FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the Chicago Health Care Fraud Prevention Summit Chicago ~ Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Thank you, Dr. Budetti for those kind words – and for your outstanding leadership as Deputy Administrator for Program Integrity for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It’s a pleasure to be back in Chicago today – and a privilege to join with you and Pat Fitzgerald, the outstanding United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, as well as my good friend, Secretary Sebelius – in discussing the extraordinary progress we’ve made in preventing and combating health care fraud across this region – and in exploring strategies, and new technological tools, for taking our national efforts to a new level.
I’d particularly like to recognize each of the Administration leaders, law enforcement officials, investigators, prosecutors, industry representatives, and other critical partners who are with us today. In so many ways, the people in this room are at the heart of our efforts to protect the American people from health care fraud – not just in the Chicago area, but in communities throughout the country.
Although you’re approaching this problem from many different perspectives, you have seen the devastating impact of health care fraud firsthand. Many of you have called attention to the fact that modern schemes are as diverse as the imaginations of those who perpetrate them, and as sophisticated as technology will permit. And there’s no question that – here in Illinois and across the nation – the challenges before us have reached crisis proportions.
Fortunately – as a result of your engagement, your expertise, and your unwavering commitment – we’ve made remarkable, measurable strides in implementing the solutions that we need – and that American consumers, patients, and taxpayers deserve. We’re being innovative, proactive, and collaborative. And, as a result, the last three years have been characterized by significant – and, in many cases, record – progress, particularly in our ability to analyze claims and other data in order to rapidly identify emerging fraud patterns.
How did we get here? In large part, because – nearly three years ago – the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services came together in a new way, and made a collective commitment to meeting our shared goals and responsibilities. This commitment inspired Secretary Sebelius and I to launch a landmark joint initiative – the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, known as “HEAT.” Since then, Secretary Sebelius and I have traveled across the country – and held six other regional summits like this one – in order to ensure that this fight will remain a top priority for state and local officials, for federal investigators and prosecutors, and for our industry partners.
With each of these gatherings – as with today’s important Summit here in Chicago – we’re sending a powerful signal to all those who would threaten the strength and integrity of our health care system: that a new era of communication and cooperation has begun. And that this Administration has never been more determined to move aggressively in protecting patients and consumers, bringing criminals to justice, and building on what’s already been achieved.
Since its inception, HEAT has helped to leverage the tremendous strength of federal, state, and local partnerships – and enhanced our ability to protect taxpayer dollars and the integrity of government programs that depend on those dollars. It also has strengthened our ability to hold accountable those who have violated our laws in order to victimize the most vulnerable members of our society. A driving force behind this work has been our Medicare Strike Forces, which focus attention and resources on major fraud “hot spots” across the country.
To date, Strike Force operations have charged more than 1,200 defendants for fraudulently billing the Medicare program for more than $3.7 billion. Our agencies have expanded Medicare Strike Forces to nine locations – including, as of last February, Chicago.
This has enabled us to build substantial momentum. And the results we’ve achieved have been nothing less than historic.
In fact, during the last fiscal year alone, civil and criminal health care fraud enforcement efforts by the Justice Department and HHS recovered nearly $4.1 billion in funds stolen or taken improperly from federal health care programs across the country. This is an unprecedented accomplishment. It represents the highest amount ever recovered in a single year. And the landmark Affordable Care Act gave us additional critical resources, tools, and authorities to continue this important work. Over the same period, we also opened thousands of new criminal and civil health care fraud investigations, dismantled criminal enterprises, thwarted large-scale fraud schemes, and secured more than 700 convictions. Perhaps most notably, our investments in this work are yielding extraordinary returns: over the last three years, for every dollar we’ve spent fighting against health-care fraud, we’ve returned an average of seven dollars to the U.S. Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund and others.
These numbers are stunning. But – as you’ve seen right here in Chicago – they are only the beginning.
Last September – as part of a nationwide Medicare Strike Force takedown – four Chicago residents – including one doctor – were charged for their roles in a variety of alleged schemes defrauding the Medicare program of more than $4 million. In all, a total of 91 defendants were charged for submitting more than $295 million in false billings – marking the highest amount of false Medicare billings for a single operation in the Strike Force’s history.
In February, a judgment of over $16 million was entered in a civil lawsuit filed by the United States against a healthcare clinic. The clinic was charged for illegally administering prescriptions and for allowing unlicensed and unqualified practitioners to treat patients for mental health issues. In a separate case, last month, 11 new defendants were added to a federal indictment against an individual who operated two home health care businesses in Chicago. The new defendants allegedly conspired to swindle Medicare of at least $20 million over a five year period. And a little over two weeks ago, the Department of Justice reached an $18.5 million settlement with a Chicago-area firm charged with improperly billing Medicare for ambulatory cardiac telemetry services.
Thanks largely to the remarkable efforts of U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald and his team, as well as the Justice Department’s Criminal and Civil Divisions, the HHS Office of the Inspector General, and other key federal, state, and local law enforcement partners – since HEAT expanded to Chicago in February 2011, we’ve charged a total of 37 defendants in 15 separate criminal cases related to health care fraud right here in the Northern District of Illinois. They’ve set an excellent example – and, in the fight against health care fraud, are providing a model for success.
These cases, and countless other local civil and criminal enforcement actions, are emblematic of our nationwide achievements. They prove that our collaborative efforts are working. And they reinforce the importance of engagement, the value of public-private partnerships, and the critical nature of conversations like the one we’re hosting today – focused on harnessing the power of science and technology to make our efforts both more efficient and more effective.
Of course, despite everything we’ve achieved in recent years, we cannot yet be satisfied. And we can’t afford to become complacent. We have a great deal of work before us – and many more challenges and obstacles to confront. But, with your continued dedication, leadership, and partnership, I believe that the successes you’ve already helped bring about here in Chicago and beyond are just the beginning. In the work of protecting the American people from health care fraud, I am proud to count you as colleagues – and as partners. I am honored to stand with you today. And I look forward to all that we can – and will – accomplish together in the days ahead.
At this time, it’s my privilege to introduce another key leader of these efforts – my good friend, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.
Showing posts with label ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER. Show all posts
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS AT NATIONAL FORUM ON YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION SUMMIT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEBSITE
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Summit Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, April 2, 2012
Thank you, Mary Lou [Leary]. I appreciate your kind words – and I’m especially grateful for your leadership of the Office of Justice Programs, and your commitment to the goals of this critical Forum. I’d also like to thank the many Administration leaders, federal agency partners – and particularly OJP staff members – who have worked so hard to bring us together today. Each of you has an essential role to play in advancing the Justice Department’s efforts to prevent and combat violence among – and directed toward – our nation’s young people. And I am proud to stand with you this morning.
It’s a privilege to join my colleagues, Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius and Secretary [Shaun] Donovan, in welcoming such a diverse group of partners – including my good friend Congressman [Bobby] Scott and Mayor [Antonio] Villaraigosa – back to our nation’s capital for today’s Summit. I’d like to thank each of you, as well as well as the United States Attorneys who are with us today – Pat Fitzgerald, Melinda Haag, Barb McQuade, Carmen Ortiz, and Ed Stanton – for your collaborative efforts in building a national dialogue about youth violence – and for your focus on sharing the resources and strategies we need to address every aspect of this problem – from law enforcement, to public health, to public housing – and far beyond.
This gathering constitutes the latest step forward in our ongoing conversation about some of the most urgent challenges our young people face. And it marks an important opportunity – not only to assess and celebrate the progress we’ve made since last year’s Summit – but to explore strategies for taking this work to the next level.
Perhaps more than any other group, I know the people in this room understand the persistent threats – and the significant obstacles – that lie ahead. I know each of you is here because you’ve seen the shocking statistics. You’ve heard the stories from young people directly. And – in communities across this country – you’ve stood on the front lines of the struggle against youth violence.
Especially in recent weeks – as the importance of protecting our children from harm has been at the forefront of our national discourse – the urgency of this challenge has been brought into stark focus. And the need to take action has never been more clear.
Today, we know that the majority of our young people – more than 60 percent of them, in fact – have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence. We know that violence can take many forms, and that exposure can happen at home, during school, on our streets, and even online – where children face new and unprecedented threats every day. And we’ve seen that exposure to violence – as a witness or a victim – can have devastating, long-term effects on our children – increasing their chances for depression, substance-abuse, and violent behavior.
Recent analysis by Casey Family Programs – one of our nation’s leading child welfare foundations – provides a vivid illustration of what we’re up against. According to their findings, in just the last 24 hours – on average – more than 2,000 children were confirmed as victims of child abuse and neglect. Approximately four of those children, most likely under the age of five, died as a result. And roughly 16 young men between the ages of 10 and 24 became homicide victims.
This is not only alarming – it is unacceptable. And your efforts have sent the clear signal it cannot, and will not, be tolerated – and that, in this country, we will never give up on our children.
Fortunately, the level of understanding we’ve attained – and the diversity of perspectives represented here today – have empowered us to fight back. Since October, when we last came together to assess the Forum’s efforts, I know you’ve been busy putting your youth violence prevention plans into action at the local level, and bringing even more community leaders and stakeholders into this work. And, as we gather this morning, I understand that you have promising updates and innovations to share; success stories to highlight; and additional plans to unveil.
