Under Obama, Patriot Act Sneak-and-Peek Outpaces Bush Use (and is mostly about Drugs)

February 6th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Election 2008 | George W. Bush | Homeland Insecurity | Liberty | Politics - (1 Comments)

Remember George W. Bush? Remember thinking that a vote for Barack Obama would be a vote to bring the Homeland Security state of George W. Bush under control?

Well, think again.

According to federal law, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) is supposed to report on the uses of the Patriot Act power for the government to engage in “sneak and peek” searches of Americans’ homes, offices, and other personal property without letting the subject of the search know about it.

Did you think that under President Barack Obama these searches would decline?
Did you think that this Patriot Act power was being used in order to stop terrorism?

Thanks to WTAE of Pittsburgh for digging up these annual reports (FY 2007 | FY 2008 | FY 2009 | FY 2010), which show very clearly that under Barack Obama’s administration the use of sneak-and-peek powers have accelerated, not declined, and which also show very clearly that the overwhelming majority of the time, sneak-and-peek Patriot Act powers are used for the Drug War. Less than 1% of Patriot Act sneak-and-peeks are actually used to try and find terrorists.

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY  2010 FY 2011
# Sneak and Peek Warrants Sought 690 1291 1899 3970 tba
% Denied by Judges 0.00% 0.31% 0.32% 0.50% tba
% for Drugs 68.55% 65.30% 76.67% 76.42% tba
% for Tax Evasion 9.86% 4.34% 0.16% not reported tba
% for Immigration 1.59% 1.16% 0.95% 0.98% tba
% for Terrorism 1.01% 0.39% 0.74% 0.93% tba

No thanks are due to the administration of President Barack Obama, who promised the nation he’d be a leader in transparency but which has not published these reports for public view, not even on the web page of the very Administrative Office of the United States Courts that produces the report. No thanks are due to the House of Representatives, which receives the report every year but does not publish it. No thanks are due to the U.S. Senate, which receives the report every year but does not publish it. They’d rather you didn’t know the truth these reports tell.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The 11th largest Federal Contractor is a Hedge Fund???

May 31st, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Economy | Politics | War and Peace - (2 Comments)

Yes.

According to the Federal Procurement Data System list of the Top 100 federal contractors, #11 was Cerberus Capital Management, raking in $4.8 billion from the federal government in fiscal year 2010. Cerberus Capital Management is a hedge fund, an exclusive private equity firm generating income for some of America’s wealthiest families.

What’s a hedge fund doing taking money in contracts from the U.S. government? As part of its wealth management strategy, Cerberus Capital Management has invested in profitable activities:

…maintaining critical U.S. aircraft fleets, running counter-drug operations in Colombia, training law enforcement agents and shuttling dignitaries throughout Iraq, and maintaining military bases and working with police and Ministry of the Interior personnel in Afghanistan.

Traditional war and the drug war are, by the calculus of Cerberus President Steven Schorer, sound investments. But what if peace breaks out? No worries, explains Schorer:

“We’re interested in moving into the intelligence arena to see if we could transplant our capabilities there,” Schorer said…. Schorer has reason to be confident: The company is funded in part by a record Defense Department budget and a growing State Department budget. The military drawdown in Iraq is bringing significant business for DynCorp, and according to Schorer, as DOD budgets go down, State Department budgets go up.

Cerberus Capital Management is the single largest contractor for the State Department, collecting one out of every ten State Department contract dollars.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senate Judiciary Votes to Lessen But Continue Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

March 11th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Democrats | Legislation | Moral Values | Politics | Republicans - (8 Comments)

In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting earlier today the disappointment on Dick Durbin‘s face was unmistakable as he outlined the parameters of a deal on S. 1789, a bill that for months had been stalled in committee, a bill that until this week (see previous version here) would have eliminated the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between the draconian crack cocaine laws and the relatively lax powder laws for powder cocaine:

Richard Durbin in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 11 2010What is my position? My position is for one-to-one equity and equality in sentencing. But in order to get things done, you have to be prepared to make mutual concessions, and that is what we have done. What we are going to propose to the committee today is to accept an amendment from Senator Sessions that sets the threshold for a five-year mandatory minimum at 28 grams, which is roughly the equivalent of one ounce. This would establish a crack-powder ratio of not 100-to-1 as in current law but 20-to-1… in exchange, Senator Sessions will agree to withhold his other amendments in relation to mandatory minimum sentencing and felony simple possession. We will all commit, in the course of this agreement, to oppose additional amendments to the bill and work to move this bill through the Senate on an expedited basis…. I know this agreement is not everything you would like. Frankly, it isn’t everything I would like either.

