Conyers sent letters to David Addington, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith, Daniel Levin, and George Tenet informing them of the May 6 hearing. While each letter is specific to the recipient’s role in the administration, he stated (directly or indirectly) a common interest:
"Among the subjects likely to be explored at the [May 6] hearing are the United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces, issues on which you appear to have played an important role."
In his letter to David Addington (Cheney’s current chief of staff), Conyers specifically referenced Addington as a "principal author of the…memo justifying torture" and his participation in the "preparation of the key legal memorandum concluding that the protections of the Geneva Conventions are ‘obsolete’."
Writing to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Conyers conveys his intention to explore "issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in the time of war and the current Administration’s approach to these questions under U.S. and international law."
It is not unreasonable to presume George Bush will invoke Executive Privilege. Surely by now, Fred Fielding’s assistant has a Word template that only requires adding the applicable name(s).
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) intends to block the nomination of former Rep. James Rogan (R-CA) to the federal bench because of his role in the impeachment of President Clinton.
After a markup session yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee passed the RESTORE Act with (The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007) after incorporating three amendments submitted during the markup session. Overall, the changes made yesterday do not drastically alter the overall provisions of the bill as introduced on October 9 (summary, full text).
Following are summaries of the three amendments and their respective sponsor(s). I am almost certain the Jackson-Lee and Scott amendments were limited to wordsmithing. For example adding the modifier “significant” to the word “purpose.” I do not have any information on the Nadler amendment at this time beyond the summary provided below.
Jackson-Lee (TX): An amendment to clarify the bill’s language and prevent “reverse targeting” by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a “significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States” rather than waiting until said person formally becomes a target.
Nadler (NY): An amendment to improve court oversight over the government’s compliance with the FISA Court’s orders by requiring the court to assess compliance with its orders as opposed to merely authorizing it to do so and by removing limitations on its review.
Scott (VA): An amendment to the bill’s auditing and reporting requirements. The current standard is that acquisition must be with the “significant purpose” of gathering foreign intelligence. The amendment seeks to obtain information about what additional purposes for which the government may be collecting.
Given the significance of this bill, a comparative review of the current and proposed legislation may be helpful, but first let’s take a moment to summarize the evolution of the surveillance bills for clarity.
FISA —> PAA —> RESTORE Act
The first post-Watergate intelligence surveillance statue, FISA, was passed in 1978 and has been modified numerous times over the years. In general terms, the statute and applicable revisions have continued to be commonly referred to as FISA. In August of this year, immediately prior to the summer recess, Congress acquiesced to the Bush-Cheney administration’s fabricated terror threat and chest-pounding to pass the Protect America Act (PAA), a temporary law, which gave Bush carte-blanche to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on anybody, anywhere, void of any oversight, controls, or regulations. In some regards, one could easily argue he had been doing it for six years and had no intentions of changing, so what difference did it really make. A terrible argument, but unfortunately realistic.
The PAA superceded FISA’s specifications and regulations, therefore, what is actually being addressed today via the RESTORE Act are the provisions of the PAA. Consequently, the matrix below provides a comparison between the current law, PAA, and the proposed legislation, the RESTORE Act.
The RESTORE Act (HR 3773) vs. the PAA
RESTORE Act of 2007
Protect America Act
Prohibits warrantless surveillance of Americans. Requires a Court Order before targeting Americans’ phone calls or email.
Contains language that could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans’ homes, offices, medical records, and phone records.
Requires an individual finding of probable cause before conducting surveillance on Americans who are abroad (soldiers, travelers, etc.).
Permits warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans abroad without probable cause.
Clarifies that no Court Order is required for surveillance of conversations where both ends are foreign.
Does not address this issue.
Grants the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence authority to apply to the FISA Court for an order authorizing electronic surveillance of multiple foreign targets. The FISA Court must review the guidelines and procedures for this surveillance.
FISA Court’s review of procedures is only after-the-fact. FISA Court is relegated to a “rubber stamp” because it may only overturn the surveillance procedures if they are “clearly erroneous.”
FISA Court must approve minimization procedures.
No FISA Court review of minimization procedures allowed.
Mandates quarterly audits by the Justice Department Inspector General (DOJ IG) on communications collected under this authority and the number of U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports disseminated pursuant to this collection. These audits would be provided to the FISA Court and to Congress (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees). Mandates an IG audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies.
