Attorney General Eric Holder's Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence Holds Final Public Hearing in Detroit: New DOJ Study Reveals School Officials More Likely to Learn of Child Victimization than Police or Medical Authorities

2019 ◽  
pp. 87-108
Author(s):  
Andrew Coan

After the ordeal of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, few wished to resurrect a strongly independent special prosecutor. But nor did anyone wish to return to the wholly unregulated approach of the previous era. Was there not some middle ground? In the waning days of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno convened a task force to answer this question. For nearly twenty years, the intricate rules this group drafted went largely untested. Then Donald Trump was elected president. This chapter recounts the drafting of these rules and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate allegations of collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. Political pressure forced Trump to acquiesce in Mueller’s appointment. This gave Trump and his allies powerful political incentives to attack Mueller, which they did with ruthless ferocity. For special prosecutors, this is the norm. For the American people, it is cause for intense vigilance.


Significance This followed Attorney General Jeff Sessions on February 27 announcing the Prescription Interdiction and Litigation task force, the latest government move to push back against opioids. Sessions said that the Department of Justice would pursue under the law those who unnecessarily or excessively prescribe opioids, including manufacturers and distributors, and support local governments’ lawsuits against these people. Impacts Drug lobbyists will fight anti-opioid lawsuits. Medical practitioners and drug distributors will face more intense scrutiny of their prescription decisions. Solving the drug problem could aid security and the economy, including productivity. States have disparate finance and operating capacity to tackle opioids; results will not be uniform. Cracking down on drugs would also need US law enforcement capacity enhancements, but funding here too is not necessarily sufficient.


Author(s):  
Robert L. Listenbee ◽  
◽  
Joe Torre ◽  
Gregory Boyle ◽  
Sharon W. Cooper ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-54
Author(s):  
Andrew Dalip

The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare is pleased to publish the following thought piece from one of our esteemed Speakers from the 2020 West Coast Security Conference. The author, Mr. Dalip, is a lawyer working in the financial crime and corruption sphere. From 2015 to 2018, Mr. Dalip was a chairman at the Steering Group Planning Committee for the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF); and from 2014 to 2018, he was a special legal advisor to the Ministry of Attorney General Trinidad and Tobago. The intersection between corruption and intelligence is gaining increased focus. Foreign intelligence services have an anti-corruption role at the strategic level through Intelligence Risk Assessments and at the operational level during post-conflict operations. Intelligence assessments of the effectiveness of non-kinetic tools on target countries also guide implementation and policy changes. The roles of security intelligence and foreign intelligence services are, however, no longer always discrete, particularly in the context of non-state actors. Foreign intelligence services would benefit from the skill sets of security intelligence agencies in detecting corruption related predicate offences, both in performing their core roles and supporting law enforcement operations. This includes the use of financial intelligence as well as other key open source intelligence resulting from anti-money laundering frameworks, the development of which has been driven globally by the Financial Action Task Force. In performing these roles, intelligence agencies must also be mindful of their own vulnerability to corruption.


Author(s):  
Puteri Hikmawati

Arrest hand operation (OTT) is one of the efforts done in handling corruption cases. Since 2005 until 2017 The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has done as many as 77 OTT. In addition to KPK, the Government established a Task Force of Sweeping Illegal Levies (Satgas Saber Pungli) with the Presidential Regulaton nr. 87 of 2016, which also conducted OTT related to illegal levies. However, the term OTT is not contained in the legal provisions of corruption case handling. The provisions of the procedural law only regulate the arrest and arrest hand. Therefore, the legal issue in this paper is whether the implementation of OTT by KPK and Satgas Saber Pungli has been in accordance with criminal procedure law. This paper is the result of juridical normative and juridical empirical research, using a qualitative approach. In the discussion described the implementation of OTT by the KPK, which was preceded by wiretapping, while the tapping mechanism and procedures have not been regulated in the Act, as mandated by the Constitutional Court Decision. While OTT conducted by Satgas Saber Pungli based on report of the community. Based on the research, OTT conducted by KPK and Saber Pungli Task Force, in this case the Police and Attorney General, do not violate criminal procedure law. But for harmonization the wiretapping authority should be given to the Police and the Prosecutor's Office for handling corruption cases, and the requirement to be caught in the Criminal Procedure Code must be clarified on the criteria and requirements, so that its implementation does not depend on the interpretation of the apparatus. Abstrak Operasi tangkap tangan (OTT) merupakan salah satu upaya yang dilakukan dalam penanganan kasus korupsi. Sejak tahun 2005 sampai dengan 2017, KPK telah melakukan sebanyak 77 OTT. Selain KPK, Pemerintah membentuk Satuan Tugas Sapu Bersih Pungli (Satgas Saber Pungli) dengan Peraturan Presiden No. 87 Tahun 2016, yang juga melakukan OTT berkaitan dengan pungutan liar. Namun, istilah OTT tidak terdapat dalam ketentuan hukum acara penanganan kasus korupsi. Ketentuan hukum acara hanya mengatur penangkapan dan tertangkap tangan. Oleh karena itu, permasalahan hukum dalam tulisan ini adalah apakah pelaksanaan OTT oleh KPK dan Satgas Saber Pungli telah sesuai dengan hukum acara pidana. Tulisan ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif dan yuridis empiris, dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Dalam pembahasan diuraikan pelaksanaan OTT oleh KPK, yang didahului dengan penyadapan, sementara mekanisme dan prosedur penyadapan harus diatur dalam UU, sebagaimana amanat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sedangkan OTT yang dilakukan oleh Satgas Saber Pungli berdasarkan laporan dari masyarakat. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, OTT yang dilakukan oleh KPK dan Satgas Saber Pungli, dalam hal ini Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan, tidak menyalahi hukum acara pidana. Namun, untuk harmonisasi, kewenangan penyadapan perlu diberikan kepada Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan yang menangani kasus korupsi, dan persyaratan tertangkap tangan dalam KUHAP harus dipertegas kriteria dan syaratnya, agar pelaksanaannya tidak tergantung pada penafsiran aparat.


2000 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 708-714
Author(s):  
PJ Ferrillo ◽  
KB Chance ◽  
RI Garcia ◽  
WE Kerschbaum ◽  
JJ Koelbl ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document