Drug Trafficking – Law Street

Philippine President Duterte Threatens to Leave U.N., Calling it Useless

Emma Von Zeipel — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:51:32 +0000

"Philippines Flag" courtesy of [Rob Nguyen via Flickr]

The number of suspected drug criminals that have been killed by police in the Philippines since President Rodrigo Duterte took office seven weeks ago is believed to be as high as 1,800 people, according to Philippine National Police Chief Ronald Dela Rosa. Local politicians, the United States, and the U.N. have started voicing concern about human rights violations as the country ramps up its fight against drugs. In response to recent criticism, Duterte lashed out at his critics and even suggested that the Philippines may leave the U.N. in the future.

At a Senate hearing on Monday, Dela Rosa said that police had killed 712 drug dealers and users since July 1. He also mentioned that they are investigating 1,067 other drug-related killings, but did not elaborate further. According to Reuters, two U.N. human rights experts recently urged the Philippines to stop the extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers that have escalated dramatically lately.

Late Sunday night, President Duterte held a press conference, in which he threatened to fire everyone in the government who had been appointed to his or her position by a previous president. At the press conference, he said the police did not carry out the extrajudicial killings. He also said, responding to critics at the U.N., “I will prove to the world that you are a very stupid expert.” In his speech, he asked people to not only think about how many drug dealers were killed but to also take into account how many innocent lives that are lost to drugs.

President Duterte even threatened to pull out of the U.N. saying, “I do not want to insult you. But maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations.” He went on to say that the Philippines might instead start a new international organization with China and several African nations.

Duterte continued to criticize the U.N. for not stopping the war in Syria:

You know, United Nations, if you can say one bad thing about me, I can give you 10 [about you]. I tell you, you are an inutile [useless]. Because if you are really true to your mandate, you could have stopped all these wars and killing.

The United States is normally a close ally to the Philippines but has expressed concerns similar to the United Nations in light of the recent deaths. The Philippines’ foreign minister, Perfecto Yasay, said on Monday that the President’s words had been no more than an expression of a strong disappointment with the U.N. “We are committed to the U.N. despite our numerous frustrations and disappointments with the international agency,” Yasay said. He added that Duterte has promised to respect human rights and that it is irresponsible for the U.N. to “jump to conclusions.”

But Senator Leila de Lima, a fierce critic of Duterte, is also concerned; she began a two-day inquiry on Monday, questioning police about the many killings. “I am disturbed that we have killings left and right as breakfast every morning,” she said. She also expressed her fear that the president’s war on drugs could be an excuse for law enforcement to kill with impunity.

On Sunday night, Duterte did not seem to worry about effects of his statements. When asked about his comments he said, “What is… repercussions? I don’t give a shit to them.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Philippine President Duterte Threatens to Leave U.N., Calling it Useless appeared first on Law Street.

The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere

Robbin Antony — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 02:00:51 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jamelle Bouie via Flickr]

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.

Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case

Anneliese Mahoney — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:53:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jason Rojas via Flickr]

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

The Fair Sentencing Act Aims to Align Drug Sentencing Disparities

John Gomis — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:05:19 +0000

Featured image courtesy of [Valerie Everett via Flickr]

As a part of the “war on drugs,” a law was passed in 1986 that criminalized the use of illegal substances. The two substances, powder and crack cocaine, were criminalized differently, leading to inconsistent laws and a notable lack of fairness in sentencing. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act was passed in an effort to remedy this disparity. Now, four years down the road, it’s important to look back and evaluate its impact. Read on to learn about the law, its supporters and dissidents, and results.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed during the heart of the war on drugs. It was the first big piece of legislation, and it included mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of certain drugs.

Powder cocaine is white, and true to its name, powdery. There are many ways in which to consume cocaine, but the most well known is by “snorting” it, or inhaling through the nose. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, if you were found with at least 500 grams of cocaine, the minimum mandated sentence was five years without parole. Crack cocaine is smoked, and is created when cocaine, water, and baking soda are combined. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, if you were found with just five grams of crack cocaine, the minimum mandated sentence was also five years without parole.

