home

Fool For A Day: NYPD Terrorism Official

Richard Falkenrath, head of NYPD's terrorism squad is truly clueless...and spreading fear-engendering disinformation.

Falkenrath is arguing against trying terrorism suspects in U.S. courts. Who is this guy? A former senior domestic security official in the Bush administration.

Falkenrath Complaint Item #1: The cases will eat up valuable federal court resources. Does it not occur to him that the answer is to reserve the federal courts for serious federal crimes and take drug crimes and other cases that can be equally tried in state courts to them? We have over-criminalized the federal courts for the past few decades. Tell Congress to stop passing laws that put these offenders in the federal system. And tell the DOJ to decline prosecution in favor of state courts. Problem solved. [More...]

A prime example is one I was reminded of by blogger Craig Chelsock, who wrote about my view on misplaced federal priorities at the time:

Talkleft's Jeralyn Merritt points out another example of misplaced federal priorities:

At 2:00 PM today, Attorney General Ashcroft announced a new and major effort to crack down on online drug paraphernalia sales, along with major criminal indictments. Ashcroft criticized former Attorney General Janet Reno for not enforcing the laws with the same zeal that he possesses.

Can he be serious? We are on the precipe of war. The American public is constantly reminded we are under high to very high terror alerts, and Ashcroft and Bush want to go after bong sellers?

And now this law enforcement officer wants to carry that tune? At some point you think it is going to turn out to be a satire. Alas, it is true.

Falkenrath Complaint Item #2: If there's an acquittal, the defendant adjudicated not guilty might end up released in the U.S. despite being dangerous. His assumption: the prosecutors blew a good case. Aside from having no support for such a proposition, he ignores the fact that the accused, if not a U.S. citizen or here on a valid green card, would immediately be transferred to ICE custody for removal. Nor does he acknowledge that President Obama has refused to rule out the possibility of continued detention for those found not guilty whom the U.S. believes to be a danger. All Obama promised was not to call label them "enemy combatents. A rose by any other name...as the saying goes.

Item #3: He's worried that grant money is going to emergency preparedness (as in first responders) instead of programs designed to prevent terrorism. I hope Former Sen. Gary Hart chooses to respond to Falkenrath's specious argument, as he has before, such as in this response to former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It is equally applicable to Falkenrath:

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism. You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

See, I knew Hart could say it better than I could.

< Voices of Glory: Move Over, Susan Boyle | U.N. High Commissioner Criticizes U.S. Over Guantanamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The vicious cycle (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 08:32:34 AM EST
    Most folks might be surprised to learn about the history of plea bargaining.  While the Constitution provides every citizen their day in court before a jury of their peers, it seldom happens.  This is because most accused cop a plea, often after having been informed by prosecutors that exercising their right to trial will expose them to more, if not the most, severe sanctions.

    This is a criminal justice system designed by Monty Hall for the purpose of accommodating our politicians' need to appear "tough on crime."  The judicial system is overstressed and pressured to process criminal defendants at the same time  elected legislators make more and more activity criminal, placing further stress upon the system.  That is why plea bargaining exists; the we cannot afford to have the accused exercising their Constitutional rights if we want our elected officials to protect us from everything.

    If plea bargaining were not allowed politicians and society in general would be forced to ask themselves, "what activity is it that is worth spending our limited criminal justice resources protecting us against?"  As it is, any activity that upsets anyone or any group is fair game for a politician to build a career upon.  And the criminal justice system becomes more and more perverse.

    Plea bargaining serves , first and foremost, to facilitate our "tough on crime" politicians.  The politicans' priority is not to fashion a sensible approach to crime, it is to get elected again and again period. This vicious cycle of legislative grandstanding on "crime" and "improving administration of the criminal justice system" has transformed our adversarial system of justice into an inquisition presided over by prosecutors.  

    Good points... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    something is definitely wrong when it is more convenient and less costly for innocent persons to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

    If every accused refused to plea bargain, the criminal justice system would likely collapse under its own over -legislated, over-criminalized, police-state weight.  But thats a helluva gamble for the accused to take with the draconian sentences we hand down.