I’m confident that we will all benefit from the lessons you’ve learned. And I know everyone here is eager to capitalize on the sense of momentum you’ve helped to establish. Like many of you, I have seen the devastating effects of youth violence throughout my career. As a prosecutor and a judge, I saw the toll it exacts on communities, neighborhoods, and individual lives. As a U.S. Attorney, as Deputy Attorney General, I was determined to make the progress that our nation’s young people deserve. Today, as Attorney General – and as the father of three teenage children – I have made this work a top priority for our nation’s Department of Justice.
From the landmark Defending Childhood Initiative – which we launched in 2010 – to the work of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the groundbreaking research supported by the Office of Justice Programs – over the last few years, we’ve helped shed new light on complex youth violence issues and learn about the impacts of specific practices and policies. In close partnership with other Cabinet-level agencies like the Department of Education, we’re developing new strategies for understanding and disrupting some of the most urgent challenges our children face – including what’s become known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” that, in far too many communities, transforms our schools from doorways to opportunity into gateways to our correctional system. And in collaboration with state and local officials, academic experts, law enforcement officers, frontline practitioners, parents, coaches, and community leaders like all of you – from Boston to Chicago; from Detroit to Memphis; from Salinas to San Jose – we are reaching out, raising awareness – and making a meaningful, measurable difference in countless lives.
In fact, based on an independent assessment released last week, all six cities that are participating in this Forum have positive stories to report. These results are preliminary – but there’s no question that they constitute promising indications that – already – your comprehensive efforts are working. Our commitment is paying off. And we stand poised to build upon the strong foundation you’ve established.
That’s why – this morning – I am pleased to announce that we are currently developing plans to expand the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention to four additional cities – bringing our total up to ten. And we’ve released a new toolkit – which is available today at www.FindYouthInfo.gov – that will provide guidance on how to gather and use data on youth violence, identify community assets, and even enable additional communities to develop and implement comprehensive youth violence prevention plans of their own.
I am proud that the Justice Department has taken a central role in facilitating these efforts. And I am confident that the strategies you’re implementing will move us toward a new era of engagement, cooperation, and collaboration across local jurisdictions, state lines, and federal agencies. On behalf of my colleagues across both the Justice Department and the entire Administration, I want to pledge our ongoing support for your work.
Continuing the progress we celebrate today is not simply our professional obligation – it is our moral duty. Without question, we can be proud of all that the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention has already helped to accomplish. But, as I know every person here agrees, we cannot yet be satisfied. Today’s Summit presents an important opportunity to renew our commitment to these critical efforts, and to reaffirm our collective resolve: to protect our nation’s young people in every way we can. To empower our kids as well as we know how. And to challenge them to make good decisions – and to contribute to the work of strengthening our nation and honoring our founding principles of security, opportunity, and justice for all.
In advancing this work, I am grateful for your leadership. I am proud to count you as colleagues and as partners. And I look forward to where your efforts will take us from here.
Thank you.
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Summit Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, April 2, 2012
Thank you, Mary Lou [Leary]. I appreciate your kind words – and I’m especially grateful for your leadership of the Office of Justice Programs, and your commitment to the goals of this critical Forum. I’d also like to thank the many Administration leaders, federal agency partners – and particularly OJP staff members – who have worked so hard to bring us together today. Each of you has an essential role to play in advancing the Justice Department’s efforts to prevent and combat violence among – and directed toward – our nation’s young people. And I am proud to stand with you this morning.
It’s a privilege to join my colleagues, Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius and Secretary [Shaun] Donovan, in welcoming such a diverse group of partners – including my good friend Congressman [Bobby] Scott and Mayor [Antonio] Villaraigosa – back to our nation’s capital for today’s Summit. I’d like to thank each of you, as well as well as the United States Attorneys who are with us today – Pat Fitzgerald, Melinda Haag, Barb McQuade, Carmen Ortiz, and Ed Stanton – for your collaborative efforts in building a national dialogue about youth violence – and for your focus on sharing the resources and strategies we need to address every aspect of this problem – from law enforcement, to public health, to public housing – and far beyond.
This gathering constitutes the latest step forward in our ongoing conversation about some of the most urgent challenges our young people face. And it marks an important opportunity – not only to assess and celebrate the progress we’ve made since last year’s Summit – but to explore strategies for taking this work to the next level.
Perhaps more than any other group, I know the people in this room understand the persistent threats – and the significant obstacles – that lie ahead. I know each of you is here because you’ve seen the shocking statistics. You’ve heard the stories from young people directly. And – in communities across this country – you’ve stood on the front lines of the struggle against youth violence.
Especially in recent weeks – as the importance of protecting our children from harm has been at the forefront of our national discourse – the urgency of this challenge has been brought into stark focus. And the need to take action has never been more clear.
Today, we know that the majority of our young people – more than 60 percent of them, in fact – have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence. We know that violence can take many forms, and that exposure can happen at home, during school, on our streets, and even online – where children face new and unprecedented threats every day. And we’ve seen that exposure to violence – as a witness or a victim – can have devastating, long-term effects on our children – increasing their chances for depression, substance-abuse, and violent behavior.
Recent analysis by Casey Family Programs – one of our nation’s leading child welfare foundations – provides a vivid illustration of what we’re up against. According to their findings, in just the last 24 hours – on average – more than 2,000 children were confirmed as victims of child abuse and neglect. Approximately four of those children, most likely under the age of five, died as a result. And roughly 16 young men between the ages of 10 and 24 became homicide victims.
This is not only alarming – it is unacceptable. And your efforts have sent the clear signal it cannot, and will not, be tolerated – and that, in this country, we will never give up on our children.
Fortunately, the level of understanding we’ve attained – and the diversity of perspectives represented here today – have empowered us to fight back. Since October, when we last came together to assess the Forum’s efforts, I know you’ve been busy putting your youth violence prevention plans into action at the local level, and bringing even more community leaders and stakeholders into this work. And, as we gather this morning, I understand that you have promising updates and innovations to share; success stories to highlight; and additional plans to unveil.
I’m confident that we will all benefit from the lessons you’ve learned. And I know everyone here is eager to capitalize on the sense of momentum you’ve helped to establish. Like many of you, I have seen the devastating effects of youth violence throughout my career. As a prosecutor and a judge, I saw the toll it exacts on communities, neighborhoods, and individual lives. As a U.S. Attorney, as Deputy Attorney General, I was determined to make the progress that our nation’s young people deserve. Today, as Attorney General – and as the father of three teenage children – I have made this work a top priority for our nation’s Department of Justice.
From the landmark Defending Childhood Initiative – which we launched in 2010 – to the work of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the groundbreaking research supported by the Office of Justice Programs – over the last few years, we’ve helped shed new light on complex youth violence issues and learn about the impacts of specific practices and policies. In close partnership with other Cabinet-level agencies like the Department of Education, we’re developing new strategies for understanding and disrupting some of the most urgent challenges our children face – including what’s become known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” that, in far too many communities, transforms our schools from doorways to opportunity into gateways to our correctional system. And in collaboration with state and local officials, academic experts, law enforcement officers, frontline practitioners, parents, coaches, and community leaders like all of you – from Boston to Chicago; from Detroit to Memphis; from Salinas to San Jose – we are reaching out, raising awareness – and making a meaningful, measurable difference in countless lives.
In fact, based on an independent assessment released last week, all six cities that are participating in this Forum have positive stories to report. These results are preliminary – but there’s no question that they constitute promising indications that – already – your comprehensive efforts are working. Our commitment is paying off. And we stand poised to build upon the strong foundation you’ve established.
That’s why – this morning – I am pleased to announce that we are currently developing plans to expand the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention to four additional cities – bringing our total up to ten. And we’ve released a new toolkit – which is available today at www.FindYouthInfo.gov – that will provide guidance on how to gather and use data on youth violence, identify community assets, and even enable additional communities to develop and implement comprehensive youth violence prevention plans of their own.
I am proud that the Justice Department has taken a central role in facilitating these efforts. And I am confident that the strategies you’re implementing will move us toward a new era of engagement, cooperation, and collaboration across local jurisdictions, state lines, and federal agencies. On behalf of my colleagues across both the Justice Department and the entire Administration, I want to pledge our ongoing support for your work.
Continuing the progress we celebrate today is not simply our professional obligation – it is our moral duty. Without question, we can be proud of all that the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention has already helped to accomplish. But, as I know every person here agrees, we cannot yet be satisfied. Today’s Summit presents an important opportunity to renew our commitment to these critical efforts, and to reaffirm our collective resolve: to protect our nation’s young people in every way we can. To empower our kids as well as we know how. And to challenge them to make good decisions – and to contribute to the work of strengthening our nation and honoring our founding principles of security, opportunity, and justice for all.
In advancing this work, I am grateful for your leadership. I am proud to count you as colleagues and as partners. And I look forward to where your efforts will take us from here.
