-less interrogation. As it is now, if a terrorist’s defense attorney challenges his client’s interrogation, prosecutors must show that law enforcement acted out of a legitimate concern for public safety. That process can be significantly more difficult and time-consuming than if prosecutors could simply point to a statute authorizing interrogation without Miranda.

Conversely, the existing exception’s major benefit could be its flexibility. The exception was created without specific constraints because the Supreme Court knew that it could not foresee all possible scenarios in which the exception could be applied. Similarly, Congress will not be able to foresee all possible terrorism scenarios. This could lead to a situation in which Congress creates a law that gives law enforcement less latitude than they might receive under the current exception.

It’s likely that Congress will try to pass a law that allows for a terrorist suspect to be interrogated for 48-72 hours, or even more, without being read his Miranda rights. Interrogations of such length would probably not be allowed under the existing exception. Should Congress authorize long interrogations without Miranda, expect a significant backlash from civil liberties advocates and some elected officials. Moreover, a statute granting law enforcement a great deal of flexibility could run the risk of being overturned in the courts. Stay tuned.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

In D.C., Public Defenders Aren’t Where the System Falls Short

Monday, March 29th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

On this one, I stepped out of my comfort zone. While I normally write about national security, foreign policy, and the military, yesterday I placed an op-ed in the Washington Post about none of the above. Rather, the piece was about my experience as a “mentor” (a term that seems funny) to my friend, Tim Cofield. We met through a charity called the Welcome Home Reentry Program. As that title might suggest, Tim is an inmate in the D.C. jail, and has been for a good chunk of his life — 13 out of 54 years. The only upside to that is that he essentially missed the Bush years. But as of right now, he’s still there, despite being scheduled for release last Friday.

The point of my article is pretty simple — Tim keeps ending up in jail (he’s been convicted four times, by my count), but he’s not necessarily getting any better. Unless he gets high-quality and consistent mental health and substance abuse care, not to mention a stable place to live and a steady income, Tim is almost certainly going to find himself back in jail soon.

This is a difficult issue for politicians, particularly those on the state and local level who control budgets. Fearful of looking “soft on crime” (hello, California’s three strikes law), politicians promise to throw any transgressor behind bars without paying attention to the consequences. State budgets go bust, and overcrowded prisons are eventually emptied, even though prisoners’ behavioral patterns haven’t been altered.

Here’s an excerpt:

If all goes according to plan, my friend Tim Cofield will be a free man by the time you read this. He was scheduled to get out of the D.C. jail Friday. Despite having spent more than three months in an orange jumpsuit, Tim would probably disagree with Eric Holder’s February speech to the National Symposium on Indigent Defense, in which the attorney general called for more funding to fulfill Americans’ right to competent defense. While I’m sure Holder is correct that “in some parts of the country . . . basic public defender systems simply do not exist,” Tim — whom I mentor through the fantastic Welcome Home Reentry Program — would tell you D.C. public defenders are actually quite good.

In the District, money would be better used to improve post-release rehabilitation and mental health programs. Without better support for parolees, we cannot break a cycle that leads to the reconviction of two-thirds within three years. This astonishing statistic is due to many factors, but here are two big ones: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 74 percent of inmates enter state prisons hooked on drugs or alcohol and 56 percent have a significant mental health problem. Tim checks both boxes.

[...]

We’re at a crucial point. Tim has probably (though not certainly) stayed clean in the prison’s rehab program. I visited him in jail, and he seemed clear-headed and resolved. He is being released into a halfway house that also serves as a drug treatment program. The quality of these programs varies wildly, but regardless, I know he needs much more than just rehab.

His chances to salvage any semblance of a productive life depend on a combination of high-quality substance counseling, consistent therapy and stable housing.

Read the entire thing here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, PPI in the News | 1 Comment »

Progressives Need to Slam the Right With the Zazi Case

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Najibullah Zazi pled guilty yesterday in what should be a major coup for the administration. Right now, they’re not exploiting it for all it’s worth.

First, some background: Zazi traveled from Colorado to New York with explosives in his car and the intention to detonate them in the New York subway, potentially killing hundreds of innocent Americans. The NYT is reporting that Zazi copped to it after DOJ pressured him into cooperation out of fear that the inquiry might widen to include other members of his family. As a part of the deal, prospectors believe he’ll prove a valuable source of information about his contacts in Pakistan, where he met with al Qaeda and learned to make the devices.

Though Zazi’s plea has been sealed by the judge, he has admitted to conspiracies to use weapons of mass destruction, to commit murder in a foreign country, and to provide material support for a terrorist organization. In exchange, he’ll reportedly be sentenced to a life term in a June 25th hearing. Leaving Zazi to anonymously rot in jail is a win-win for the USA in the worldwide PR battle with al Qaeda, too. Sentencing him to die denies terrorists the sickening prospect of using Zazi as a “martyr” in recruiting and financing propaganda. This is worth remembering when KSM’s sentencing comes around.