Mandates an IG audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies.
Requires the DOJ IG to conduct an audit of the Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs – to include providing authorizations and legal memoranda to Congress.
Only authorizes an audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies.
Authorizes the FISA Court, at its discretion, to review applications and other matters as a panel (en banc).
No provision for en banc review
Requires the government to submit applications before conducting surveillance (but provides for surveillance to begin immediately in an emergency).
Allows the government to conduct surveillance for 120 days before procedures must be filed with the FISA Court.
Narrows the scope of this new authority to allow surveillance on terrorism and other threats to national security.
Allows warrantless surveillance to collect any type of intelligence, to include information about trade negotiations.
Requires the government to establish a record-keeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. persons is disseminated.
No such record keeping required.
On a side note, last night, or probably better stated, early this morning, I fired off a letter about the proposed FISA changes to my respective Members of Congress. In addition to blasting the Bush-Cheney administration for its relentless lawbreaking, I believe I made it clear that I was not pleased with the attitude Congress is assuming with this bill in particular, as well as their overall complacent posture. That’s a bit ironic isn’t it? What kind of posture do invertebrates have? Well, at minimum we know they can’t qualify for biped status.
If you have not contacted your Senators or Representative about this issue (and hopefully others), and don’t have time to compose a personal letter, you are welcome to use mine as a template. Of course, the “template” is complete — all the hyperbole, over-the-top rhetoric, and requisite derriere-kissing a wingnut could possibly need.
The letter I have provided is addressed to a Representative, which can easily be modified slightly to accommodate Senators.
John Conyers (D-MI) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), chairs of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees respectively, introduced legislation today to replace the temporary Protect America Act and will permanently revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The new bill, the RESTORE Act of 2007 (Responsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective), is not as onerous as depicted in the NYT piece this morning, but falls short of fully protecting individual civil liberties. Furthermore the bill does not provide the retroactive immunity the White House and GOP Members of Congress are seeking for the flagrant lawbreaking — warrantless eavesdropping — committed by the Bush administration and major telecom companies.
President Bush has promised to veto any legislation that does not include retroactive immunity.
Bruce Fein, Chairman of American Freedom Agenda and former Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration, gave a good summary of the shortcomings of the proposed legislation on Countdown tonight. The video is Keith Olbermann’s interview of Fein.
A summary of the proposed legislation is here (pdf).
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Sub-Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) demanded the release of secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Department that authorized the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA.
Conyers and Nadler also demanded that Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel “be made available for prompt Committee Hearings.”
A complete copy of Conyer’s and Nadler’s letter is available here (pdf).
Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey has submitted his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire for confirmation. The document is available here (pdf).
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he wanted specific answers to address outstanding issues and concerns, and that Mukasey’s confirmation was contingent upon Mukasey’s and the White House’s cooperation. Apparently, Leahy’s initial request has gone unanswered — like everything else he has sent the Bush-Cheney administration — based on a letter he sent (html, pdf) Mukasey today.
Leahy’s questions and concerns are valid and appropriate. He wants to know who Mukasey’s master will be, George Bush or the Constitution.
I have emphasized most of the salient points of Leahy’s letter below.
October 2, 2007
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Judge Mukasey:
I look forward to scheduling and chairing the confirmation hearing on your nomination to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I also look forward to your response to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, and we may have additional requests for background information that would be helpful to the Committee in preparation for the hearing.
As I told you when we met the day after your designation, I look forward to meeting with you and having a substantive discussion before the hearing. I propose that we meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 10 a.m., if that is convenient for you.
I also mentioned when we first met that I would provide you with some of the topics that concern me. Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership. Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.
We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power.
The mass firings of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by this President were unprecedented. I will inquire whether you share my view that the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement should not be compromised by political operatives from the White House. I will ask for your assurance that the Department of Justice and, in particular, our U.S. Attorneys, will not be employed in upcoming elections to seek to affect the outcome. The Department of Justice should be working to protect Americans’ right to vote and have their vote count, not seeking to swing close elections into a partisan column by leaking allegations of corruption or bringing last minute legal actions alleging voter fraud.