In exchange for lessening but preserving the inequality in sentencing between crack (a drug disproportionately used by poor people) and powder (a drug disproportionately used by rich people), Senator Jeff Sessions and the Republican caucus agreed not to filibuster the bill on the floor of the Senate or destroy it with poison-pill amendments. Senator Durbin and others in favor of equity (such as Senators Ben Cardin and Arlen Specter) were put in a position of accepting a lower level of discrimination or getting no improvement at all.

Senator Orrin Hatch displayed the intellectual depth of the obstructionist Republican group when he justified sentencing disparities for crack versus powder cocaine, citing a study showing rats exposed to cocaine were more violent than rats given heroin.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leahy, Sessions Agree to Delay S. 1789 Drug Disparity Bill Again

March 4th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Legislation | Politics - (6 Comments)

A week ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy declared that after months of stalling consideration of S. 1789 he would be bringing it up for consideration. S. 1789, also known as the Fair Sentencing Act, would bring prison sentences for crack cocaine down to the length of sentences for powder cocaine. When Leahy made this pledge last week I made skeptical noises; after all, he’s been putting S. 1789 on the agenda of Judiciary Committee business meetings since last year and always managing to find other things to do.

Sure enough, today’s Judiciary Committee meeting (which you can watch for yourself here) came and went without any formal consideration of S. 1789. The bill was informally considered, however, in a sotto voce conversation picked up by the microphones. As Senator Leahy brought his finger down the line to S. 1789 on the agenda, an aide leaned over to his ear to steer him. Our transcript begins there:

[Leahy points to item on the agenda]

Aide: “Next week”

Patrick Leahy to Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions: “We’re going to do crack-cocaine next week. Is that right?”

Jeff Sessions: “I don’t know that we’re committed to that, but it’s something you can hasten if…”

Leahy: “I’m not going to bring up this bill. If you’ll want to bring up this bill next week, be sure to say…”

Sessions: “Yeah.”

Leahy: “Yeah. Right. Okay.”

Leahy: [louder, to the room] “And I think the other matters on here will be…”
[softer, to aide] “held over?”

Aide: “Everything else we’ll get to next week.”

Leahy: “Everything else will be on the agenda next week.”

Senators Patrick Leahy and Jeff Sessions conferring on their decision to delay markup of S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing ActIn a phone call I placed to Leahy’s Judiciary Committee press secretary shortly after the meeting ended, she explained that consideration of S. 1789 was put off yet again because time had been taken up by the nomination of judicial and legal appointments. It is true that consideration of one of those nominees, Dawn Johnsen, took 58 minutes. The nominations of 5 judicial nominees, on the other hand, took just one minute and 28 seconds. After that, the next item on the meeting agenda was S. 1789. But Leahy jumped past that agenda item to the consideration of S. 1132 (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act), which proceeded with the introduction of a new version of S. 1132 by Leahy via substitute amendment, a call for amendments, a noting of quorum and the taking of a vote, all of which took just one minute and 55 seconds.

The Fair Sentencing Act could have been considered today; as the conversation between Senators Leahy and Sessions reveals, it was informally considered, then shelved. It’s not as though committee members had an urgent roll call vote to attend on the floor of the Senate; there have been no floor votes today in the Senate. Lunch called, and lunch was a higher priority than sentencing disparity in America’s drug wars.

It’s been said that justice too long delayed is justice denied. The only thing that will stop the delays of the Senate Judiciary Committee is public pressure. If you care about ending the discrimination in cocaine sentencing, click here find the names of the Senate Judiciary members who haven’t yet cosponsored the bill. Call these senators and ask them to stop with the delays, to stop dithering and proceed with a YES vote in committee to bring S. 1789, at long last, to the floor of the Senate.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

S. 1789, Drug Sentencing Disparity Bill, Stalled in Judiciary Yet Again

February 25th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Legislation | Politics - (0 Comments)

Scales of Injustice for Crack and Powder Cocaine SentencingWaiting for the Senate Judiciary Committee to finally consider S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act, is like watching a production of Waiting for Godot. The bill, which would bring the crazily draconian sentences for crack cocaine possession down to the level of sentences for powder cocaine possession, has been brought up on the agenda of the business meetings of the Judiciary Committee for months and months now. Each week it’s delayed until the next meeting. Yesterday’s business meeting of the Judiciary Committee brought no exception. Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy promises that next week, the bill will be brought up for real. I’ll believe it when I see it.

, , , , , , ,

Ending Drug Sentencing Disparity: The Republican Remix

February 22nd, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Homeland Insecurity | Legislation | Moral Values | Politics | Republicans - (3 Comments)

Do you have a nickel handy? Go ahead, pick it up. Hold it in your hand. Now imagine that for holding that nickel, you could be put into prison for 40 years.

For some years now, people have been pointing out the glaring disparity between prison sentences for powder cocaine and crack cocaine. If a person is caught possessing just 5 grams of crack cocaine, and if a prosecutor can convince a jury that the person might have wanted to give that crack to someone else, that person can be sentenced to 40 years in federal prison. 5 grams is the weight of a nickel. Thanks to the imbalanced drug sentencing laws, a person would have to be caught holding 100 times as much powder cocaine to get that same sentence. This disparity in sentencing reflects the crack scare of the 1980s, not current science: it turns out that crack cocaine is no more addictive than cocaine in its powder form.

There are bills out there, like S. 1789 in the Senate and H.R. 3245 in the House, which seek to eliminate the disparity by raising the amount of crack a person has to be carrying to trigger nearly life-long imprisonment. These bills are slowly, slowly making their way through Congress.

And then there’s the Republican version of equality. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland proposes a new law, H.R. 18: the Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act of 2009. The title makes it sound good, but read beyond the title and you’ll find out that equalization is not always a good thing. Instead of reducing sentences for possession of crack now that the uninformed hysteria of the 1980s has passed, Bartlett would reach equality by spreading the hysteria around. H.R. 18, if passed, would increase the sentence for possessing powder cocaine to the match the crazy-long sentences for people caught with crack.

I’m trying to figure out how this kind of policy translates into a campaign slogan for Roscoe Bartlett and his fellow Republicans who’ve signed on to this bill as cosponsors. How about $50 Billion for Prisons is Not Enough? Or maybe Prisoners Per Capita: Let’s Keep America On Top! There are so many possibilities; I’m sure that if Rep. Bartlett puts his mind to it he can come up with something really catchy.

, , , , , , , , ,

Judiciary Committee Delays Drug Disparity Bill S. 1789 Again

February 12th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Legislation | Moral Values | Politics - (0 Comments)

You’ve come to expect it, haven’t you?

S. 1789 is a bill to equalize sentences for the equally-addictive, chemically equivalent drugs of powder cocaine and crack cocaine. While rich white people head off to treatment for possessing large amounts of powder, poor black people head off to federal prison for possessing small amounts of crack. Every day that sentencing disparity remains in place, more rich white people head off to treatment while more poor black people head off to prison. Regardless of what you think of the drug war, this is unequitable. It is unfair. Sentencing reform is twenty-five years overdue.

Yesterday, for the fourth time in three months, the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed consideration of S. 1789 and further stalled its passage.

While these senators’ soft and lily-white asses recline on stuffed chairs, people are unduly suffering. Enough of it! If you care, click here find the names of the Senate Judiciary members who haven’t yet cosponsored the bill. Call these senators and ask them to stop with the delays, to stop dithering and proceed with the committee votes that will bring S. 1789 to the floor of the Senate.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Bill Postponed in Senate AGAIN

February 4th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Activism | Legislation | Moral Values | Politics - (1 Comments)

Even though it was the first bill on the agenda for a business meeting today, the Senate Judiciary Committee yet again put off consideration of S. 1789, a bill that would lessen the severity of sentences for possessing crack cocaine (disproportionately used by poor and black people) to equal the sentence for powder cocaine (disproportionately used by rich and white people).

You know what to do. Click here find the names of Senate Judiciary members who haven’t yet cosponsored the bill. Call these senators and ask them not only to add their names in support but also to, for goodness’ sake, stop with the delays and get on with the committee votes that will bring S. 1789 to the floor of the Senate.

, , , , , , , , ,