Thank you.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
U.S./MEXICO TO SHARE $6 MILLION IN FORFEITED CRIMINAL ASSETS
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Monday, March 26, 2012
U.S. and Mexican Officials Sign Letter of Intent to Share $6 Million in Forfeited Assets to Combat Financial Infrastructure of Organized Crime
WASHINGTON – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales Ibáñez today signed a letter of intent for the United States to share approximately $6 million in forfeited funds with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Mexico (PGR) to support Mexican efforts to combat the financial infrastructure of organized criminal groups and to enhance bilateral cooperation between the two countries in forfeiture matters.
The letter of intent and anticipated fund sharing recognizes the PGR’s valuable cooperation in the investigation and resolution of the U.S. government’s case against Sigue Corporation for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. In January 2008, Sigue entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice on charges of failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program. As a result, Sigue forfeited $15 million to the United States and agreed to commit an additional $9.7 million to improving its anti-money laundering program.
“The Department of Justice and the Mexican PGR have built strong and collaborative working relationships in order to combat transnational organized criminal groups,” said Attorney General Holder. “Our intention to share approximately $6 million in forfeited assets with our Mexican counterparts reflects another step forward in our successful crime prevention and public safety efforts. In an era where crime is not limited by physical boundaries, our international partnerships are more critical than ever in the work of bringing criminals to justice.”
As outlined in the letter of intent, the PGR and the Department of Justice, through the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS), will negotiate the specific terms of the Sigue case sharing agreement and establish respective Executive Sharing Committees designed to negotiate and oversee the sharing, delivery, transfer and disbursement of the forfeited funds.
The shared assets will be used to strengthen and support the PGR’s capacity to investigate and prosecute domestic and bilateral money laundering crimes, as well as Mexico’s ability to forfeit the proceeds of crime. This initiative is designed to complement ongoing bilateral efforts to increase pressure on the economic resources of the criminal organizations that operate in Mexico and along the U.S./Mexico border.
The case, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, arose out of transactions conducted by Sigue and its authorized agents from November 2003 through March 2005. During this time, more than $24.7 million in suspicious transactions were conducted through registered agents of Sigue, including transactions conducted by undercover U.S. law enforcement agents using funds represented to be proceeds of drug trafficking. Sigue did not identify broader patterns of money laundering activity, failed to prevent the unlawful activity from continuing and did not create systems and procedures to identify suspicious financial transactions being conducted by related senders and beneficiaries.
The Sigue forfeiture resulted from a case prosecuted by AFMLS and was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service.
Monday, March 26, 2012
U.S. and Mexican Officials Sign Letter of Intent to Share $6 Million in Forfeited Assets to Combat Financial Infrastructure of Organized Crime
WASHINGTON – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales Ibáñez today signed a letter of intent for the United States to share approximately $6 million in forfeited funds with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Mexico (PGR) to support Mexican efforts to combat the financial infrastructure of organized criminal groups and to enhance bilateral cooperation between the two countries in forfeiture matters.
The letter of intent and anticipated fund sharing recognizes the PGR’s valuable cooperation in the investigation and resolution of the U.S. government’s case against Sigue Corporation for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. In January 2008, Sigue entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice on charges of failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program. As a result, Sigue forfeited $15 million to the United States and agreed to commit an additional $9.7 million to improving its anti-money laundering program.
“The Department of Justice and the Mexican PGR have built strong and collaborative working relationships in order to combat transnational organized criminal groups,” said Attorney General Holder. “Our intention to share approximately $6 million in forfeited assets with our Mexican counterparts reflects another step forward in our successful crime prevention and public safety efforts. In an era where crime is not limited by physical boundaries, our international partnerships are more critical than ever in the work of bringing criminals to justice.”
As outlined in the letter of intent, the PGR and the Department of Justice, through the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS), will negotiate the specific terms of the Sigue case sharing agreement and establish respective Executive Sharing Committees designed to negotiate and oversee the sharing, delivery, transfer and disbursement of the forfeited funds.
The shared assets will be used to strengthen and support the PGR’s capacity to investigate and prosecute domestic and bilateral money laundering crimes, as well as Mexico’s ability to forfeit the proceeds of crime. This initiative is designed to complement ongoing bilateral efforts to increase pressure on the economic resources of the criminal organizations that operate in Mexico and along the U.S./Mexico border.
The case, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, arose out of transactions conducted by Sigue and its authorized agents from November 2003 through March 2005. During this time, more than $24.7 million in suspicious transactions were conducted through registered agents of Sigue, including transactions conducted by undercover U.S. law enforcement agents using funds represented to be proceeds of drug trafficking. Sigue did not identify broader patterns of money laundering activity, failed to prevent the unlawful activity from continuing and did not create systems and procedures to identify suspicious financial transactions being conducted by related senders and beneficiaries.
The Sigue forfeiture resulted from a case prosecuted by AFMLS and was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SPEECH ON SAFE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the White House Lgbt Conference on Safe Schools & Communities Arlington, Texas ~ Tuesday, March 20, 2012
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Dr. [Alejandro] del Carmen, for your kind words – and for welcoming me to this beautiful campus. I also want to thank President [James] Spaniolo – and the entire University of Texas community – for hosting this important conference.
It is a pleasure to be here in Arlington this morning, and a privilege to join so many law enforcement officials, educators, nonprofit and religious organizations, community groups, and Administration leaders – including representatives from the Departments of Justice and Education, and my good friend, Valerie Jarrett – in discussing the remarkable work that’s being done to ensure the safety of our schools and communities – and to develop strategies for carrying these efforts into the future.
Today’s conference marks the third in a series of regional events – hosted by the White House, and sponsored by federal agencies – that have helped shine a light on some of the unique challenges that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals currently face – from specific health concerns, to an increased risk of homelessness.
Today, as we focus on ways to protect our fellow citizens – and, especially, our students – from discrimination and hate-fueled violence, I’m grateful to be joined by several key leaders in this work, including U.S. Attorney Sarah Saldana, of the Northern District of Texas; and Judy Shepard – a courageous advocate who has turned her family’s tragedy into a national call to action.
Because of advocates like Judy – and the many allies and community leaders in this room – when it comes to protecting the rights and interests of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, we’ve established a record of progress that we can all be proud of. And we’ve created a sense of momentum that, today, we stand poised to build upon.
This morning, I’m proud to join you in affirming a simple truth, and renewing this Administration’s commitment – as well as my own – to an essential idea: that no one deserves to be bullied, harassed, or victimized because of who they are, how they worship, or who they love.
Fortunately, in this country, equal opportunity – and, in particular, equal justice under law – are anything but novel concepts. They are written into our founding documents, etched into our collective past, and woven throughout American history. Over the centuries, they have led patriots, pioneers, and visionaries not just to dream of a more perfect union, but to help make it a reality. As a result – especially in recent decades – we’ve made historic strides in the long march toward justice and equal opportunity for all citizens. And I am proud to say that our nation’s Department of Justice has never been more committed to advancing this work.
Nowhere is this commitment stronger than in the ongoing efforts of our Civil Rights Division. For over half a century, the Division has fought to expand opportunity and access, to safeguard the fundamental infrastructure of our democracy, and to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Since the Division was created – in 1957 – preventing, investigating and prosecuting hate-fueled crimes and violence has been at the very heart of its mission. And, since the beginning of this Administration, we’ve taken this work to a new level.
In fact, over the last fiscal year, the Justice Department set new records in the number of hate crimes cases filed and the number of defendants charged and convicted of these crimes. And we worked tirelessly to enforce the landmark Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act – a historic measure which President Obama signed into law in 2009. Many of us fought for years to get this bill to the President’s desk. And few have worked harder or advocated more effectively than Judy Shepard, and her husband Dennis.
More than a decade ago, when I served as Deputy Attorney General, I testified in support of this critical legislation – and I made sure that one of my first trips to Capitol Hill as Attorney General was to support its passage. This legislation has proved to be a powerful tool. It provides federal prosecutors with new resources and authorities to seek justice on behalf of all those who are victimized on the basis of their race, ethnicity, , religion, national origin – and, for the first time ever – their sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Since it was enacted, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section has worked closely with the FBI’s Civil Rights Unit and U.S. Attorneys’ offices across the country – including here in Texas – to ensure the smooth implementation of this important law. We’re collaborating with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to ensure clear understanding of its provisions. And we’ve trained thousands of law enforcement officers and community stakeholders – including many who attended a conference right here in Arlington last November.
Already, these efforts have yielded significant results. Seven cases have been indicted under Shepard-Byrd, 24 defendants have been charged, and 8 have been convicted. As we speak, Justice Department investigators are examining a number of open matters under every part of the new law – including the provisions protecting those victimized because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Regrettably, these open matters include the incident last week in Northeast Dallas, where two gay men were attacked with baseball bats. When incidents like this occur, we want to hear about them. And we will do everything in our power to ensure that justice is served.
But the full measure of our success cannot be taken from the number of federal prosecutions alone. We must also consider the robust cooperation that’s taking place between federal, state and local authorities – including in cases where defendants have been prosecuted under state and local hate crimes statutes.
For example, Justice Department officials closely monitored the recent prosecution of a defendant from Shreveport, Louisiana, who used a pool cue to attack a gay man in a local club –shouting anti-gay threats just before the attack took place. It turned out that the state penalties provided for such offenses were more than double what federal statutes would have allowed. And, as a result – after the defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault and a hate crime under Louisiana state law – he was sentenced to 23 years in prison.
Regardless of whether we use state or federal laws to obtain tough sentences like this one, there’s no doubt that rigorous enforcement will help to safeguard the rights of the LGBT community, to protect individuals from violence and intimidation, and to achieve justice for the victims of these despicable acts. But – although hate crimes prosecutions are essential – they are only one part of the Administration’s broad strategy of community engagement and empowerment.
That’s why the Department is working – in close cooperation with our state and local partners – to help prevent these crimes before they occur, and to encourage greater reporting when they do. It’s why we’ve joined forces with other federal agencies, like the Department of Education, to intervene in communities and school systems where discrimination, bullying, and harassment have been reported. And it’s why we’re reaching out to our nation’s young people through educational programs that teach tolerance and understanding.
At the center of this comprehensive approach is the work of the Community Relations Service – or CRS – a component of the Justice Department that helps government leaders, community groups, and public and private organizations to develop mediation and conciliation services in response to hate crimes. CRS never imposes solutions to local problems – and it’s not their job to investigate, prosecute, or assign blame. But – when they receive requests from students, school officials, or law enforcement officers – they work closely and confidentially with local stakeholders to address conflict, foster respect, and build safe and productive environments for LGBT students and others who report concerns.
In CRS, and across the entire Justice Department, we are committed to using every tool in our arsenal – and every strategy at our disposal – to foster healthy learning environments for our nation’s young people.
In the Civil Rights Division, these tools include critical enforcement mechanisms – as in the case of an openly gay California middle school student named Seth Walsh, whose mother found him unconscious and barely clinging to life one day in September 2010.
Seth hanged himself from a tree in the family’s backyard after suffering verbal, physical, and sexual harassment at school for more than two school years. A subsequent investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education found that his peers had targeted him because he did not conform to gender stereotypes. The investigation found that Seth was physically threatened and verbally harassed on a near daily basis. He was mocked for wearing clothing that was not sufficiently masculine, told that he should “get surgery” to become a female, called “sissy” and “girl,” and referred to as the “girlfriend” of other male students. Although the local school district had been notified of the harassment numerous times, the district failed to adequately investigate or respond, and chose to simply look the other way.
After more than a week on life support, Seth Walsh was declared brain dead, and passed away surrounded by his family. He was just 13 years old.
Our investigation determined that the school district’s failure to address and prevent this kind of harassment violates Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Last summer, the Departments of Justice and Education reached a settlement with the school district, requiring it to take a variety of steps – including revising its policies; providing mandatory training for all students, administrators, teachers, counselors, and other staff; and implementing ways to track and respond to harassment – to ensure that such behavior doesn’t happen again.
Of course, there are no steps we can take to undo the suffering that drove Seth Walsh to take his own life. And there are no words that can erase the shattering grief that followed his suicide. But I believe we owe it to Seth and other students like him to respond to such tragedies not just with shock and outrage – but with resolve. We have an obligation to protect young people who are targeted just because they’re perceived as “different” – and to make sure they know that we’re working with schools and communities to address bigotry before it becomes fuel for violence. That those who have been targeted by their classmates are not alone. That we will not stand for bullying or harassment in any form. And that – as so many, from celebrities like Lady Gaga, to elected officials, including President Obama, have already said – it gets better.
This is more than just a slogan for a popular public awareness campaign. It’s a commitment – one we’re backing up with robust action. For example, exactly two weeks ago – in Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota’s largest school district – the Departments of Justice and Education, six courageous student plaintiffs, and district officials came together to resolve harassment allegations and lay out a blueprint for sustainable reform. The consent decree they agreed upon is designed to provide immediate help to students who feel unsafe or afraid in all of the district’s schools. And it’s my hope that this successful outcome – arising from the willing engagement of every party involved – can serve as a model for other school systems that struggle to address harassment and build nurturing environments for their students.
I’d like to thank all of the investigators and attorneys who were involved – especially those who have joined us here today – for their excellent work on this case. But I also want to note that – despite the progress that these efforts represent – as far as the Justice Department, and the entire Administration, is concerned, they are only the beginning.
To ensure our continued progress, as Valerie just stated, the Administration strongly supports the goals of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. And for individuals and communities in need of help, there are a range of Justice Department components currently working to provide assistance and direct resources so that our students are protected – and able to learn without fear of discrimination, harassment, and bullying.
Studies being conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice will help shed light on victimization in the LGBT community and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system’s response. LGBT-focused training programs and grants administered by the Office for Victims of Crime and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have already supported outreach campaigns, victim service providers, and survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services – or COPS – is currently offering resources to help prevent cyber bullying, foster trust between at-risk young people and law enforcement officials, and bring a wide variety of partners together to improve disciplinary practices in school systems. The Office on Violence Against Women is funding important work being done in our schools to prevent and combat dating violence that includes same-sex relationships. And, as many of you know, the Department of Justice fully supports the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act – and we are pleased that the bill proposed by Senator Leahy explicitly includes LGBT individuals.
Although we can all be proud that our nation is on a trajectory of progress, we must also be ready to seize the moment before us. Today presents an important opportunity for each person in this room to rededicate ourselves to our common cause – of insisting that this country lives up to its highest ideals of fairness and equal opportunity.
In the months and years to come, let us strive to reinforce and quicken the momentum we’ve created. Let us build upon our hard-fought victories. And let us ensure that ‘equal justice under law’ is not simply an aspiration, but a guarantee for all time – and for all Americans.
In this work, I feel privileged to count you as partners. I am grateful for your efforts. And I look forward to the progress that we can – and must – achieve together.
Thank you.
Monday, March 19, 2012
SMACK-DOWN: CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL VS ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER OVER "DUE PROCESS"
The following excerpt is from a Congressman Ron Paul e-mail:
Congressman Paul's Texas Straight Talk: Demolishing Due Process
“It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.
In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner…”
For clarification the speech given by Attorney general Eric Holder at Northwestern University can be read in it's entirety below as posted on the U.S. Department of Justice website:
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of LawChicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Dean [Daniel] Rodriguez, for your kind words, and for the outstanding leadership that you provide – not only for this academic campus, but also for our nation’s legal community. It is a privilege to be with you today – and to be among the distinguished faculty members, staff, alumni, and students who make Northwestern such an extraordinary place.
For more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders; as a forum for critical, thoughtful debate; and as a meeting place to consider issues of national concern and global consequence. This afternoon, I am honored to be part of this tradition. And I’m grateful for the opportunity to join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time – and a most critical responsibility that we share: how we will stay true to America’s founding – and enduring – promises of security, justice and liberty.
Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands. But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.”
Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment. It is clear that, once again, we have reached an “hour of danger.”
We are a nation at war. And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.
Like President Obama – and my fellow members of his national security team – I begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And, like scores of attorneys and agents at the Justice Department, I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
I know that – more than a decade after the September 11th attacks; and despite our recent national security successes, including the operation that brought to justice Osama bin Laden last year – there are people currently plotting to murder Americans, who reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders. Disrupting and preventing these plots – and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the American people safe – has been, and will remain, this Administration’s top priority.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values. Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals. Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm.
This is not just my view. My judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government. As the President reminded us in 2009, at the National Archives where our founding documents are housed, “[w]e uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.” Our history proves this. We do not have to choose between security and liberty – and we will not.
Today, I want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this Administration’s national security efforts. I also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide – and strengthen – this work, as well as the special role of the Department of Justice in protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.
Before 9/11, today’s level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace. In many ways, government lacked the infrastructure – as well as the imperative – to share national security information quickly and effectively. Domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres. But those who attacked us on September 11th chose both military and civilian targets. They crossed borders and jurisdictional lines. And it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats, because no single agency has all of the necessary tools.
To counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources – and radically update its operations. As a result, today, government agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national security threats. Now, the lawyers, agents and analysts at the Department of Justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the American people safe. Unfortunately, the fact and extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate – but it’s something that this Administration, and the previous one, can be proud of.
As part of this coordinated effort, the Justice Department plays a key role in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community’s activities remain in compliance with the law, and, together with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists. We must – and will continue to – use the intelligence-gathering capabilities that Congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect American lives. At the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances – including oversight by Congress and the courts, as well as within the Executive Branch – to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals. This Administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests.
Let me give you an example. Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize annually, with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targets, without the need for a court order for each individual subject. This ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security. But the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a U.S. person, here or abroad, or anyone known to be in the United States.
The law requires special procedures, reviewed and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to make sure that these restrictions are followed, and to protect the privacy of any U.S. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and we report to Congress on implementation and compliance twice a year. This law therefore establishes a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of government. Reauthorizing this authority before it expires at the end of this year is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.
But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation.
Much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions. The reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice – and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al Qaeda.
Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results. We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses – without political controversy – during the last administration.
Over the past three years, we’ve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions. For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI. He described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to Yemen and made contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen and a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdulmutallab also detailed the training he received, as well as Aulaqi’s specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating his bomb.
In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences. And convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown extremists, as well. For example, last year, United States citizen and North Carolina resident Daniel Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad; and U.S. citizen and Illinois resident Michael Finton pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside of a federal courthouse.
I could go on. Which is why the calls that I’ve heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality. And if heeded, they would significantly weaken – in fact, they would cripple – our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.
Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody. No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions. There are not two sides to this story. Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion — they are simply wrong.
But federal courts are not our only option. Military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances, and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. This Administration’s approach has been to ensure that the military commissions system is as effective as possible, in part by strengthening the procedural protections on which the commissions are based. With the President’s leadership, and the bipartisan backing of Congress, the Military Commissions Act of 2009 was enacted into law. And, since then, meaningful improvements have been implemented.
It’s important to note that the reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts. They provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They afford the accused the right to counsel – as well as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. They prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. And they secure the right to appeal to Article III judges – all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and for the safety and security of participants.
A key difference is that, in military commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone. For example, statements may be admissible even in the absence of Miranda warnings, because we cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle. But instead, a military judge must make other findings – for instance, that the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily.
I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I’ve sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts. Without question, there are differences between these systems that must be – and will continue to be – weighed carefully. Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions. In each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of prosecution to pursue.
Several practical considerations affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are a part of al Qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities. This means that there may be members of certain terrorist groups who fall outside the jurisdiction of military commissions because, for example, they lack ties to al Qaeda and their conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum. Additionally, by statute, military commissions cannot be used to try U.S. citizens.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses than the military commissions, which can only prosecute specified offenses, including violations of the laws of war and other offenses traditionally triable by military commission. This means federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists. Those charges, and the sentences they carry upon successful conviction, can provide important incentives to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities.
Third, there is the issue of international cooperation. A number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the United States in certain counterterrorism efforts — for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects – if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. Although the use of military commissions in the United States can be traced back to the early days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our time-tested criminal justice system and Article III courts. However, it is my hope that, with time and experience, the reformed commissions will attain similar respect in the eyes of the world.
Where cases are selected for prosecution in military commissions, Justice Department investigators and prosecutors work closely to support our Department of Defense colleagues. Today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole is being prosecuted before a military commission. I am proud to say that trial attorneys from the Department of Justice are working with military prosecutors on that case, as well as others.
And we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between federal courts and military commissions, instead of using them both. If we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the Nation and its people. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
This Administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility that they need to fulfill their critical responsibilities without diverging from our laws and our values. Last week brought the most recent step, when the President issued procedures under the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation, which Congress passed in December, mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody.
Last Tuesday, the President exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations — and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team. As authorized by the statute, the President waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interest. These procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation. And they address the concerns the President expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year.
Now, I realize I have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice. It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible – among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them – but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority – and, I would argue, the responsibility – to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.
This principle has long been established under both U.S. and international law. In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law. The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.
Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan. Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan. We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country. Over the last three years alone, al Qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks – fortunately, unsuccessful – against us from countries other than Afghanistan. Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.
This does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. But the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved – or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.
Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.
Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.
Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans. Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. In cases arising under the Due Process Clause – including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda – the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process. Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.
Here, the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty. An individual’s interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant. Yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks.
Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face. The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. So, although I cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, I believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly.
Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.
Whether the capture of a U.S. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question. It may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to U.S. personnel. Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.
Of course, any such use of lethal force by the United States will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force. The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.
These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether.
Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments – all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the Executive Branch may possess in real time. The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.
That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight. Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against United States citizens.
Now, these circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad – but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation – such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields.
The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens. When such individuals take up arms against this country – and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans – there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. We must take steps to stop them – in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.
This is an indicator of our times – not a departure from our laws and our values. For this Administration – and for this nation – our values are clear. We must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones I have discussed today. As the President reminded us at the National Archives, “our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way.”
Our most sacred principles and values – of security, justice and liberty for all citizens – must continue to unite us, to guide us forward, and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our ongoing – uniquely American – pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect union. In the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this Administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation’s founding and, over the course of two centuries, have made America an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all the world. This is our pledge.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you today.
Congressman Paul's Texas Straight Talk: Demolishing Due Process
“It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.
In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner…”
For clarification the speech given by Attorney general Eric Holder at Northwestern University can be read in it's entirety below as posted on the U.S. Department of Justice website:
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of LawChicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Dean [Daniel] Rodriguez, for your kind words, and for the outstanding leadership that you provide – not only for this academic campus, but also for our nation’s legal community. It is a privilege to be with you today – and to be among the distinguished faculty members, staff, alumni, and students who make Northwestern such an extraordinary place.
For more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders; as a forum for critical, thoughtful debate; and as a meeting place to consider issues of national concern and global consequence. This afternoon, I am honored to be part of this tradition. And I’m grateful for the opportunity to join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time – and a most critical responsibility that we share: how we will stay true to America’s founding – and enduring – promises of security, justice and liberty.
Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands. But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.”
Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment. It is clear that, once again, we have reached an “hour of danger.”
We are a nation at war. And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.
Like President Obama – and my fellow members of his national security team – I begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And, like scores of attorneys and agents at the Justice Department, I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
I know that – more than a decade after the September 11th attacks; and despite our recent national security successes, including the operation that brought to justice Osama bin Laden last year – there are people currently plotting to murder Americans, who reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders. Disrupting and preventing these plots – and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the American people safe – has been, and will remain, this Administration’s top priority.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values. Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals. Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm.
This is not just my view. My judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government. As the President reminded us in 2009, at the National Archives where our founding documents are housed, “[w]e uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.” Our history proves this. We do not have to choose between security and liberty – and we will not.
Today, I want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this Administration’s national security efforts. I also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide – and strengthen – this work, as well as the special role of the Department of Justice in protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.
Before 9/11, today’s level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace. In many ways, government lacked the infrastructure – as well as the imperative – to share national security information quickly and effectively. Domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres. But those who attacked us on September 11th chose both military and civilian targets. They crossed borders and jurisdictional lines. And it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats, because no single agency has all of the necessary tools.
To counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources – and radically update its operations. As a result, today, government agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national security threats. Now, the lawyers, agents and analysts at the Department of Justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the American people safe. Unfortunately, the fact and extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate – but it’s something that this Administration, and the previous one, can be proud of.
As part of this coordinated effort, the Justice Department plays a key role in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community’s activities remain in compliance with the law, and, together with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists. We must – and will continue to – use the intelligence-gathering capabilities that Congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect American lives. At the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances – including oversight by Congress and the courts, as well as within the Executive Branch – to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals. This Administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests.
Let me give you an example. Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize annually, with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targets, without the need for a court order for each individual subject. This ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security. But the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a U.S. person, here or abroad, or anyone known to be in the United States.
The law requires special procedures, reviewed and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to make sure that these restrictions are followed, and to protect the privacy of any U.S. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and we report to Congress on implementation and compliance twice a year. This law therefore establishes a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of government. Reauthorizing this authority before it expires at the end of this year is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.
But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation.
Much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions. The reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice – and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al Qaeda.
Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results. We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses – without political controversy – during the last administration.
Over the past three years, we’ve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions. For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI. He described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to Yemen and made contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen and a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdulmutallab also detailed the training he received, as well as Aulaqi’s specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating his bomb.
In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences. And convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown extremists, as well. For example, last year, United States citizen and North Carolina resident Daniel Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad; and U.S. citizen and Illinois resident Michael Finton pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside of a federal courthouse.
I could go on. Which is why the calls that I’ve heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality. And if heeded, they would significantly weaken – in fact, they would cripple – our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.
Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody. No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions. There are not two sides to this story. Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion — they are simply wrong.
But federal courts are not our only option. Military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances, and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. This Administration’s approach has been to ensure that the military commissions system is as effective as possible, in part by strengthening the procedural protections on which the commissions are based. With the President’s leadership, and the bipartisan backing of Congress, the Military Commissions Act of 2009 was enacted into law. And, since then, meaningful improvements have been implemented.
It’s important to note that the reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts. They provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They afford the accused the right to counsel – as well as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. They prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. And they secure the right to appeal to Article III judges – all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and for the safety and security of participants.
A key difference is that, in military commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone. For example, statements may be admissible even in the absence of Miranda warnings, because we cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle. But instead, a military judge must make other findings – for instance, that the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily.
I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I’ve sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts. Without question, there are differences between these systems that must be – and will continue to be – weighed carefully. Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions. In each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of prosecution to pursue.
Several practical considerations affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are a part of al Qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities. This means that there may be members of certain terrorist groups who fall outside the jurisdiction of military commissions because, for example, they lack ties to al Qaeda and their conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum. Additionally, by statute, military commissions cannot be used to try U.S. citizens.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses than the military commissions, which can only prosecute specified offenses, including violations of the laws of war and other offenses traditionally triable by military commission. This means federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists. Those charges, and the sentences they carry upon successful conviction, can provide important incentives to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities.
Third, there is the issue of international cooperation. A number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the United States in certain counterterrorism efforts — for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects – if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. Although the use of military commissions in the United States can be traced back to the early days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our time-tested criminal justice system and Article III courts. However, it is my hope that, with time and experience, the reformed commissions will attain similar respect in the eyes of the world.
Where cases are selected for prosecution in military commissions, Justice Department investigators and prosecutors work closely to support our Department of Defense colleagues. Today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole is being prosecuted before a military commission. I am proud to say that trial attorneys from the Department of Justice are working with military prosecutors on that case, as well as others.
And we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between federal courts and military commissions, instead of using them both. If we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the Nation and its people. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
This Administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility that they need to fulfill their critical responsibilities without diverging from our laws and our values. Last week brought the most recent step, when the President issued procedures under the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation, which Congress passed in December, mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody.
Last Tuesday, the President exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations — and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team. As authorized by the statute, the President waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interest. These procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation. And they address the concerns the President expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year.
Now, I realize I have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice. It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible – among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them – but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority – and, I would argue, the responsibility – to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.
This principle has long been established under both U.S. and international law. In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law. The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.
Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan. Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan. We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country. Over the last three years alone, al Qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks – fortunately, unsuccessful – against us from countries other than Afghanistan. Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.
This does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. But the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved – or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.
Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.
Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.
Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans. Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. In cases arising under the Due Process Clause – including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda – the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process. Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.
Here, the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty. An individual’s interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant. Yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks.
Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face. The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. So, although I cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, I believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly.
Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.
Whether the capture of a U.S. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question. It may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to U.S. personnel. Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.
Of course, any such use of lethal force by the United States will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force. The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.
These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether.
Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments – all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the Executive Branch may possess in real time. The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.
That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight. Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against United States citizens.
Now, these circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad – but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation – such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields.
The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens. When such individuals take up arms against this country – and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans – there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. We must take steps to stop them – in full accordance with the Constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.
This is an indicator of our times – not a departure from our laws and our values. For this Administration – and for this nation – our values are clear. We must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones I have discussed today. As the President reminded us at the National Archives, “our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way.”
Our most sacred principles and values – of security, justice and liberty for all citizens – must continue to unite us, to guide us forward, and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our ongoing – uniquely American – pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect union. In the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this Administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation’s founding and, over the course of two centuries, have made America an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all the world. This is our pledge.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you today.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER COMMENTS ON INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE MANDATE TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING
The following excerpt is from the U.S. Department of Justice website:
Today Attorney General Eric Holder joined members of the president’s cabinet and other senior advisors at the White House for a meeting of the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Speaking at the meeting, the Attorney General said:
For the Department of Justice, our commitment to preventing human trafficking, bringing traffickers to justice, and assisting victims has never been stronger – and our approach has never been more effective. Our work has sent a clear and critical message: that, in this country – and under this Administration – human trafficking crimes will not be tolerated. I’m proud to report that, this past year, we charged nearly 120 defendants – a record number – in human trafficking cases. And, over the last three years, we’ve achieved significant increases in human trafficking prosecutions – including a rise of more than 30 percent in the number of forced labor and adult sex trafficking prosecutions.
This work has saved lives, ensured freedom, and restored dignity to women, men, and children in virtually every corner of the country. We’ve liberated scores of victims; secured long prison sentences against individual traffickers; and dismantled large, transnational organized criminal enterprises.
The Department of Justice’s comprehensive approach to prevent human trafficking involves the work of many offices. That’s why the Attorney General formed the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team – or “ACTeam” – Initiative, an interagency collaboration among the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor aimed at streamlining federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offenses.
The scourge of human trafficking goes beyond our borders. The Department of Justice continues to work closely with our international counterparts. For instance, we’ve advanced the U.S.-Mexico Human Trafficking Bilateral Enforcement Initiative, in collaboration with DHS and Mexican law enforcement counterparts, to develop high-impact bilateral investigations and prosecutions to dismantle international human trafficking networks, resulting in landmark convictions in coordinated prosecutions under both U.S. and Mexican law.
Department officials have also shared their expertise and helped to train hundreds of prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officials in partner countries abroad through our International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). ICITAP supported the international anti-human trafficking effort through program activities in seven countries on three continents.
In addition to ensuring those who perpetuate these crimes are found and brought to justice, the department’s anti-trafficking grant programs, training and technical assistance initiatives continue to support communities in building capacity to combat human trafficking and assist victims.
These programs take a multidisciplinary approach to human trafficking prevention and encourage close partnerships among federal prosecutors, state and local law enforcement, victim service providers, and other federal partners, including the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and State.
Supplementing training and grant programs are resources like the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Strategy and Operations eGuide, a comprehensive online resource to assist anti-trafficking task forces in establishing, strengthening, and operating multidisciplinary response teams to identify and assist trafficking victims across the country.
To better understand trafficking, the National Institute of Justice continues to expand its research portfolio to understand how and why trafficking occurs, how to best help victims and examine the reasons why these crimes go under-reported in the United States.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS RECORD NUMBER CHARGED WITH HUMAN TRAFFICKING
The following speech by Attorney General Eric Holder is from the Department of Justice website:
“For the Department of Justice, our commitment to preventing human trafficking, bringing traffickers to justice, and assisting victims has never been stronger – and our approach has never been more effective. Our work has sent a clear and critical message: that, in this country – and under this Administration – human trafficking crimes will not be tolerated. I’m proud to report that, this past year, we charged nearly 120 defendants – a record number – in human trafficking cases. And, over the last three years, we’ve achieved significant increases in human trafficking prosecutions – including a rise of more than 30 percent in the number of forced labor and adult sex trafficking prosecutions.
This work has saved lives, ensured freedom, and restored dignity to women, men, and children in virtually every corner of the country. We’ve liberated scores of victims; secured long prison sentences against individual traffickers; and dismantled large, transnational organized criminal enterprises.
The Department of Justice’s comprehensive approach to prevent human trafficking involves the work of many offices. That’s why the Attorney General formed the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team – or “ACTeam” – Initiative, an interagency collaboration among the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor aimed at streamlining federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offenses.
The scourge of human trafficking goes beyond our borders. The Department of Justice continues to work closely with our international counterparts. For instance, we’ve advanced the U.S.-Mexico Human Trafficking Bilateral Enforcement Initiative, in collaboration with DHS and Mexican law enforcement counterparts, to develop high-impact bilateral investigations and prosecutions to dismantle international human trafficking networks, resulting in landmark convictions in coordinated prosecutions under both U.S. and Mexican law.
Department officials have also shared their expertise and helped to train hundreds of prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officials in partner countries abroad through our International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). ICITAP supported the international anti-human trafficking effort through program activities in seven countries on three continents.
In addition to ensuring those who perpetuate these crimes are found and brought to justice, the department’s anti-trafficking grant programs, training and technical assistance initiatives continue to support communities in building capacity to combat human trafficking and assist victims.
These programs take a multidisciplinary approach to human trafficking prevention and encourage close partnerships among federal prosecutors, state and local law enforcement, victim service providers, and other federal partners, including the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and State.
Supplementing training and grant programs are resources like the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Strategy and Operations eGuide, a comprehensive online resource to assist anti-trafficking task forces in establishing, strengthening, and operating multidisciplinary response teams to identify and assist trafficking victims across the country.
To better understand trafficking, the National Institute of Justice continues to expand its research portfolio to understand how and why trafficking occurs, how to best help victims and examine the reasons why these crimes go under-reported in the United States.”
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS ON OPEN GOVERNEMENT
Monday, March 12, 2012
The following excerpt is form the U.S. Department of Justice website:
Thank you, Melanie [Pustay], for your kind words, and for your outstanding leadership of the work that we highlight – and celebrate – during Sunshine Week. Since we gathered for this event last year, you and your team in the Office of Information Policy have continued to advance the Administration’s – and the Justice Department’s – open government goals. And you’ve signaled our ongoing commitment to integrity, accountability, and transparency.
Thank you all for your dedication to this work – and for everything you’ve done to organize today’s program and the rest of this week’s events. I also want to thank each of today’s participants – especially, our distinguished guest speakers – for sharing your perspectives and expertise with us this afternoon.
Today and throughout the week, we have an important opportunity to showcase and celebrate the progress that’s been made here at the Department – and all across the federal government – in realizing the promise of the Freedom of Information Act, and making good on what President Obama has called “a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.”
This commitment – and the unprecedented efforts that we’ve launched to fulfill it – underscores the sacred bond of trust that must always exist between the government and all those we are privileged to serve. This is what drove the President – on his first full day in office – to call upon the Department of Justice to guide other agencies in the faithful implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, and to ensure compliance with both the letter – and the spirit – of this law.
In response, three years ago this week, I issued a memorandum to federal department and agency heads mandating changes in the way we approach, release, and distribute information. Since then, these guidelines have shifted the way our entire federal government operates. They’ve established a presumption of openness. And they have led agencies to manage the FOIA process more efficiently and effectively.
As a result, we’ve made meaningful, measurable progress in improving the way our Department – and its partners and counterparts – respond to disclosure requests. Thanks to Melanie’s outstanding team – and many others here today – we’ve developed promising new initiatives and improved current FOIA processes. In fact, for the second year in a row, the Department has achieved a release rate of more than 94 percent of requests where records were processed for disclosure. And we released nearly 80 percent of these records in their entirety.
Despite receiving over 60,000 FOIA requests in the last three fiscal years – and facing nearly unprecedented budgetary challenges over the same period – last year, the Department was able to reduce the backlog of pending requests by more than a quarter, and the backlog of administrative appeals by more than 40 percent. And we took a major step toward realizing our Open Government Plan by launching a comprehensive, government-wide Freedom of Information website – FOIA.Gov – which displays detailed statistics and serves as a vital resource for members of the public who would like to make requests. We also brought senior leadership offices – including my own – into a variety of efforts aimed at harnessing new technologies and tools to increase transparency. And – although this record of achievement has been nothing short of remarkable – I am proud to say that it’s only the beginning.
There’s no question that we’re on the right track. But I also recognize that we cannot yet be satisfied – and that Sunshine Week presents an invaluable opportunity not just to assess where we currently are, but also to identify ways to build upon the momentum we’ve created.
That’s why, today, I am pleased to announce two new improvements to FOIA administration that we are implementing here at the Department. First, we will begin posting monthly FOIA logs for requests made to my office, the Offices of the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, and other senior leadership offices. These logs will publicly identify the subject matter and disposition of each request – bringing greater transparency to the FOIA process and making it easier for people to locate information that may be of interest to them. Secondly, we will introduce a new way for members of the public to submit FOIA requests to the Department’s senior leadership offices online, and to track these requests at any time.
I am also pleased to announce two additional online tools that will make FOIA.Gov even more responsive to those seeking information from a variety of government agencies. We’ve introduced a simplified search function that will allow visitors to search all federal government websites at the same time – connecting members of the public not only to the documents in FOIA Libraries, but also to the proactive disclosures that agencies regularly make through their own websites. And we’ve added a feature that links the FOIA systems from more than 100 offices across the government, making it easier than ever for individuals to find, and make, requests electronically.
These are simple, common-sense improvements that will help streamline the ways in which ordinary Americans can participate in the work of their government. And – alongside our efforts to compile and report key FOIA statistics, log requests, track agency performance, and increase accountability when it comes to FOIA compliance – they will reinforce the culture of openness we’ve worked to instill across the federal government.
In many ways, we owe these advancements – and scores of others – to the men and women who serve the Department’s Office of Information Policy. And while we all can be encouraged by – and proud of – the progress that’s been made, Sunshine Week is an important reminder that this is no time to become complacent. The responsibility of expanding upon current efforts to ensure transparency and accountability rests with each of us. And, as I look around this crowd today, I am confident that we can continue to expect – and deliver – great things.
On behalf of President Obama and my colleagues across the Cabinet, I want to thank you for your dedication to fulfilling the goals we share, and our duties to the American people. I am committed to this work. I am inspired by your contributions to it. And I look forward to our continued progress.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER SAYS "PROTECTING AMERICAN CONSUMERS IS TOP PRIORITY"
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
“Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the Consumer Protection Working Group Summit Washington, D.C. ~ Friday, March 9, 2012
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Mike [Bresnick], for that kind introduction – and for your leadership as Executive Director of the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. It’s a pleasure to join you – and so many dedicated colleagues and essential partners – as we begin today’s important discussions.
Thank you all – especially our distinguished panelists – for being part of this historic Summit. I can think of no better way to commemorate – and raise awareness about – Consumer Protection Week, than for this group of stakeholders, experts, and advocates to join forces in examining the challenges we face – and identifying the solutions that the American people deserve.
In this conversation, I’m especially grateful for the commitment and engagement of the members of the Consumer Protection Working Group – a newly-formed initiative that’s operating as part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. In particular, I would like to recognize Director [Michael] Blume, of the Consumer Protection Branch, and all of the Group’s co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General Tony West, of the Civil Division, and soon to be Acting Associate Attorney General; Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, of the Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte of the Central District of California; Director [David] Vladeck, of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection; and Kent Markus, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Director of Enforcement.
Today, as the Working Group gathers for the second time since its inaugural meeting in February, I want to express my gratitude for your leadership of this effort – and for your dedication to protecting the health, safety, and economic security of consumers across the country. These are goals – and responsibilities – that we all share. And each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling them.
For me, and for today’s Department of Justice, protecting American consumers is a top priority. And, as we’ve rededicated ourselves to this work in recent years, we’ve also learned some essential lessons. Primarily, that fully understanding the threats consumers face – and protecting their interests in a comprehensive way – is not something that the Justice Department can achieve on its own. We cannot simply prosecute our way out of this problem. So we need your help. We need your perspectives and expertise. We need your talents and determination. And that’s precisely what today is all about.
Earlier this afternoon, we kicked off an important – and, in many ways, unprecedented – conversation between this Working Group’s leaders and key consumer advocates. We talked about strategies for enhancing our civil and criminal enforcement of consumer fraud crimes; increasing public awareness about common schemes – and ways to report them – so that ordinary citizens have the knowledge they need to fight back; and building on the momentum we’ve established in the fight against consumer fraud.
As a result of discussions like this one – and thanks to the strong partnerships we’ve forged with federal law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and key state and local authorities – we’ve been able to gain access to the wide array of tools and the extraordinary depth of experience we will need not just to continue the work that’s underway – but to bring this fight to the next level.
Especially in these times of great economic challenge, I recognize that the need to move aggressively to combat these crimes has never been more important. And that’s why I’m proud to report that our nation’s Department of Justice – and so many of the consumer groups represented here – have responded to these threats not with despair, but with resolve – and decisive action.
During the last fiscal year, the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch achieved an astounding 95 percent conviction rate. They recovered over $900 million in criminal and civil fines. And they obtained sentences totaling over 125 years of imprisonment against more than 30 individuals.
These achievements build on the remarkable success of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which has helped secure convictions against those responsible for a wide variety of consumer scams – including telemarketing schemes, fraudulent job training and referral services, and even an enterprise that generated over $75 million in loss and victimized 350,000 small businesses by placing unauthorized charges on people’s phone bills.
Since last April – when I established a new part of the Task Force known as the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group – we’ve also been focused on identifying civil or criminal violations in the oil and gasoline markets, and ensuring that American consumers are not harmed by unlawful conduct. This Working Group’s latest meeting was held at the Justice Department just this morning – and its members discussed a variety of topics, including the role of speculators in the market; recent reports and enforcement matters by various Working Group members – such as the FTC and the New York State Attorney General’s Office; as well as ways to improve information sharing between Working Group members and partners; and where we go from here.
I can also report that one of the Working Group’s members – the Federal Trade Commission – is currently conducting an investigation, with assistance from other Working Group members, into whether gas prices have been affected by any antitrust violation or market manipulation by refiners, oil producers, transporters, marketers, physical or financial traders, or others. Working Group members stand ready to act if the FTC learns anything that implicates the laws they enforce.
The Task Force has also been at the forefront of the Administration’s efforts to seek justice for those who were devastated by the recent financial crisis. Since 2009, we’ve helped bring charges, secure convictions, and obtain prison sentences of up to 60 years in a variety of cases charging securities fraud, bank fraud, and investment fraud. Using criminal enforcement tools where possible – and civil penalties and sanctions where necessary – we’ve made great strides in holding individuals and institutions accountable for the reckless, inappropriate, and often unlawful conduct that helped contribute to the financial crisis. And – by employing a similar collaborative approach – we’ve even been able to make history.
In January, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, other agencies, and 49 state attorneys general came together to achieve a landmark $25 billion agreement with the nation’s top five mortgage servicers – the largest joint federal-state settlement on record. This will provide significant assistance to struggling homeowners and communities. And it will serve as a model for what we can accomplish when we work together – across federal agencies, state boundaries, and party lines – and through another new Task Force component known as the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group.
Now, we can all be encouraged by the achievements that have characterized the past few years. But there is perhaps no better illustration of the progress we’ve made than our groundbreaking work to combat health-care fraud. Over the last fiscal year alone, the Department and its partners were able to recover nearly $4.1 billion in funds that were stolen or taken improperly from federal health-care programs – the highest amount ever recovered in a single year. And over the last three years, for every dollar we spent fighting against health-care fraud, we’ve returned an average of seven dollars to the U.S. Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund, and others.
These numbers are stunning. There’s no question that we should all be proud of the results that have already been achieved. Although health care fraud won’t be a focal point of this Working Group, this ongoing work will continue to augment our latest consumer protection efforts. But I also know that this is no time to be satisfied – and we cannot afford to become complacent.
That’s why we must – and will – continue to seek new avenues for communication and collaboration with partners like each of you. With the assistance and expertise of the friends and allies gathered here today, and through discussions like those that will take place this afternoon – on issues ranging from fraud targeting the elderly, to common tax schemes, to business opportunity fraud – we will develop comprehensive strategies and implement innovative new solutions for preventing and combating consumer fraud in the years ahead.
To put it simply: my colleagues and I are counting on you. American consumers are depending on you. And I look forward to all that we will accomplish together.
Thank you.
“Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the Consumer Protection Working Group Summit Washington, D.C. ~ Friday, March 9, 2012
As prepared for delivery
Thank you, Mike [Bresnick], for that kind introduction – and for your leadership as Executive Director of the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. It’s a pleasure to join you – and so many dedicated colleagues and essential partners – as we begin today’s important discussions.
Thank you all – especially our distinguished panelists – for being part of this historic Summit. I can think of no better way to commemorate – and raise awareness about – Consumer Protection Week, than for this group of stakeholders, experts, and advocates to join forces in examining the challenges we face – and identifying the solutions that the American people deserve.
In this conversation, I’m especially grateful for the commitment and engagement of the members of the Consumer Protection Working Group – a newly-formed initiative that’s operating as part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. In particular, I would like to recognize Director [Michael] Blume, of the Consumer Protection Branch, and all of the Group’s co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General Tony West, of the Civil Division, and soon to be Acting Associate Attorney General; Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, of the Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte of the Central District of California; Director [David] Vladeck, of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection; and Kent Markus, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Director of Enforcement.
Today, as the Working Group gathers for the second time since its inaugural meeting in February, I want to express my gratitude for your leadership of this effort – and for your dedication to protecting the health, safety, and economic security of consumers across the country. These are goals – and responsibilities – that we all share. And each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling them.
For me, and for today’s Department of Justice, protecting American consumers is a top priority. And, as we’ve rededicated ourselves to this work in recent years, we’ve also learned some essential lessons. Primarily, that fully understanding the threats consumers face – and protecting their interests in a comprehensive way – is not something that the Justice Department can achieve on its own. We cannot simply prosecute our way out of this problem. So we need your help. We need your perspectives and expertise. We need your talents and determination. And that’s precisely what today is all about.
Earlier this afternoon, we kicked off an important – and, in many ways, unprecedented – conversation between this Working Group’s leaders and key consumer advocates. We talked about strategies for enhancing our civil and criminal enforcement of consumer fraud crimes; increasing public awareness about common schemes – and ways to report them – so that ordinary citizens have the knowledge they need to fight back; and building on the momentum we’ve established in the fight against consumer fraud.
As a result of discussions like this one – and thanks to the strong partnerships we’ve forged with federal law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and key state and local authorities – we’ve been able to gain access to the wide array of tools and the extraordinary depth of experience we will need not just to continue the work that’s underway – but to bring this fight to the next level.
Especially in these times of great economic challenge, I recognize that the need to move aggressively to combat these crimes has never been more important. And that’s why I’m proud to report that our nation’s Department of Justice – and so many of the consumer groups represented here – have responded to these threats not with despair, but with resolve – and decisive action.
During the last fiscal year, the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch achieved an astounding 95 percent conviction rate. They recovered over $900 million in criminal and civil fines. And they obtained sentences totaling over 125 years of imprisonment against more than 30 individuals.
These achievements build on the remarkable success of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which has helped secure convictions against those responsible for a wide variety of consumer scams – including telemarketing schemes, fraudulent job training and referral services, and even an enterprise that generated over $75 million in loss and victimized 350,000 small businesses by placing unauthorized charges on people’s phone bills.
Since last April – when I established a new part of the Task Force known as the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group – we’ve also been focused on identifying civil or criminal violations in the oil and gasoline markets, and ensuring that American consumers are not harmed by unlawful conduct. This Working Group’s latest meeting was held at the Justice Department just this morning – and its members discussed a variety of topics, including the role of speculators in the market; recent reports and enforcement matters by various Working Group members – such as the FTC and the New York State Attorney General’s Office; as well as ways to improve information sharing between Working Group members and partners; and where we go from here.
I can also report that one of the Working Group’s members – the Federal Trade Commission – is currently conducting an investigation, with assistance from other Working Group members, into whether gas prices have been affected by any antitrust violation or market manipulation by refiners, oil producers, transporters, marketers, physical or financial traders, or others. Working Group members stand ready to act if the FTC learns anything that implicates the laws they enforce.
The Task Force has also been at the forefront of the Administration’s efforts to seek justice for those who were devastated by the recent financial crisis. Since 2009, we’ve helped bring charges, secure convictions, and obtain prison sentences of up to 60 years in a variety of cases charging securities fraud, bank fraud, and investment fraud. Using criminal enforcement tools where possible – and civil penalties and sanctions where necessary – we’ve made great strides in holding individuals and institutions accountable for the reckless, inappropriate, and often unlawful conduct that helped contribute to the financial crisis. And – by employing a similar collaborative approach – we’ve even been able to make history.
In January, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, other agencies, and 49 state attorneys general came together to achieve a landmark $25 billion agreement with the nation’s top five mortgage servicers – the largest joint federal-state settlement on record. This will provide significant assistance to struggling homeowners and communities. And it will serve as a model for what we can accomplish when we work together – across federal agencies, state boundaries, and party lines – and through another new Task Force component known as the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group.
Now, we can all be encouraged by the achievements that have characterized the past few years. But there is perhaps no better illustration of the progress we’ve made than our groundbreaking work to combat health-care fraud. Over the last fiscal year alone, the Department and its partners were able to recover nearly $4.1 billion in funds that were stolen or taken improperly from federal health-care programs – the highest amount ever recovered in a single year. And over the last three years, for every dollar we spent fighting against health-care fraud, we’ve returned an average of seven dollars to the U.S. Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund, and others.
These numbers are stunning. There’s no question that we should all be proud of the results that have already been achieved. Although health care fraud won’t be a focal point of this Working Group, this ongoing work will continue to augment our latest consumer protection efforts. But I also know that this is no time to be satisfied – and we cannot afford to become complacent.
That’s why we must – and will – continue to seek new avenues for communication and collaboration with partners like each of you. With the assistance and expertise of the friends and allies gathered here today, and through discussions like those that will take place this afternoon – on issues ranging from fraud targeting the elderly, to common tax schemes, to business opportunity fraud – we will develop comprehensive strategies and implement innovative new solutions for preventing and combating consumer fraud in the years ahead.
To put it simply: my colleagues and I are counting on you. American consumers are depending on you. And I look forward to all that we will accomplish together.
Thank you.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
THE CROSS BORDER CRIME FORUM IN OTTAWA, CANADA
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Friday, March 2, 2012
“Readout of Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary Janet Napolitano’s Trip to Ottawa, Canada
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today visited Ottawa, Canada to participate in the Cross-Border Crime Forum with Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General Rob Nicholson, and Canadian Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews. Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder and Minister Toews also signed a memorandum of understanding to better prevent and combat human smuggling and trafficking.
“Our productive discussions today at the Cross Border Crime Forum go a long way toward advancing a key pillar of the Beyond the Border initiative that President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed last year: integrated law enforcement that adds value to our relationship by leveraging shared resources, improving information sharing and increasing coordination of efforts, while ensuring the safety of the citizens of both our countries,” said Attorney General Holder. “ I am grateful to our Canadian counterparts for their indispensable work to combat exploitation, abuse, and violence; and to strengthen the critical ties that bind our nations together. With the signing of this important memorandum, we signal a renewed commitment to the goals and values that our nations share to prevent and combat human trafficking.”
“We must stop individuals and transnational criminal organizations that seek to exploit the border shared by the United States and Canada to traffic drugs, arms and other illicit goods,” said Secretary Napolitano. “We will continue to work closely with our Canadian partners through greater operational collaboration and intelligence sharing to strengthen the security of both our nations within, at, and away from our border.”
During the Forum, Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General Nicholson and Minister Toews discussed collaborative efforts to advance President Obama and Prime Minister Harper’s Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness initiative. The Beyond the Border Action Plan outlines the specific steps both countries will take to achieve the security and economic competitiveness goals from the Beyond the Border Declaration. They also focused on efforts to develop the next-generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement operations, and improve information sharing practices to enhance the mutual security of the United States and Canada.
“Our Government is pleased to work with our U.S. counterparts to combat cross-border crime,” said the Honorable Rob Nicholson. “Ongoing cooperation between our countries allows for the most effective investigation and prosecution of crime when criminal activities cross our border.”
“The Forum remains an excellent opportunity for Canada and the U.S. to advance cooperation in the areas of law enforcement, criminal justice and intelligence,” said Minister Toews. “Our government is focused on the economy and creating jobs, and I am particularly pleased with the progress being made on initiatives announced under the Beyond the Border Action Plan.”
While in Ottawa, Attorney General Holder, Secretary Napolitano and Minister Toews signed a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center and the Canadian Human Trafficking National Coordination Center. The agreement between these two centers will facilitate the sharing of critical information on human trafficking to combat and disrupt transnational criminal organizations.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)