A related matter of significant concern to a number of Members of the Committee is the recent rewriting of the Department of Justice’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” It not only changed from the “red book” to the “green book,” but the traditional practice of not bringing last-minute investigations and actions was turned on its head. The traditional version of the protocol, part of which I read to former Department of Justice official Bradley Schlozman at our June 5 hearing, provided: “In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself. . . Thus, most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.” As recently revised under the outgoing, discredited leadership group, it provides great latitude for the Department of Justice to influence the outcomes of elections. Will you reassure us that under your leadership that these guidelines will be changed back to the time-honored rules? That is a concrete step you can take at the outset to set a new tone.
Another aspect of this concern is your close association with a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Given that longstanding relationship, what assurances can you give the Committee, the Senate and the American people, should he be the Republican nominee, that you will not improperly use your position? The White House press operation suggested last weekend that you would recuse yourself from matters involving Mr. Guiliani. Is that true, and would that recusal include the Republican presidential campaign if he is the Republican nominee?
From our earlier meeting I know that you knew and worked with Judge Harold Tyler. I have admired Judge Tyler. He, too, was faced with restoring the Department of Justice when he served as the Deputy Attorney General in 1975, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. Likewise, I think we both view Attorney General Robert Jackson’s 1941 speech to U. S. Attorneys as striking the right chord on the role of the Department of Justice and the independence of federal prosecutors. If they, Elliot Richardson and Edward Levi are your models, I will look forward to working with you to restore the Department.
In that connection, I note that as the House Judiciary Committee was considering contempt citations for former White House officials this summer, a senior Administration official said that a U.S. Attorney “would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case” and that a U.S. Attorney would not be “permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that Department of Justice provided.”
Under applicable statutes and practices, contempt citations against Administration officials by the House and Senate would be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring before a grand jury for its action. If the House or Senate certified a contempt citation against current or former White House officials arising from the U.S. Attorney investigation, would you permit the U.S. Attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury as required by 2 U.S.C. § 194?If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law, would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?
More generally, what would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a White House official had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation? What would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a Member of Congress had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation?
What will you do to ensure that legal advice from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence?
While you can set an example and a tone at the Department of Justice, you cannot effectively manage it by yourself. Who will be the members of your team to help turn the Department around?
Other key issues arise from this Administration’s abuse of secrecy and expansion of executive power. Policies enacted by this Administration have encouraged Department of Justice officers to withhold information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the bedrock statute that opens our government to its citizens. Will you commit to review and consider overturning these policies, and supporting legislation Senator Cornyn and I have sponsored to reform FOIA, so that the presumption of openness which is at the heart of FOIA is restored for the American people?
The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreaching. We must explore those topics. For example, do you believe that the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture contrary to our treaty obligations and laws? Do you believe that before Congress amended the FISA this summer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the days following September 11, or Article II of the Constitution gave this President authority to override the requirements of that law with respect to wiretapping Americans?
In connection with these matters the Judiciary Committee has been seeking the historical legal analysis of the Department of Justice and this Administration. We have made numerous requests and have even had to subpoena the FISA documents. I want to know whether you will work with us and provide those materials so that we can examine the legal justifications that have been utilized by this Administration to excuse its conduct.
Similarly, in light of the failure of the White House Counsel to provide even a privilege log to substantiate his blanket claim of executive privilege for all information relating to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, we need to consider that matter together. I want to know your view of executive privilege. Do you view it as a communications privilege or something else? Do you think it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved?
With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero (New York) struck down the use of “national security letters” (NSL) — a provision of the Patriot Act – as unconstitutional. The judge declared the NSL’s violate the First Amendment and the Constitution’s separation of powers because the Act does not allow the recipient of an NSL (e.g. AT&T, financial organizations, Internet providers, etc.) to reveal its existence and does not provide appropriate judicial oversight.
The ruling was based on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
Indeed, this is a landmark ruling that exemplifies precisely what the Founding Fathers intended by definition and in action through the Constitution. The People have a right to privacy and no branch of government may exceed the limits of its powers.
For example, under the Patriot Act, the FBI can issue an NSL to any communications company demanding the FBI be allowed unfettered access to whatever communications they choose (phone, Internet traffic, email, etc.), without a court-ordered warrant, and the company cannot reveal the existence of the NSL or any action taken as a result of the NSL. The same applies to financial organizations. Banks can be compelled to turn over all financial information about anybody or any organization.
In a devastating blow to the Bush administration’s unchecked abuse of power for more than six years, Judge Marrero wrote in his ruling:
[The NSL's are] the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values. (Emphasis added.)