That means that crack cocaine was criminalized at a 100:1 ratio in comparison to powder cocaine. In addition to being unfair, the standards have been criticized as inherently racist. Watch the video below for more information this.

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

The Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), signed by President Obama, was passed by the 111th United States Congress. The law’s primary provisions reduced disparities in the differences between the amount of powder cocaine and crack cocaine needed to trigger federal penalties under the law. It also eliminated the mandatory five-year minimum sentencing provision required under the previous law. The FSA made fundamental changes to U.S. drug law, including the removal of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time possession of crack cocaine, an increase in the amount of crack cocaine that is required for a federal mandatory minimum prison term to apply, and the increase of financial penalties for trafficking a controlled substance. Sentencing judges are allowed to consider violence and other aggravating factors.

The FSA requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to take specific measures regarding sentencing. These include raising sentencing guidelines for those convicted of violence in relation to a drug offense, include aggravating and mitigating factors in its consideration of punishments for drug offenses, and present a report to Congress detailing the FSA’s impact on sentencing for drug offenses.

What were the arguments in favor of the FSA?

Proponents of the FSA argue that studies show that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are equally addictive and the government never had any scientific basis for believing otherwise. Moreover, the previous law created significantly disproportionate sentencing rules for drug offenders. For example, under the old law a person found possessing five grams of crack cocaine was given the same punishment as a person possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine. Also, ten grams of crack cocaine was enough for a 10-year minimum sentence, but 1,000 grams of powder cocaine were required for the same sentence.

That disparity evinces a probable racial bias in the old law. In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that the law created “racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. … As a result, thousands of people — mostly African Americans — have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences.” Crack Cocaine users in the U.S. are composed of 52 percent whites and 38 percent blacks, yet 88 percent of the sentences for crack cocaine-related offenses were imposed on blacks while only 4 percent were imposed on whites. The DEA Administrator under the Bush administration stated that because of the disparity “the credibility of our entire drug enforcement system is weakened.”

What were the arguments against the FSA?

Opponents of the FSA argue that the new law may revive the dangers that the old law was intended to prevent. The severe sentences under the old law were justified by the facts that trafficking and distribution of crack cocaine more often involves violence and danger to the community than what generally comes with powder cocaine and the offenders more often have violent criminal histories.

Law Enforcement Organizations have also opposed the act, arguing that more severe sentences are justified because crack is often trafficked with weapons. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 29 percent of all crack cases from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 involved a weapon, compared to only 16 percent for powder cocaine. These police organizations advocate raising the penalties for possessing powder cocaine rather than lowering the penalties for crack cocaine carriers. Since crack cocaine distribution is generally conducted with more violence and risk to the public than powder cocaine distribution, it makes sense that the law treats participation in a more dangerous criminal culture as a more serious crime.

What has been the reaction to the FSA?

The Fair Sentencing Act was a step in a good direction. It changed the much maligned crack cocaine to powder cocaine possession ration from 100:1 to 18:1. While some advocates call for a complete eradication of any discrepancies in sentencing, others point out that crack is known to be slightly more addictive, and is more likely to be involved with respect to violent crimes.

There’s also an argument about the retroactivity of this law. Retroactivity essentially means that the FSA would be applied to the thousands who are still in jail under the 1986 law. This could lead to reduced sentences for those prisoners. In 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FSA is in fact retroactive; however, the government asked for an en banc review, which means that the entire panel, not just the individual judges involved in that case, review the possibility of retroactivity. In the en banc review, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the original decision. At this point, the FSA is not applied retroactively.

The FSA has made headway. Around the time of its passage, it was estimated that ten years down the road, the federal prison population will decline by about 4,000 people. There’s still work to be done to make sure that everyone receives a fair sentence, based on his or her crime committed and not on arbitrary standards, but the FSA is absolutely a step in the right direction.