Blog
Justice
By Thaddeus Kromelis – 06/25/08
Yesterday, I managed to catch Larry Lessig's latest "Change Congress" Power Point presentation at the Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) here in New York City. Addressing the distorting effects of money on goverment policy (oil industry influence on global warming research, pharma money at the FDA, the sugar lobby on recommended caloric intake), the Stanford professor's performance was easily one of the more rousing presentations that morning and sparked a discernable buzz from the bloggers gathered in Rose Hall, the home of Jazz at Lincoln Center.
It doesn't appear Lessig has posted yesterday's version on YouTube just yet, so I've gone ahead and included one that's pretty close. However, one notable bit of information missing in April's presentation at UCSB posted below are the numbers he cited from MAPlight.org (where he's a board member). Released yesterday, the organization points out that of the House Democrats who changed their votes from March to June clearing the way for a FISA bill with immunity for the phone companies to pass, on average, those politicians received $8,359 in PAC contributions. Specifically:
Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008).
Now, no one can say those contributions caused recipients to change their votes. But it certainly doesn't project the appearance of an open, honest, and accountable government for the people.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Justice, Liberty & National Security
By Emily Berman – 06/23/08
The issues were preliminary and the result of any ruling likely to be. But despite its preliminary nature, a simple Monday morning hearing in the D.C. District Court had the feeling of something much more. Perhaps it was the last-minute change of venue to the District of Columbia's ceremonial courtroom in order to accommodate the larger-than-usual expected crowds. Maybe it was the presence of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Representative John Conyers at the Plaintiff's counsel's table and White House Counsel Fred Fielding on the Defendants' side. Or it could have been the momentous constitutional ramification that flow from any ruling in the case.
Whatever it was, the argument in preliminary motions in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's suit against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to enforce congressional subpoenas issued in the course of the Committee's investigation into the controversial firings of several U.S. Attorneys in late 2006 was not the court's usual Monday morning fare.
And Judge John D. Bates, the presiding judge, at times seemed to wish he was anywhere other than in a position requiring him to reach a ruling on the issues before him. "I didn't volunteer for this," he reminded the parties at one point.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances, Domestic Counterterrorism
By R. Patrick Wyllie – 06/12/08
Today, the Supreme Court's decision in
Boumediene v. Bush was a clear rebuke of the Administration's attempt to deny Guantanamo detainees' basic rights. Another decision, in
Munaf v. Geren, upheld the Administration's view that the U.S. government cannot interfere with foreign criminal proceedings, even if foreign detention may result in the torture or death of an American citizen.
Together, these cases present some of the questions facing the U.S. as it moves towards a new post-Bush era detention policy. But without the facts, you can't answer the questions, so here you go:
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances, Detention & Habeas Corpus
By Thaddeus Kromelis – 06/12/08
Just some bits regarding the Boumediene & Omar and Munaf decisions...
Emily Bazelon, senior editor of Slate Magazine, talks about this morning's Supreme Court decision granting habeas rights to Guantánamo Bay detainees on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show.
Link here if you can't stream audio...
SCOTUS blog reaction to Boumediene can be found here.
A good report from Nina Totenberg on "the end of Guantanamo as we know it" for NPR's All Things Considered here.
David Stout in the NY Times.
Here's the Washington Post's afternoon story by Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen, includes AP video.
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances, Detention & Habeas Corpus
By R. Patrick Wyllie – 06/02/08
It is unclear whether the White House believed that claiming
executive privilege would provide them with fail-proof protection from divulging
information it would prefer to keep confidential, or if they really believe all
presidential communications are privileged—but it seems as though they've
put all their valuable legal eggs into this one, increasingly fragile basket.
Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, this basket has been
woven from weak strands of legal theory which are unlikely to hold up upon
closer inspection.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee challenged Justice
Department lawyers' efforts to throw out of court the Committee's civil lawsuit
against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff
Joshua Bolten. Allegedly, these two White House employees have crucial
information regarding the forced resignations of a number of U.S. Attorneys who
were not, as Ms. Miers once said, "loyal
Bushies."
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances
By Emily Berman – 05/30/08
Cross-posted from The New Republic.
Last week's report by the Justice Department's Inspector General reveals that working in the Bush Administration really does mean never having to say you're sorry—or, indeed, anything else you don't want to for that matter. And this applies even when it's your executive branch colleagues who are trying to get you to talk.
The Justice Department's inspector general Glenn A. Fine has issued a thorough and unblinking report about the concerns FBI agents had about the harsh interrogation tactics, possibly rising to the level of torture, that were being used on detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. These were concerns, Fine discovered, that were systematically ignored and discounted by cabinet members and other political appointees. Conspicuously absent from Fine's 437-page opus, however, is any input from one of the most important of those political appointees: former Justice Department leader John Ashcroft. The phrase "Attorney General Ashcroft declined to be interviewed for this review" or its equivalent appears repeatedly throughout the report—often followed by an indication that the report is necessarily incomplete because of it. For instance, due to Ashcroft's absence, we don't know which agency or individual made the decisions regarding what interrogation tactics would be used on specific detainees; whether Ashcroft himself objected to the use of any particular tactics; when he first became aware of his subordinates' concerns; or whether he conveyed those concerns to high-level officials outside the Justice Department and, if so, how those officials responded.
Read entire piece here...
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances, Detention & Habeas Corpus, Domestic Counterterrorism
By Thaddeus Kromelis – 05/23/08
Yesterday, attempting to get to the bottom of the alleged politicization of the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration—and an investigation of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D) specifically—Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.
According to CNN, the subpoena had been authorized earlier but was only delivered yesterday after "The Architect" conveyed through his lawyer he would not appear voluntarily. Not surprisingly, the lawyer also stated Rove must honor White House orders not to testify. Read Conyers' cover letter for yourself here.
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances
By Eric Lane – 05/19/08
News that Governor David Paterson has authorized Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to conduct a full-blown investigation into "political interference" by the New York State police is welcomed. Nothing can be more damaging to our democratic political system nor to our law enforcement agencies than harnessing them to influence political outcomes. Think Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and the FBI. Think Richard Nixon, Watergate, and the FBI. Cuomo hits the constitutional nail on the head when he observes that "combining politics and police work is a toxic brew." This toxic brew, in fact, is the drink of authoritarian regimes intent on protecting their own power, rather than the democratic political system they swear to defend.
But police interference in politics is not new to New York State. Just over thirty years ago I served as Counsel to the New York State Assembly Task Force on State Police Non-Criminal Files. The task force was established after a newly appointed State Police Superintendent, William Connelie, reported in 1975 that the state police had collected and maintained information on a broad array of what they characterized as "non criminal" individuals and groups. In fact, according to the Task Force Report, these files numbered in the hundreds of thousand. And within in them were well over 600,000 entries. Most of the files dealing with groups or organizations consisted of reports on "meetings, demonstration or planned activities." But the focus often was on ideas. According to the Report, "the Police appeared concerned with any individual or group which was likely to speak publicly...and espouse ideas which challenged the status quo." Ideas seemed to be seen as a precursor to criminal conduct—a "thought crime" if you will—and their proponents as potential criminals. Many individual files also contained personal information such as records of credit checks, and of conversations with employers, neighbors, professors, local government officials and bank officers.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Justice, NY Reform, Checks & Balances, Domestic Counterterrorism
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
0 comments | Permalink