In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual’s personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association–particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies–a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes.
To allow the administration time to appeal, the judge delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days. One can only imagine what perverse logic David Addington will employ in the government’s appeal.
Addingtion, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, has been instrumental in drafting and implementing many of the administration’s unconstitutional policies and acts. One of the most ludicrous and recent assertions by Addington was declaring Cheney a unitary executive; that he was not part of the Executive Branch and therefore not subject to compliance to the policies and laws governing the branch.
Based on comments and questions from the bench, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District appeared to view the Bush administration’s warrantless intelligence surveillance as a mockery of democracy and contemptuous of the Constitution. Yesterday, lawyers for the administration argued “that the government’s surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets,” the Washington Postreports.
The two cases, Hepting v. AT&T and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v.George W. Bush, were presented to the highest court thus far with respect to challenging the legality of the NSA’s spy program, with the panel delivering blistering smackdowns to the government’s arguments.
While neocons have a longstanding disdain for the San Francisco based court, the panel delivered the following smackdowns to the government’s arguments.
“The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong,” said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.
[…] “This seems to put us in the ‘trust us’ category,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government’s assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. ” ‘We don’t do it. Trust us. And don’t ask us about it.’ “
[...Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre], who had been scheduled to speak for 20 minutes, was kept at the podium for twice that time fielding hardballs. But some of the sharpest queries appeared grounded in concerns — such as the scope of judicial authority — that may be shared by jurists across the political spectrum. “Well, who decides if something is a state secret or not?” Pregerson asked. “Are you saying the courts are to rubber-stamp the determination of the executive of what’s a state secret? What’s our job?”
[...] Government attorneys labored to assure the judges that the administration appreciates their role, while arguing that national security concerns require judges to dismiss cases that might expose state secrets.
“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive, when it comes to wiretapping, is unchecked?” Pregerson asked. No, Garre replied, but he cited an earlier federal ruling that required courts to give “utmost deference” to security concerns.
“Well, what does ‘utmost deference’ mean?” Pregerson asked. Before Garre could reply, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked: “It doesn’t mean abdication, does it?”
Obviously these wise judges did not attend the Roberts and Alito School of Judicial Activism.
The Executive Branch, and more specifically the U.S. Attorney General, will soon gain additional responsibilities for determining the appropriateness and validity of death penalty sentences imposed by states, and consequently short-circuiting the existing appeal process that currently resides in the purview of the federal courts as provided for in the U.S. Constitution. That’s right, instead of being booted out of the Bush administration for proven incompetence and probable criminal activities, Alberto Gonzales will gain more power that is arguably unconstitutional.
During the Patriot Act reauthorization process last year, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) slipped new “language in the Patriot Act…that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation,” the L.A. Timesreports.
The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year’s reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.
Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use “fast track” procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.
[...] Frustrated with the pace of changes — and believing that judges were part of the problem — death penalty advocates Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) led a successful effort to include language in the Patriot Act last year that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation.
It’s bad enough that Alberto Gonzales will be tasked with this responsibility, but that notwithstanding, why has the Justice Department been given responsibilities that are clearly defined as being held by the Judicial Branch?
Did anybody in Congress read the Patriot Act (1.0 or 2.0) before voting on it?
This action and countless others clearly demonstrates how George Bush and Dick Cheney have implemented an authoritarian rule over the country. The dismantling of the Constitution and the Republic by the Bush administration is what I focused on in my previously mentioned mini-sabbatical, and will be discussing in the coming days.
Arguably, this country is facing more than a potential constitutional crisis. This is not hyperbole or hubris - the country’s ability to function as a republic is seriously at risk. While the Bush administration is doing more than their fair share of damage, Congress, the media, and We the People are all complicit. We cannot possibly boil the ocean all at once, but we can focus on this particular issue for now at least.
According to the Times, the Justice Department is “seeking public comment on the [new] rules until Sept. 23.” Unfortunately, they did not provide additional information on how or where to participate in the public discourse. Does anybody already have the scoop on submitting public comments?
Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) seeks to muzzle the dog that keeps biting his hand. Specter reintroduced legislation(subscription required) today that will clamp down on George Bush acting as the Judiciary Branch of the U.S. government. Bush has attached hundreds, if not thousands, of signing statements to legislation passed by Congress, specifying how the laws are to be interpreted and enforced.