    Parent

    But that's a large assumption (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:11:13 AM EST
    Your statement is assuming that all of most of the people who take plea bargains didn't commit the crimes for which they are charged.  I don't think that's the case - most people accused of crimes (though, not all, I admit) are GUILTY of committing those crimes, and my experience working for a judge backs me up as far as I can tell. The defense attorneys and prosecutors were always talking with the judge, figuring out the best plea deal for the defendant, because as many of the defense attorneys told me time and again, "Yeah, he's guilty. Now we need to work out the best deal."

    Parent
    No doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    most accused are guilty, but one innocent person taking a plea out of convenience, or too protect their family from over-zealous prosecutors, is too many.  It happens, and highlights a problem.

    Parent
    Most are guilty, which ones though is the point (none / 0) (#21)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:03:52 PM EST
    of a trial.

    My post is that there are, on the federal level, too many things to be potentially guilty of.   Many federal crime mirror that which is already a state crime.  And many acts or omissions, too many, shoud simply not be crimes at all.  

    If society actually valued the Bill of Rights we would be forced to weigh the legislating of "crime"  against the cost such legislation would impose on a criminal justice system constrained, as designed, by the Bill of Rights.  What conduct is it that is truly worth criminalizing and adding burden to our courts, not to mention housing the incarcerated, etc?

    Instead we have, for all intents and purposes, lifted the constraint.  We have adopted, in order to move huge numbers through the system, inquisition by prosecutor as our preferred form of criminal justice.  

    My main concern is not that people plead to crimes they did not commit or that those guilty of horrific crimes get off with lighter sentences, both of which are legitimate & important issues with plea bargaining.  I do not like the way the system relieves politicians of having to even think about the cost of administration.  That, in combination with the all too prevalent view of prisons as rural economic development (except for the superhumanly dangerous "terrorists"), makes it little wonder that we have incarcerated in our prisons an obscene number of individuals.

    Parent

    This comment was prompted by: (none / 0) (#2)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 08:49:07 AM EST
    " Does it not occur to him that the answer is to reserve the federal courts for serious federal crimes and take drug crimes and other cases that can be equally tried in state courts to them? We have over-criminalized the federal courts for the past few decades. "

    I probably should have made that clearer.

    Parent

    Three Strikes... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    is an abomination of any sense of justice...I hear that.

    Not only does it clog the courts, which is bad for budgets and speedy justice (though good for highlighting our over-criminalization)...it clogs the prisons and stains our society.

    I don't know if it makes you a lefty, but it makes you someone who cares about freedom and justice, and someone who is as embarassed by our criminal justice system as I am.

    Actually (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    I think the three strikes, streamlines courts a bit.  Think how many extra cases the courts would have if you have some jack-a-ma-hole who commits 10 crimes and keeps getting caught.  That's 10 sets of arraignments, 10 motion hearings, possibly 10 trials.

    And while I agree that some of the "third strike" offenses seem minor, maybe these people should be put in jail for their own safety because they're stupid.  They all know about three strikes and choose (important libertarian word)to commit a crime for (at least) the third time.

    Parent

    Some don't seem minor.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    they are minor.

    And I don't believe the none too bright deserve cages anymore than a braniac does.  Yeah, some people give us no choice but to give them the chain and cage treatment...but I simply refuse to believe this many of my fellow Americans need chains and cages...something is rotten in Denmark, and it starts under that dome in DC and in the statehouse.

    Besides, I worry more about what our criminal justice and prison policies say about us as a society than if some knucklehead is adequately punished to the satisfaction of law and order types.

    Parent

    I didn't say (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    just BECAUSE someone is non too birght - I said people who keep committing crimes and get caught are non too birght and maybe should find another line of work.

    And maybe the third offense IS minor, and if all the offenses were minor, I can see getting rid of the three strikes law.  But where you have someone commit 3 robberies, or 3 sexual assaults, or an armed robbery, a sexual assault, and a felonious assault, why should that person keep getting another "second chance" to do it again?

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    Because we are a free and forgiving society that believes in redemption and erroring on the side of freedom, forgiveness, and redemption?

    Some may say that would make us a society of fools, and maybe they would be right...but we'd be the best most beautiful kind of fools:)  In my mind, it is so worth the risk...freedom ain't free, as they say.

    Parent

    It's called (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:15:33 AM EST
    "insanity" - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me three times, go directly to jail.

    Parent

    Maybe in the extreme case... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    of a cold-blooded serial killer it would be insane...but petty sh*t?  I call that being reasonable, and understanding the severity of placing a human being in chains and cages.

    What is insane is people looking at 10, 15, 25, years...even life, over a petty theft or drug charge.  Tyrannically cruel and insane.

    Parent

    I said I agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    But it's not always about drugs.  There are serial burglars, robbers, rapists, domestic attackers, people who commit assault.  They don't deserve 4 or 5 bites at the apple.

    Parent
    I agree on rape... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    thats a heinous crime, serial assaulters approach the "give us no choice" line, but I'll give a one or two time convict of assault a chance at redemption.  My old man was convicted of assault (for the record he was innocent)...served 18 months and went on to a productive tax-paying violent crime free life.

    Burglary and robbery absent violence I'd be even more apt to give the benefit of the doubt, and a chance at redemption.  Stealing ain't right, but I don't think it warrants long sentences...its just stuff, chains and cages involve flesh and blood.

    Parent

    Exercising your right to trial (none / 0) (#19)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    will cost you as well. My wife is doing 14 years in Texas for aggravated robbery. She exercised her right to trial instead entering a guilty plea. Her compadre got 7 years for rolling over and not going to trial. This is very common in this country. We guarantee citizens certain rights, but should dare to demand them, you pay. My wife was guilty, but she still has a right to trial. Exercising your rights shouldn't double your punishment.

    Parent
    Thanks for sharing.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    and well said...it sure does feel like an injustice system sometimes.

    Parent
    So, a question (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    You claim to have liberatarian leanings.  Don't  liberatarians want people to make their own choices and then make them have to live with the consequences of those choices?

    I give someone the benefit of the doubt for stealing food because he's hungry (overall hungry - not someone who is hungry because he missed breakfast).  But I don't give someone the benefit of the doubt who breaks into my house and steals my electronics and jewelry, especially when that person has done this before and has already done time for crimes like these.  Maybe no one was hurt (except I might feel violated knowing a stranger was in my house, going through my things, but what do my feelings matter?), but why should he keep getting another chance to be set straight?  He made a conscious choice of burglarizing my house, knowing full well if he got caught, he would go to jail, and with three strikes, it would be permanently.  Why should I or anyone else, feel sorry for someone who deliberately sets out multiple times to inflict damage upon me and/or my property?

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:51:50 PM EST
    I'm all about personal responsibility and living with the consequences of your actions...merely question the state often making the consequences so severe...draconian punishment when milder punishment will suffice.

    I'm not asking you to feel sorry for a cat burglar who rips you off...you as an individual have every right to shoot a mofo who invades your home.  I'm batting the mofo I catch breaking into mine.  

    When it comes to punishment for a habitual thief...its not about the thief, its about how we punish that thief and what that says about our society as a whole.  I'm not asking you to give him a second chance, or a third chance...I'm asking society.  Asking society to be better than the base instincts of a crime victim out for revenge....isn't that the point of "civilization"?...otherwise lets just party and live in anarchy.

    My house was robbed once...I didn't even report it.  In part because as a rule I do not call authorities, and in part because I feel societies punishment of that individual(s) would be worse than the crime, or what I would have done had he/they been caught in the act. It was probably punk kids...I wouldn't want them to have a scarlet letter for life over a stolen Playstation and some other crap...what was done was done, I cleaned my house up and moved on with my life....chalked it up as a cost of living in a still relatively free society.  It takes me longer to get over standing in line for 2 hours at the DMV than it did my house being looted....I'm weird that way:)

    You might think it odd I'd bat a mofo in a heartbeat, yet pause at sending a mofo to a cage...that probably stems from me preferring to taking someones best shot over a cage, if forced to choose.  One only bruises the flesh, the other bruises the soul.

    Parent

    PS.... (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    Thanks for the brain food today pal:)

    Parent
    No prob (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    it was fun :)

    Parent
    California's (none / 0) (#14)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    ease of taking popular sentiment to the ballot box in such an expeditious manner has created all kinds of problems.  Most glaringly being three strikes.  Criminal Law in California - http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13832435