The case demonstrates that the intelligence community can partner with law enforcement agencies to provide swift, effective justice to those who would harm us. The American security apparatus “connected the dots” to prevent a major terrorist attack. What’s more, it shows that the Obama administration is committed to defeating terrorism and can apply the civilian justice system as part of that effort.

The bottom line is that this is an absolutely huge win for a sound, progressive worldview on national security. The good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder is out making the case. The bad news is that he’s making the case in the wrong way. Here’s a telling statement on the usefulness of the civilian court system from his press conference:

To take this tool [civilian courts] out of our hands, to denigrate this tool flies in the face of facts and is more about politics than it is about facts.

It’s a perfectly sound and correct argument. It’s also one that most Americans ignore.

It would be much more effective to frame the national security argument in terms of emotion, not wonkery. Americans want to hear that their country is strong, that we’re beating terrorism, and that we’re on the offensive in that fight. Using civilian courts shouldn’t be referred to as a “tool”; rather, the entire case should be framed as a “strong victory over those who are dedicated to killing us.”

Conservatives don’t care about facts. They fight these ideological battles on emotional grounds, and for decades their arguments have resonated more with Americans than progressive ones. I would rather have the AG preempting conservative attacks using the Zazi case by projecting an image of staunch, fist-pounding resolve to defend the country, not wonkishly responding to conservatives’ false assertions that civilian courts are weak.

Think I’m wrong? Look no farther than this WaPo/ABC poll that shows the only category that conservatives are “winning” on national security right now is the civilian courts vs. military courts argument, despite the civilian courts’ effectiveness in the Reid, Moussaoui, and, now, Zazi cases. Why? My hunch is that the emotional idea behind a military court simply projects a better image of strength, irrespective of the justice it may deliver.

Now is the time to go on the offensive. Progressives should use this very tangible example of progressive strength and smarts on national security and show that conservative approaches continue to be reckless. Or we could continue fighting this battle on conservatives’ terms and keep wasting our breath.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

Lieberman and Ft. Hood, Cont’d

Friday, November 20th, 2009
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Yesterday, I railed on Joe Lieberman for convening a witch hunt over the Ft. Hood shootings. One man’s witch hunt is another’s “responsible statesmanship,” per Jamie Kirchick over at TNR’s The Plank. He makes two points:

Given the gravity of this incident and the potential for future such attacks, it makes eminent sense that such a hearing would occur, in order to find out how such clear and visible signals of impending danger were ignored by the Army hierarchy….It’s not “Going Rogue.” It’s responsible statesmanship.

The point Jamie misses is that though the Army’s performance evaluations clearly indicated that Nidal Hasan was a very poor psychiatrist (so poor that, as NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling’s excellent reporting indicates, Hasan’s boss had at least one discussion about the possibility of discharging him) with significant other problems, Lieberman’s witch hunt will be unable to find “clear and visible signs of impending danger.”

Why? Based on the evidence, the red flags just weren’t there. Only in hindsight could you connect Hasan’s questionable, disturbed past with a propensity for extreme violence. I worked at the Navy’s internal criminal investigation agency (NCIS), which examines threats to crimes against the Navy and Marine Corps. If I had to make a decision on resource allocation to the Hasan case one month ago based on what we know, I would have recommended no additional surveillance and that his file be reviewed perhaps six months down the road.

The Pentagon’s internal reviews are better equipped than Lieberman’s hearings to comb through the Army bureaucracy and propose mechanisms to address sub-standard performers with probable mental fragility. That said, even that investigative process can hardly be a guarantee of preventing another Ft. Hood.

The Washington Independent reports that Lieberman has determined that Ft. Hood was a “terrorist” attack, and that he has called Hasan a “lone wolf.” That’s subtle code for the controversial provision in the USA Patriot Act that allows the FBI to eavesdrop on individual “terrorists” who plot without outside assistance. The provision was removed in a recent House mark up in part because the Justice Department had a hard time making the case it was actually necessary. The constant invocation of Hasan as a “lone wolf” – which the Independent’s Daphne Eviatar argues actually doesn’t fit Hasan – could well serve as a pretext for re-authorizing the provision, and suggest some clues into Lieberman’s motives.

But that’s all speculative. At the very least, Lieberman should allow the military and FBI investigations to be completed before jumping in with his own highly public process. Leaping in front of the cameras to assign blame for Ft. Hood before the formal probes have concluded seems like something a politician, not a statesman, would do.

Tags: , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »