Politics

Does the Department of Homeland Security Make You Feel Secure?

by Diane Dimond on May 13, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6320" align="alignleft" width="120"] Does Dept Make You Feel Secure?[/caption] I've been doing a lot of thinking about our Department of Homeland Security lately. The DHS was formed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, of course, but since then it has grown to mammoth proportions. It now has more than 200,000 employees and it is the nation’s third largest Cabinet department after the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs. The taxpayer’s bill for DHS is also enormous. If all goes as planned you and I will send $59 billion more of our hard earned dollars to the DHS this year to advance their mission to, “prevent attacks and protect Americans – on the land, in the sea and in the air.” Here we are more than a dozen years after 9-11 – and hundreds of billions of dollars later – and we still have no foolproof way to sift through our own suspected terrorist watch list. It’s called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment or TIDE and it current holds a whopping 700,000 suspect’s names. Something as simple as a misspelled name can gum up the works and render the list next to useless. [caption id="attachment_6322" align="alignright" width="120"] America Welcomed His Family - He Became Terrorist[/caption] After Russian and Saudi intelligence agents labeled Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a “follower of radical Islam,” and warned us in 2011 to keep an eye on him, neither the FBI or the CIA found any evidence that he was connected to extremist Muslim groups. Nonetheless Tsarnaev’s name was entered onto the TIDE list but, yes, you guessed it – his last name was misspelled. The list should have spit out Tsarnaev’s name when he traveled from Massachusetts to Chechnya and Dagestan (known terrorist training grounds) in 2012 but it didn't  Tsarnaev stayed in Russia for six full months and then returned to the United States unhampered and apparently un-watched. It was during that trip, American intelligence believes, the older Tsarnaev brother became radicalized and programmed to do harm to as many Americans as possible. Tsarnaev’s dramatically accusatory mother back in Dagestan (she left the Boston area after being charged with shoplifting) has claimed the FBI hounded her son for five years. If that really happened don’t you think the FBI would have discovered the Tsarnaev brothers’ bomb plot and acted to stop it? [caption id="attachment_6323" align="alignleft" width="120"] The Devoted Mother of Terrorists[/caption] On the other hand, there seems to be so many holes in our national security safety net I don’t know what to think anymore. I’m still unclear as to which agency was actually supposed to watch Tsarnaev. The FBI? DHS? Immigration or some other far-flung governmental body? I have worked with countless devoted and tireless agents of the FBI, Secret Service, U.S. Customs and state and local police departments across the country. I hate to cast aspersions on any law enforcement agency’s dedicated work keeping us safe. But it is clear more than a decade after 9-11 the U.S. infra- structure needed to ferret out possible terrorists is still blatantly lacking in major ways. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was recently forced to admit a major deficiency. She revealed we still don’t have a trustworthy, computerized system to figure out which foreign students are in the country legally or on expired student visas. Unbelievable! [caption id="attachment_6324" align="alignright" width="120"] Is She the Right Leader for DHS?[/caption] That student visa lapse allowed a young man from Kazakhstan to recently re-enter the United States and head back to Boston even though he wasn't enrolled in school anymore. That person is now charged with trying to help the younger Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cover up his Boston Marathon bombing crimes by removing evidence from his dorm room. Napolitano confirms that since the tragedy in Boston U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents have been laboriously checking student visa files – by hand – to identify which are still valid and those that are not. Maybe, Napolitano says, we’ll have an automated system by the end of this month. Really? Between September 11, 2001 and now no one thought it was important to keep computerized and organized tabs on foreign student visas? It’s clear we need to shake up the organization of all our domestic protection efforts to come up with a mandatory and cooperative framework that assures all our government agencies work together and are more responsive to today’s security needs. [caption id="attachment_6326" align="alignleft" width="150"] Made at Home Plastic Guns - And They Work[/caption] Now comes word of a new threat that seems to have caught authorities by surprise. While the national debate was focused on new gun control laws there was a unique kind of gun being added to the American arsenal – plastic guns produced by relatively inexpensive 3-D printers. These new printers do have positive applications. They can produce low cost medical, automotive and toy parts. Gun makers simply load the printers with sheets of thick plastic and program them to follow a computerized blueprint. Plastic gun parts are then formed and snapped together and loaded with traditional ammunition they are just as deadly as any other firearm. There is one small piece of metal included, designed to meet some obscure federal law on guns, but this new breed of weapon is thought to be mostly undetectable. That means our traditional screening procedures at airports, schools and government buildings could be useless. I don’t know if Homeland Security should have been on top of this new invention. Maybe it’s the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the FBI or any other number of government agencies. I do know that our law enforcement agencies don't always share intelligence - Boston PD, for example, never knew the FBI looked at the older Tsarnaev brother as a potential terrorist.  As terror and crime continue to morph into various and scary forms it is imperative that our bloated and disorganized government agencies get it together! Lives depend on it. home  

{ 7 comments }

Radical Muslims Want Us Dead – Understand?

by Diane Dimond on April 29, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6274" align="alignleft" width="150"] Tsarnaev Brothers - Radical Muslims Who Spread Terror[/caption] Extreme factions of the Muslim religion want us dead - every American and everyone who embraces a religion different than theirs. We are infidels, heathens and heretics and they believe it is their mission to wipe us off the face of the earth. I know it isn’t politically correct to publicly discuss how the most radicalized elements of the Muslim faith have targeted Americans for death. I know it is not acceptable to “profile” people based on their country of origin or religious traditions – not even when cold, hard, bloody, murderous facts directly stare us in the face. What kind of Alice-in-Wonderland thinking keeps this country from stating the obvious? What is the matter with us, as a people, that we cannot readily see and say who our enemy is? Now, before I’m waved off as suffering from Islamophobia let’s take a look at the two basic types of terror we face today. [caption id="attachment_6275" align="alignright" width="120"] Homegrown Source of Terror, Adam Lanza[/caption] The first kind is homegrown and we've suffered through a lot of it lately. It erupts when deranged people get a hold of a weapon and start destroying lives in our elementary schools, theaters and on college campuses. These are the random mass murders that evolve from the profound mental illness of our fellow citizens. I've written extensively in this space about the need to identify and help treat that group in advance of their deadly sprees. The second kind of terror is more insidious. It is carefully and meticulously planned. It springs from a fanatical religious place few of us can really understand. It is uniquely anti-American and while its perpetrators wrap themselves in a cloak of godliness their actions are a bona fide war, a cherished duty of jihad against people they don’t even know – us. [caption id="attachment_6277" align="alignleft" width="150"] Never Forget - Muslim Extremists Did This[/caption] Radicalized off-shoot cults of Islam twice attacked the World Trade Center (in 1993 and again in 2001) and forced down packed passenger jets at the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. One enraged Muslim flexing his jihadist muscles used U.S. military issued weapons at Ft. Hood, Texas to gun down 13 Americans and wound 32 others. And now, the two profoundly misguided Muslim brother- bombers in Boston. All were murderous assassins who did not target a particular person. They put a bull’s-eye on any and all U.S. citizens – men, women and children of any age – and their goal was to kill and spill as much American blood as possible. In the midst of their rampage around Boston the Tsarnaev brothers car-jacked a luxury SUV and bragged to the Chinese driver about placing pressure cooker bombs at the marathon’s finish line. Later the victim told police the terrorists allowed him to live because, “I am not American.” That says it all. [caption id="attachment_6278" align="alignright" width="150"] Ambsr Stevens Dragged in Streets by Muslim Radicals[/caption] The terror filled week that played out in Boston grabbed many of us by our collective throat and slammed us against the wall because we had become complacent. We believed it couldn't happen again on American soil. Even in the face of attacks on American embassies overseas (and the still un-avenged torture and assassination of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi) we have swallowed pronouncements from Washington that “al-Qaeda is on its heels,” that the terrorist organization is nearly “decapitated” to use the president’s word. That, of course, is nonsense given what happened in Massachusetts last week. There is also an unconfirmed report from a British newspaper that the FBI is searching for a 12 member sleeper cell linked to the Boston bombers – a cell that, “has been waiting several years for their day to come,” according to a source close to the investigation. And this week, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced the arrest of two “al-Qaeda inspired” suspects bent on de-railing a passenger train as it crossed a suspended trestle in Toronto. According to CBC News the pair had been under surveillance for more than a year and was getting their marching orders from an al-Qaeda operative living on the Afghanistan/Iran border. The RCMP now admits they have been monitoring a broad network of terrorism suspects in their country. [caption id="attachment_6279" align="alignleft" width="150"] Americans in Boston Celebrate Capture of Tsarnaev Brother[/caption] Taken together it seems clear that radical Muslim elements have a toe-hold right here in North America. They are not radical Catholics or extremist Methodists or fanatical Quakers. The terrorists who fervently want us dead are a splinter group of Muslims that hate Americans so much they will spend years silently organizing and plotting our demise and not care if they die in the process. This is not a column to condemn or place under suspicion the millions of compassionate, forgiving and loving Muslims in the world. I know that at the core of their belief is love and a toleration of all people and ideologies. But honest folk must agree that festering within the peace loving Muslim religion is a rotten core of murderous terrorists. It is clear that Muslim leaders are unable to police the flock. It is certain that Muslim dominated countries that get multiple billions in U.S. foreign aid – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq – aren’t helping eliminate the threat either. That leaves it up to us to fight our own battle against terrorism. How is that supposed to work if we cannot openly discuss the enemy without fear of being branded as prejudiced? It is not an act of discrimination to mention who they are. These violent Muslims have been out to destroy us for decades. So, cling to your political correctness if you must. I will adhere to the wise old saying, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” home  

{ 33 comments }

Investigations & Prosecutions of Terrorists in the Sequestration Era

by Diane Dimond on April 22, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6241" align="alignleft" width="150"] This is What Anti-AmericanTerror Looks Like[/caption]         "Make no mistake we will get to the bottom of this and we will find out who did this and find out why they did this."-- President Barak Obama There will be no satisfying “why” at the end of the investigation into who placed bombs near the finish line of the Boston marathon. Just like there was no satisfying “why” following the massacres at Columbine High School or Virginia Tech. Nothing can ever adequately explain to normal thinking people how a gunman could hunt down tiny students at a Connecticut elementary school or exterminate innocents gathered at a Tucson parking lot to see their Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords. And so it will go with Boston. [caption id="attachment_6243" align="alignright" width="150"] Two Brothers - One (Left) is Dead the Other Captured[/caption] We quickly learned the identity of the persons who chose Massachusetts’ Patriot’s Day to make their treasonous statement about whatever perceived wrong had festered in their sick mind.  And, even in these early days of the investigation we already knew a lot about their personalities. These  bombers wanted to inflict as much death and destruction as they possibly could. And, by timing the bombs as they did – setting them to explode during the fourth hour of the marathon – they weren't targeting the premiere athletes who had finished an hour or more earlier. No, the demented mastermind of this event wanted to exact revenge on the less strong, the average runner, who would be struggling the hardest to make it across the finish line. Was the perpetrator trying to send a twisted message against America or was it just a depraved attempt to deny the exhausted runners the joy of reaching their goal? Not long after the dual bombings President Obama solemnly announced, “Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.” [caption id="attachment_6246" align="alignleft" width="150"] So Many Victims Lost Legs in the Blast[/caption] Well, here’s a question. Given all the sequestration-caused furloughs within the ranks of federal investigators and prosecutors who exactly will provide the “weight” behind this promised justice? Our federal law enforcement forces are already stretched to the limit and their massive workloads and mandatory furlough days aren't going to suddenly disappear because there is a new case on the books. Someone who is on the front line of all this (and therefore must remain confidential) wrote me after the tragedy to express total frustration. “Myself and all ‘Feds’ feel like we are getting beaten down so bad we can barely breathe. No raises for years, no future raises and now a massive reduction in salary through sequester furloughs [mandatory unpaid leave, during which we are NOT PERMITTED TO WORK or even answer our cell or emails!!]” This is the weighty justice system our president promises will leap into action? [caption id="attachment_6247" align="alignright" width="150"] AG Holder Warned of Sequestration Layoffs[/caption] Just last month my confidential source’s boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the $1.6 billion dollar sequestration cut to the Justice Department’s budget could have a “profound” impact on America’s safety in the future. “Important law enforcement and litigation programs are being disrupted,” Holder said. “Our capacity - to respond to crimes, investigate wrongdoing, and hold criminals accountable - has been reduced.” Well, now the Justice Department has on its plate what will surely turn out to be a major and lengthy investigation into the Boston bombings. In addition, agents are being diverted with distracting events like the toxic ricin-laced letters sent to both the President and Senator Roger Wicker by a suspect in Mississippi. After several reports of suspicious packages at the U.S. Capitol Secret Service agents were called to supervise evacuations. In the New York metro area, there were dozens of citizen reports responding to the “If you see something, say something” command. The feds are surely monitoring those as well. [caption id="attachment_6250" align="alignleft" width="150"] The Anti-U.S. Terrorism Threat is Not Over[/caption] With depleted federal law enforcement ranks and morale about as low as it can go, what kind of progress can citizens expect on these investigations and prosecutions? And, here’s an even more ominous question posed by my confidential federal source. “Did someone who was on furlough, or perhaps even worse, who's morale is so devastated that s/he can no longer even focus on the mission, miss something? What if the dramatic reduction in resources and morale had an impact on the government's inability to prevent this horrible event??” That got me thinking. Did the CIA miss telephone or internet chatter that could have tipped us off to the bombings? If the FBI’s Boston office had all agents on full-time duty might they have been able to sniff out this deadly plot? Will the federal prosecutor who gets this case have enough resources to do an adequate job? [caption id="attachment_6252" align="alignright" width="150"] Let's Cut Federal Spending - But Wisely![/caption] On March 1st, when the mandatory 2% across-the-board federal budget cuts went into effect, I remember thinking, “Good! Make the federal government economize just like my family has to!” Now, I’m back to wishing that our elected officials in Congress and the White House could get it together long enough to figure out a way to cut the truly unnecessary spending within our bloated budget. The first mission of the federal government is supposed to be to insure our national defense. It doesn't make sense to cut law enforcement’s funding while bankrolling pie-in-the sky foreign aid programs like the $30 million spent on a program to spur mango production in Pakistan or the $207 million the Defense Department spent on a duplicative second engine design for the F-35 fighter. There is no denying there is evil in the world. There always has been and there always will be and civilized societies need to be able to forcefully fight against it. Those who brazenly plant bombs to kill innocent people are terrorists – plain and simple. Terrorists – homegrown or foreign born – deserve only one thing: swift and decisive punishment, nothing more and nothing less. I fear America is not in the best position to deliver that. home  

{ 19 comments }

Is Your Stoplight Watching You?

by Diane Dimond on April 15, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6207" align="alignleft" width="150"] Traffic Camera Are Everywhere[/caption] I didn't realize I had broken the law until I opened an official envelope with a traffic ticket inside. Each time this has happened I've thought, “Darn those traffic cameras!” Okay, I likely said something spicier than that because there’s little else to say in one’s defense when confronted with photographic evidence that you have run a red light. Twice New York State has sent me tickets for running a red light as I struggled to turn left in crushing New York City traffic. The third time the news came from my cousin, Sandy Hays, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She called to tell me that when I had borrowed her husband’s car during a trip to my hometown I had been caught speeding on an off-ramp near the University of New Mexico. Embarrassed, I sent her a check for $75.00 to cover the fine. A month or so later Sandy sent me a return check saying the city had come to realize their speed-trap camera had malfunctioned. Ah, sweet absolution! [caption id="attachment_6208" align="alignright" width="150"] Cams Capture Your License Plate Number[/caption] Not long after that episode Albuquerque voters decided to do away with the tattletale cameras all together.  Across the country, other locations did the same. Ballot initiatives to unplug the spy cams have passed in about two dozen cities in at least nine states. Other locales are considering ban too. A trend, you say? Not so fast. This is big business, folks, and while the traffic cams may be gone where you live other parts of your state may still have them. In New Mexico, for example, Albuquerque ditched the cameras but nearby Rio Rancho did not and neither did Santa Fe or Las Cruces. Take it from me, these cameras are not going to disappear. For cash-strapped areas it could be budgetary suicide to do away with a program that brings in so much revenue. No place has enough ticket-writing cops to make up the difference. The two major companies that sell the gizmos -- American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems -- rake in the dough, of course. So do the roughly 660 cities and towns in 24 states that have contracts with those companies. Each location negotiates its own deal with the firm of their choice, deciding whether it’s a 50-50 split of the ticket revenues or some other calculation. Both sides make plenty of money. [caption id="attachment_6209" align="alignleft" width="150"] For Safety or For Fines Money?[/caption] An investigation by NBC revealed that Washington, D.C. brought in $18 million in camera ticket fines last year. In Texas, one single camera in Arlington has generated $2.5 million. Chicago’s expanded program is estimated to bring in $150 million this year. Making money is not necessarily a bad thing in my book. I’m all for free market enterprise and if lawbreakers are caught and stopped from repeating their bad behavior then that’s icing on the cake. (Yes, even if I am one who’s caught!) Supporters of the automated ticketing systems quote statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that show the cameras reduce accidents and save lives. Those opposed think it’s just another way for the government to get in your wallet and they point to a Federal Highway Administration study that concluded red-light cameras have actually caused more rear-end collisions as wary drivers suddenly slam on their brakes at an intersection. Many miss the days when an officer’s discretion might conclude they legally entered the intersection on a yellow light while the camera captures the moment the light turned red. [caption id="attachment_6210" align="alignright" width="103"] Questionable Dealings[/caption] Here’s what I find odious about how these companies do business. The mayor of Chicago actually banned RedFlex from re-bidding on their traffic cam contract after the Chicago Tribune reported company lobbyists had spent thousands on entertainment and hotel rooms for the city official tasked with awarding the lucrative contract. [caption id="attachment_6212" align="alignleft" width="150"] Questionable Company Dealings[/caption] In Florida, American Traffic Solutions spent $1.5 million lobbying city officials and contributing to political campaigns. After tossing around all that money American Traffic Solutions became the main supplier of cameras to more than 65 Florida cities. None of this is illegal but it feels underhanded to me. Most disturbing, is a revelation found in a study by the Public Interest Research Group. The PIRG reports that buried in the contracts local governments sign with these companies is a provision that mandates the narrowest duration of cautionary yellow light time. In other words, the shorter the yellow light time, the study concluded, “the more tickets a camera system issues (and) the more profit the vendor collects.” Buyers are not allowed to lengthen the yellow light time even if, as some studies show, it would reduce the number of accidents. If this surveillance product is so good and saves so many lives - why all these machinations? [caption id="attachment_6213" align="alignright" width="120"] Shorter Yellow Lights Insure More Red Light Tickets[/caption] Judges in Baltimore are skeptical too. They scolded the city and threw out a passel of tickets after it was revealed city workers had shortened yellow light times below recommended limits. There have been problems with shortened yellow lights in states from California to Tennessee. In New Jersey, transportation officials ordered nearly two dozen traffic cam programs suspended after finding someone had tampered with yellow light timing. Even after all these negatives have been revealed I still stick by my prediction that traffic cams will not disappear. In fact, you may soon find them in places you never imagined. Both companies have now started pushing cameras to be mounted on the swing-out arms on school buses. The idea, of course, is to capture photographic evidence of those who ignore traffic laws and drive around a stopped school bus. Currently, 10 pilot programs are underway in six states. Drivers beware. home    

{ 12 comments }

Judges Act for Justice

by Diane Dimond on April 8, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6188" align="alignleft" width="150"] Judges CAN Right Judicial Wrongs[/caption] We often hear people associated with the criminal justice system complain about how it works – or fails to work. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, police and social workers all cite specifics that they believe tip the scales of fairness. Very rarely – if ever – do we hear from a judge. The ethics of their profession mandate they remain mum about public policy issues while on the bench. Even after they retire the public rarely gets the benefit of their insight. I think that is a shame. Who better to help teach the public about how politician’s laws – sometimes crafted and passed with headlines in mind – actually affect citizens? This is a story about not one -- but two -- judges from different states that came together to pro-actively help a woman they believed had been given a raw deal at sentencing. Their actions speak volumes about our justice system and proves there really is no such thing as a one-size-fits all sentencing. [caption id="attachment_6189" align="alignright" width="150"] Dallaire at Home-Thanks to New York Times[/caption] In 2003, Denise Dallaire, a college graduate, was convicted for possessing and selling a relatively small amount of crack cocaine in Rhode Island. Seven years earlier she had been arrested on a similar charge. (She explained she really wasn’t into drugs herself but enjoyed the money she could make selling them) When Dallaire attended college in Connecticut she had once thrown a glass and injured someone in a bar fight and had been arrested. By the time Dallaire, at age 26, came before Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Lagueux to face the last charge she had three strikes against her. Under mandatory sentencing laws she was automatically considered a “career criminal.” Judge Lagueux made it clear at sentencing that his hands were tied – he was forced by law to pass a stiff sentence. [caption id="attachment_6190" align="alignleft" width="150"] U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux[/caption] “This is one case where the guidelines work an injustice,” he said that day in 2003, “And I’d like to do something about it but I can’t.” Lagueux sentenced Dallaire to 15 years in prison. That moment bothered the judge for all the years Denise served her time at the federal prison for women in Danbury, Connecticut. Over the last decade Dallaire has been an exemplary inmate. She has made thousands of blankets, hats and pillows to donate to children suffering from cancer, she organized fellow inmates to decorate and sell Christmas trees on behalf of cancer charities. Dallaire admitted she deserved prison and that she had made, “a lot of stupid and ridiculous decisions,” in her early life. She seemed resigned to her fate and looked forward to her release in 2018. She had no possibility of early release. At Danbury Prison Denise Dallaire met another judge – U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson from Brooklyn. Every year Gleeson makes a pilgrimage to the prison so as to remind himself where he sends defendants. The judge takes his New York University Law School students and clerks with him. Gleeson got to know Denise and told the New York Times he came to realize her case was a textbook example of how mandated sentences do more to ruin lives than protect society. [caption id="attachment_6191" align="alignright" width="150"] Judge Gleeson Made it a Habit to Visit Prison[/caption] “There are a lot of people like Denise doing bone-crushing time under the old sentencing regime,” Judge Gleeson said. “We need to try to find ways to help them.” It is important to note that just two years after Denise was sentenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing guidelines, originally designed to target drug kingpins, were unconstitutional. Congress agreed and has twice passed laws to reduce sentences for crack cocaine convictions like Denise’s. Judge Gleeson wants to start what he calls, “The Mercy Project” wherein pro bono lawyers would help the hundreds of prisoners (thousands, by some estimates) languishing under antiquated sentences. With that in mind, Gleeson convinced a friend, a top New York lawyer named Jonathan Polkes, to seek a presidential pardon for Dallaire. Part of the process required them to go back to Judge Lagueux to sign-on to the idea. Lagueux earnestly wanted to help Denise but didn’t think the pardon idea would work. Instead, he pointed out a procedural flaw that he, himself, had made at sentencing that could be exploited. Lagueux suggested bringing the case back to Rhode Island on the basis of his self-reported mistake. [caption id="attachment_6195" align="alignleft" width="150"] Mercy for Dying Woman & Daughter[/caption] Last month, Denise Dallaire was brought before the now 81 year old judge who had sentenced her so many years earlier. “I felt bound by those mandatory guidelines and I hated them,” Judge Lagueux explained to the sobbing prisoner before him. “I’m sorry I sent you away for 15 years.” The judge then instructed that Dallaire be released on time served. He told her to hurry home to her sick mother in Groton, Connecticut. She was able to be with her mother for her final eleven days. As for her future, Denise says she wants to dedicate her life to helping others who are serving long sentences win commutation like she did. Certainly, mandatory sentencing has helped lock up many real career criminals for a long time. But over-sentencing the undeserving doesn’t keep us safer. Keeping them in prison long after the law that put them there has been struck down only adds to our mammoth prison costs. And, with every year that ticks by it eats away at the prisoner’s chance for re-claiming a productive life on the outside. I like Judge Gleeson’s idea of a selective Mercy Project to review the sentences of prisoners caught in the cracks like Denise. Any other justice-seeking judges out there interested? home  

{ 7 comments }

Crime Rates Are Down – But Why?

by Diane Dimond on March 11, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6118" align="alignleft" width="120"] Down: Crimes like Murder, Rape and Burglary[/caption] If you follow the news you've heard that violent crime rates are down all across the country. I know it is hard to believe after news of mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado and the current murder spree in Chicago but facts are facts. The instances of crime have been slowly and surely declining for the last two decades. Back in 1994, a Gallup survey found that more than 50% of Americans cited crime as the nation’s biggest problem. In another Gallup survey conducted last year that number was down to just 2%. I keep wondering why? What caused the rate of murder, rape, armed robbery and other violence-inspired crimes to plummet so dramatically? Did we just get lucky or is there a specific reason (or reasons) for the improvement? [caption id="attachment_6121" align="alignright" width="150"] Record Numbers of U.S. Prisoners[/caption] Opinions are as varied as the number of criminologists and scholars researching the issue. The theories range from the conventional to the controversial. Most criminologists agree on a group of factors that caused the decline. • The U.S. incarceration rate is among the highest in the world. Plainly put, we have taken record numbers of criminals off the street. • The increased number of police on the beat and pro-active policing. Bottom line, it is now harder to commit a crime. Citizens are more alert these days and their calls to 911 bring immediate help. Also, surveillance cameras are everywhere and they are believed to be a real deterrent. • The “graying of America.” Young people commit most of the crime and the U.S population has gotten progressively older. [caption id="attachment_6122" align="alignleft" width="150"] Give Youth A Place to Belong[/caption] • There are now many more social programs for youth which help keep young people occupied and focused on positive goals. • The government’s stepped-up aid programs -- such as unemployment, food stamps and rent controlled housing – means recipients are less likely to turn to financial or stress-motivated crime. But there are lots of other theories from learned sources about why America continues to experience a drop in violent crime. Some might seem far-fetched to you, others may be hard to swallow. Rick Nevin , a Virginia economist who consults with the National Center for Healthy Housing (among other studious pursuits) maintains that the decline in crime can be traced to the U.S. ban on lead in gasoline and house paints. In a series of graphs he demonstrates how the drop in the crime rate coincides perfectly with the coming-of-age of the first generation protected from lead exposure. The theory has not been widely researched because how do you study a group that has not been exposed to something? But, lead has long been associated with violent behavior and Nevin insists his research proves a link between the lead ban and a drop in crime not only here in the U.S. but in nine other countries as well. Richard Rosenfeld, the former president of the American Society of Criminology at the University of Missouri in St. Louis also cites the decline in opportunities for criminal behavior. He told reporters a while back that, “During severe recessions like the current one, with chronically high unemployment rates, more people are at home and can act as guardians for their home.” That translates into fewer home burglaries and property crimes. Rosenfeld also says the poor economy has left people with less cash and valuables, making criminals less likely to target them for robbery or theft. Some ardent NRA and other gun owners say the decline has occurred because so many Americans have chosen to arm themselves and have, therefore, created safer streets and homesteads. Anti-gun proponents point to the increase in the number of gun laws as being the reason violent crimes are on the downswing. There are no firm statistics to back up either theory.   [caption id="attachment_6127" align="alignleft" width="120"] That's the NRA's Disputed Stand[/caption] Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago offers what is probably the most controversial hypothesis for the two-decade long decrease in violent crimes. Levitt believes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion in January 1973 has had more to do with the drop in crime than any other factor. I have to admit, I winced when I read that. So I kept reading to learn more about his theory. Levitt and co-author John Donohue published a controversial paper that highlighted the year 1992 when crime in the U.S. first started to inch downward. They noted that it was a full 18 years after the high court’s historic decision on Rowe vs. Wade. Levitt and Donohue theorize that the legalization of abortion resulted in fewer unwanted children who would have gone on to commit youthful violent crimes. [caption id="attachment_6128" align="alignright" width="120"] Abortion Protest at the US Supreme Court[/caption] The pair studied the states that had been the earliest adopters of legalized abortion – Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington State – and found that those locations began to experience steep drops in the violent crime rate 18 years later. They also found that those states with the highest abortion rates experienced the greatest reduction in crime. So to the question, “What is responsible for the reduction in crime in the United States?” Clearly, it’s some sort of a combination of the various theories floating around. So take your pick. Please, make a pick because if Gallup survey numbers hold and only 2 % of Americans continue to see crime as a problem, we’re in trouble. Our complacency could easily allow crime rates to inch back up again carrying with it all manner of human suffering. home

{ 14 comments }

The Papal Conclave: Time for the Church to Clean Up Its Act

by Diane Dimond on March 4, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6095" align="alignleft" width="120"] Pope Benedict XVI Says Good-Bye[/caption] It is no secret. The Catholic Church is in crisis with many of its priests charged with un-Godly crimes. There seems to be no end to the reports of sex abuse of children, sex scandals within the ranks of the clergy and the blatant cover-up by church elders who should have been protecting the flock of faithful and not their ne’er-do-well colleagues. I don’t pretend to know why Pope Benedict XVI became the first to resign in almost 600 years. But, I’m going to bet it had something to do with the constant drumbeat of scandal that marked his 8 year reign. Before he became Pope he was Joseph Ratzinger, a German Cardinal. You may not know, however, that he had long been in charge of the Vatican office to which all reports about sexually misbehaving priests were directed. In other words, for years every single complaint about sexual abuse by a priest crossed the desk of Cardinal Ratzinger. [caption id="attachment_6097" align="alignright" width="120"] Will The Next Pope Deal With Priest Predators?[/caption] It would have been next to impossible for Ratzinger not to have noticed the trend. He surely must have wondered and prayed about the best path to take. Was Ratzinger the one who counseled silence among the ranks or did he just go along with it? And then, after all those years of monitoring the growing tsunami of sexual abuse complaints Cardinal Ratzinger became the Pope. Certainly during his years in that seat of power he had the authority to enact meaningful change. He did not. Agreed, he was just one man within the vast Vatican framework. But he was at the top. He was the man within the organization who was in a position to know about every accusation and what action (if any) had been taken to learn the truth about allegations of sexual abuse. The information about priests with multiple complaints against them was at Ratzinger’s fingertips. [caption id="attachment_6102" align="alignleft" width="150"] It Has Been Simmering For Years[/caption] He could easily have looked up information about all those priests who had been transferred from parish to parish – and the children who claimed they too had been abused. Ratzinger’s office kept track of priests who had been sent away for “rehabilitation” to treatment centers in New Mexico, Missouri and Maryland to name just three. I had a sort of complicated religious upbringing. My mother was from a devoutly Methodist household and my father called himself agnostic. I went to Sunday school as a child and later my step-Grandmother began to take me to her Catholic church. I was mesmerized by the cathedrals, the pageantry and the seemingly devoted priests who the congregation called “Father.” I sent my only child to Catholic elementary and high school and to this day I feel she got a great education. I think that there are many good and dedicated men in the priesthood. [caption id="attachment_6103" align="alignright" width="150"] Conclave Held Inside Vatican Gates[/caption] Today, as plans are underway for the Vatican’s Conclave where the Pope’s successor will be chosen I wonder what he is thinking. Does he look back and wonder about the wisdom of keeping the secrets of predatory priests all these years? Does he worry about the fate of victimized children? Does he wonder if the wiser path might have been to stand firm against sin, call in the police and let prosecutors do their jobs? Certainly, the church’s reputation would have emerged stronger had offending priests been treated like other criminals. As the world’s Cardinals converge on Rome I imagine many of them are looking for a sign from God about the right thing to do, the right ballot to cast. Who should they vote to be the next Vicar of Christ? Who among them has the strength and moral character to do what must be done? Do they want a caretaker or a leader? [caption id="attachment_6105" align="alignleft" width="150"] What Will The Discussion Be Before The Vote?[/caption] Before they vote I hope they first realize that if something definitive isn't done to respond to the sex scandals – something grand and meaningful -- the very future of the institution is in grave danger. The sheer breadth of the disgrace engulfing parishes across the United States, the British Isles, Latin America, Africa and other countries is so immense as to be completely debilitating if not addressed. Who am I to offer suggestions? But I hope they begin the conclave with a discussion of this most obvious problem. Each Cardinal should carefully weigh what their colleagues say about how to deal with the scandal. I hope they don’t vote for a candidate because “it is time” for a Latino, Black or American Pope. They should vote for the best, most forward thinking man for the job – and they should vote like their organization’s future depends on it. Because it does. [caption id="attachment_6106" align="alignright" width="122"] Not A Natural Way of Life?[/caption] They also, clearly, need to discuss the elephant in the room: Celibacy. Requiring that any human being abstain from all sexual activity is an unnatural prerequisite to my mind. I’m not saying that being celibate – or struggling to remain celibate – causes pedophilia. But I think it is safe to say it can cause sexual confusion and frustration. Further, I think there have been some men who have gravitated to the priesthood because they feared their sexual desire for children and thought the church could help them keep it in check. And, the most obvious point about the celibacy requirement: it automatically excludes all men who have loving and healthy relationships with women. Isn’t a man who knows the true love of another person the perfect candidate to minister to and counsel others? It seems so self-defeating for a church to exclude faithful men at a time when they are reported to be so desperate for new priestly recruits. Lift the celibacy rule and I bet the church would see a flood of devoted religious men step forward to spread the gospel. As the conclave gets underway I hope the Cardinals understand it is time for moral, compassionate and truly healing leadership at the Vatican. There is no better time than now for the church to clean up its act. home

{ 24 comments }

Calming the Volume of TV

by Diane Dimond on February 25, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6070" align="alignleft" width="120"] The Calm Act - How Effective Is It Really?[/caption] Don’t look now but we have another new law on the books. This one has the soothing acronym “The Calm Act.” That’s short for The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act. In layman’s terms it requires TV stations, cable operators, purveyors of satellite TV and other providers to make sure TV commercials aren't so darned loud! The Calm Act requires commercials be no louder than the surrounding program in which they are shown. I always figured TV ads were extra loud so you could still hear them from other parts of the house – like the kitchen or bathroom – if you stepped away during the commercial break. My husband, the audiophile, maintains that commercials are really no higher in volume than the accompanying program and that it is just, “The dynamic mid-range of sound advertisers use to get our attention,” – things like swelling music and explosions along with the announcers. I nod my head as if I understand what he’s talking about but I really don’t. To me loud is loud.  [caption id="attachment_6066" align="alignright" width="120"] The FCC Enforces The Calm Act[/caption] Let’s agree. We have all been bombarded by over-the-top, blaringly obnoxious commercials and lurched for the remote to turn down the volume, right? Well, now the law mandates there is to be an official place to complain. The Federal Communications Commission has set up a web based complaint center at www.fcc.gov/complaints. I visited the site and found a simple five question one-page form which asks for information about exactly what time and on what channel you heard the offending ad. There is also a toll free telephone number to call for a “consumer specialist” to help you through the process.   I had some questions of my own. I wondered how many complaints the FCC has gotten since the regulations went into effect in mid-December 2012. I wondered how many staffers have been dedicated to take our complaints, how the FCC decides if a complaint is valid and what happens to repeat offenders. I also pondered what the FCC meant with this statement in its news release announcing The Calm Act complaint line:  “A commercial may have louder and quieter moments, but, overall, it should be no louder than the surrounding programming. This may mean, however, that some commercials will comply with the new rules, but still sound “too loud” to some viewers.”  [caption id="attachment_6067" align="alignleft" width="150"] Who Hasn't Experienced Loud Commercials?[/caption] Huh? What does that mean? How can a TV ad that is still “too loud” be in compliance with the new law that requires all television volume to be within the same approximate range? So I called the FCC in Washington for answers to what I thought were pretty routine questions.  Several calls and e-mails over two days netted me exactly nothing. In fact, it left me with the clear impression that there is no solid infrastructure in place to handle complaints, no dedicated staff and no definitive tally on the number of complaints already received. This was the extent of the FCC’s official response:  “In the two months since the CALM act rules took effect, the FCC has been examining complaints to determine if there are any patterns and trends behind them. If a pattern becomes apparent, the FCC can then initiate an investigation.” [caption id="attachment_6068" align="alignright" width="150"] Rep. Anna Eshoo (D)  & Sen. Wicker (R) Sponsored Act[/caption] Wait a minute. A complaint shouldn’t have to be part of a trend. It should stand alone and be checked out to see if it is valid or not. And, let’s be clear, the FCC has had plenty of time to get its act together. The Calm Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate by republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi in 2008, passed Congress in early December 2010 and was signed into law by the president shortly thereafter. It granted the FCC one full year to get the complaint system in place and ready to go. I doubled back and tried to get information from an FCC “consumer specialist” at that toll free number, but guess what? I never got past the annoying phone system recording which makes no mention of Calm Act complaints. A phone number to help you complain that doesn’t help – priceless. I guess you could fill out the on-line complaint form and submit it but I can’t guarantee your grievance will go anywhere. I can guarantee that you will be frustrated if you try to get through on the toll free number. There’s no stopping my curious brain so I called Senator Wicker’s office to ask if this was the kind of government response to taxpayers he had envisioned as he struggled to win bipartisan support for the bill. His spokesperson told me bluntly, “We got it over the goal line but obviously there are some things the FCC still needs to do to get it where the Senator intended.”  [caption id="attachment_6072" align="alignleft" width="150"] Congress Passes Law But How Are They Enforced?[/caption] Look, this is hardly life and death stuff here but the law is the law. I remember the hoopla that accompanied passage of The Calm Act fourteen months ago and all the politicians who proudly said it would empower the public and improve American’s quality of life. My journey to get information about the real-world application of legislation also makes me wonder about all the other regulatory laws Congress passes and then entrusts to government agencies to set in to motion. If The Calm Act is any indication of the way things work in Washington I feel safe in saying we taxpayers are not getting our money’s worth. home    

{ 20 comments }

America’s Homegrown Killing Fields

by Diane Dimond on February 4, 2013

[caption id="attachment_6005" align="alignleft" width="150"] Going "Postal" in America since 1983[/caption]   It has been a long time since the first postal worker went postal back in 1983. Since then America has endured countless other mass shootings. But, the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut was supposed to change everything. We collectively declared that the horror of innocent children being gunned down in cold blood was a game changer. A troubled son shooting his mother to death in her bed and then rampaging through an elementary school was our national wake-up call. Finally, we told each other, it was time for America to do something about its gun problem! It would have been a glorious homage to the Newtown victims. Sorry to say, however, those 20 children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School died needlessly. So did victim number one, Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter. [caption id="attachment_6006" align="alignright" width="150"] It Was Supposed to be a Game Changer[/caption] Since that awful day in Connecticut last December 14 special interest groups have drawn lines in the sand, politicians have made declarations, the Vice President held some meetings where some of the same old suggestions popped up. We have argued about Second Amendment rights, semi-automatic rifles, the number of bullets in magazine clips, background checks, gun show sales and how the NRA must be to blame for the whole rotten mess.  In reality, it is the ubiquitous handgun that does most of the killing in this country but few are talking about that. And it is not the vast majority of gun owners who dutifully follow the law and register their guns (and maybe belongs to the NRA) that are the problem. It is the criminal element and the mentally ill who most often perpetrate gun violence.  Please, let’s get it straight who the real enemy is and focus on what to do about them!   [caption id="attachment_6008" align="alignleft" width="150"] The Daily U.S. Gun Death Toll Here[/caption] It makes me incredibly sad as I make my daily check at a web portal set up by the on-line news site, Slate, and co-managed by a group called @GunDeaths. The editors readily admit that their U.S. murder data is incomplete because in a country as big as ours it is not easy to contemporaneously register every single death. So, they augment their own reporting with verifiable death information the public sends in. The site’s best calculation concludes that since the Newtown massacre more than 1480 Americans have died by gun violence.  At my deadline the heavily populated state of California led the way with 146 people murdered in the 7 weeks since the Newtown tragedy. About a dozen of them were children.  In Texas, there were 110 gun deaths. Florida was close behind with 90. The city of Chicago has become a virtual killing field with at least 53 recent gun deaths despite having one of the country’s most restrictive set of gun laws. Illinois’ statewide gun death total since Newtown is 77. Missouri counted nearly 51 people and New York had 42 killed by guns. In New Mexico, the list reflected another mass shooting by a troubled son who gunned down both his parents and three siblings. That brought the death toll in the Land of Enchantment to at least 15 since the elementary school shooting in Connecticut that was supposed to change everything.  [caption id="attachment_6010" align="alignright" width="150"] At least 1480 Filled Coffins Since Newtown[/caption] Think of it: More than 1480 bullet-ridden bodies stacked up at morgues across the country. 1480 funerals, countless thousands of family members forced to join the ranks of grief. At this pace 2013’s tally will soon surpass the number of people who died in the terrorists acts of September 11th. We will count more dead Americans right here at home this year than all the U.S. military members who lost their lives in the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.  How many more will die before we can agree on concrete solutions?  As we dither and do nothing, North Carolina has seen 58 gun-related deaths since Newtown. Georgia reported 55 dead. Louisiana had 53, Colorado 33, Michigan 46, Oklahoma 37, Indiana 37, Arizona 29, Washington State 22 …. The sorrowful list goes on and on and continues to grow at a steady gallop. Perhaps we should take a cue from Australia where plenty of people still have guns. In 1996, after a massacre in which 35 people died swift action was taken. The most dangerous rifles and shotguns were outlawed and the government launched a buy-back program of those banned firearms. Over the next decade gun related homicides fell by 59 percent and the suicide rate fell by 65 percent. A coincidence? Maybe.  [caption id="attachment_6011" align="alignleft" width="150"] Rationing Bullets the Answer?[/caption] I don’t hear much talk about cutting off the criminal’s favorite ammunition source – the internet – or more closely regulating the sale of bullets so that only the most demonstrably responsible gun owners could buy them. With 311 million guns in America maybe a limit on the number of new guns that could be imported or manufactured here would be in order. And, my personal favorite: Let’s pass an iron clad national law that any criminal using a gun in the commission of a crime gets an automatic extra 10 years tacked onto their sentence. No questions, no leniency. This tactic protects honorable gun owners and insures both the criminal and their confiscated gun are off the streets for a long time.  In the meantime, I challenge every newspaper in America to dedicate a daily front page spot to the growing gun death toll tally - complete with pictures of the dead children caught up in our adult madness. Every radio station and evening newscast should dedicate time to this too. It’s easy in our busy lives to overlook the carnage - but not if it’s human toll is staring us in the face every day. We have to keep the dialogue alive if we ever hope to find real solutions. home  

{ 34 comments }

America’s Immigration Mess – The Next Big Issue?

by Diane Dimond on January 21, 2013

[caption id="attachment_5972" align="alignleft" width="150"] If Not Now - When?[/caption] ~ In the midst of national debates on fiscal cliffs and gun control could this also be the time to tackle our immigration woes? ~ Let’s be honest and agree that U.S. immigration policy is a complete disaster. For too many decades this country has ignored violations of our immigration laws and now we have a real mess on our hands – an estimated 11 million people who have entered the country illegally and are living and working here under the radar. Whose fault is it? There is plenty of blame to go around so I suggest we don’t even go there anymore. Presidents from both parties have declared they would do something to curb the flood of foreigners illegally entering the country. No meaningful changes occurred. Over the years both political parties promised to punch into place an effective immigration policy. Yet Congress has still failed to pass laws that would truly get a grip on the problem. Time to stop the blame game. Time to start figuring out what to do. Time for the one side to stop bellowing, “No amnesty!” and time for the other side to stop declaring, “No one is illegal.” [caption id="attachment_5973" align="alignright" width="150"] Intriguing to Say - But Not True[/caption] The cold hard facts are clear: Millions of people knowingly and willingly broke our laws by entering the U.S. illegally or staying here after their visas expired. These illegal immigrants (call them undocumented workers if it makes you feel better) knew that any day they could be caught but they proceeded to have children – the very children they complain about being separated from once the U.S. begins deportation efforts. Look, an individual’s past bad choices are not the fault of the host government. But let’s face it, these folks and their families are settled here and a majority of them are otherwise law-abiding and hard working. It would be impossible to catch, convict and send home more than 11 million people. Besides, we are a nation that prides ourselves on human rights – our nation was founded on that principal and we boldly preach it to others. So, what does our conscience tell us we should do with those immigrants who find America such a desirable place to live that they would break their backs for a poverty-level wage just to raise their families here? Calling for mass deportations isn’t a workable solution at this point so give up the thought. There are fresh indications that a President is once again going to push Congress for an overhaul of the immigration system. According to reports, President Obama’s proposal will include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million but it apparently won’t be an easy journey. There will be provisions for fines, payment of back taxes and other obstacles that must be faced before the immigrant reaches the bona fide, tax paying status of an American citizen. [caption id="attachment_5974" align="alignleft" width="150"] Will His Immigration Plan Be Dead-on-Arrival?[/caption] The president’s proposed legislation is also said to include a guest worker program for future immigrants, extra visas for highly skilled foreigners to legally remain here and a mandatory nationwide employment verification system that would check every workers legal status before they are hired. [The so-called E-verify system achieves this now but is strictly a voluntary program for employers.] Would it be too much to ask the opposition party not to automatically hate the president’s proposal? Could the politicians somehow find a way to sit down and peacefully study the suggestions before declaring the plan dead-on-arrival? Maybe after a bi-partisan group of Senators finishes hammering out its version of an immigration reform package the two proposals could be calmly compromised into one great bill – for the good of the country. Wouldn't it be a refreshing change to see the toxic cloud of constant disagreement that envelopes Washington lift during this New Year? Years ago when I first began this crime and justice column I used to write passionately about the immigration mess. I remember, literally, hammering the computer keys to try to express my outrage at the massive numbers of immigrants who had so boldly sneaked across our borders, living in our towns and taking our jobs. [caption id="attachment_5985" align="alignright" width="150"] An Emotion That Gets You Nowhere[/caption] I've come to realize outrage gets us nowhere. Accepting reality can get us somewhere – if it is then coupled with a desire to truly find solutions to the country’s biggest problems. To me, the problem of illegal immigrants is sort of like the gun debate currently raging across America. There are too many to wish away (311 million guns as I recently reported) so the only logical thing to do is figure out a way to more safely include them in society. This is not an endorsement of the Obama plan. In fact, from what I’ve heard the president’s proposal might not be comprehensive enough. What’s the process for dealing with illegal aliens arrested for crimes committed on U.S. soil? Will the most violent be deported immediately or tried and imprisoned here first? What is to be done with those who re-enter the country? And most important, what is the plan to secure our still porous borders? No program will work very well if you leave unguarded the northern and southern entry points to the country. There will always be more questions than answers at the beginning of trying to tackle a major problem. But the choice is clear. We either do nothing and let the situation fester further or we take steps to help turn those here illegally become taxpaying citizens. It could be a win-win for all concerned. home

{ 23 comments }

← Previous Entries