“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Specter said in a floor statement.
“The Constitution grants the president a specific, narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. … The Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the president, he may either sign it or veto it with his objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so-called pocket veto. The president, however, cannot veto part of a bill, he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like.”
According to Specter, the bill would take two significant steps to end Bush’s use of signing statements. First, it would prevent the president from “issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute.”
Additionally, it would give Congress significant new standing in any court case involving an interpretation of federal law laid out in an existing signing statement. Under the law, Congress would have the ability to file an amicus brief and present oral arguments on how the law should be read, and would instruct courts that “if Congress passes a joint resolution declaring its view of the correct interpretation of the statute, the court must admit that resolution into the case record.”
It’s Dubya’s job to enforce the laws and we can see how well that’s going. Contrary to King George’s rules, the Supreme Court interprets the law. Ah hell, George can’t even read the damn things, how does he think he can interpret them?
Today is obviously subpoena day. The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider tomorrow (Thursday) authorizing subpoenas for documents related to the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) demanded documents “related to the legal opinions and analysis surrounding the controversial program” in a letter last month Roll Call reports. Leahy and Specter specified a June 5 deadline, but as anticipated, the White House refused.
On the other side of the Capitol, the House is moving in the same direction. Steve Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, told the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) the DOJ would not turn over requested documents because of their “confidential nature.”
(Duuude, the government can be quite creative with titles and names of committees. I would like to see Bradbury’s business card.)
The Justice Department and the White House will have to do some serious digging because Leahy and Specter are asking for everything back to 2001, the beginning of Bush’s administration. I presume the House will have similar requirements.
The Bush administration lost a major case on its terrorism policies, which is a smack in the face for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney with respect to their perception of Executive authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond) ruled the administration can no longer detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely. The suspect must be formally charged and thereby provided due process.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians”, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution – and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
Habeas Corpus is on its way back into the Constitution. Keith Olbermann will not be able to contain himself on his show tonight.
They never cease to amaze me and obviously learned nothing in November 2006. Republican Senate leaders threatened a “total shutdown” of the Senate if Democrats don’t let George Bush have his way on upcoming judicial appointments.
Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS), obviously having flashbacks to his Majority Leader days, said “it could cause a major meltdown” if the Judiciary Committee postpones a vote on Leslie H. Southwick to the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. And, God forbid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was “very mad” about the progression of judicial appointments, according to Lott.
Well, the GOP bad boys may be all full of piss and vinegar, but they seem to have forgotten Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and he doesn’t take crap from anyone - ask Dick Cheney. Responding to Lott’s threat over Leslie Southwick, Leahy said, “Mr. Southwick deserves more scrutiny due to his potentially racist and homophobic rulings.”
If the Republicans manage to win a majority of Senate seats in the next 10 years, which is doubtful, then they can walk around as if they have great big ones, but not until.
What a bunch of spoiled, self-centered, cry babies.
The Chungs, immigrants from South Korea, realized their American dream when they opened their dry-cleaning business seven years ago in the nation’s capital. For the past two years, however, they’ve been dealing with the nightmare of litigation: a $65 million lawsuit over a pair of missing pants.
The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alteration to Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, a place he patronized regularly despite previous disagreements with the Chungs. A pair of pants from one suit was not ready when he requested it two days later, and was deemed to be missing.
After impeaching and disbarring this nut, the U.S. should look at the Australian (and maybe British) judicial system. Lawyers filing ridiculous complaints are subject to being fined (court costs, etc.) and other sanctions.
Prompted by ABC’s recent exposure of the White House torture review program, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers invited five top Bush administration officials (former and current) to a hearing to review the administration’s "torture policies and other potential abuses of executive power."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he 
Based on comments and questions from the bench, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District appeared to view the Bush administration’s warrantless intelligence surveillance as a mockery of democracy and contemptuous of the Constitution. Yesterday, lawyers for the administration argued “that the government’s surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets,” the Washington Post 
The Executive Branch, and more specifically the U.S. Attorney General, will soon gain additional responsibilities for determining the appropriateness and validity of death penalty sentences imposed by states, and consequently short-circuiting the existing appeal process that currently resides in the purview of the federal courts as provided for in the U.S. Constitution. That’s right, instead of being booted out of the Bush administration for proven incompetence and probable criminal activities, Alberto Gonzales will gain more power that is arguably unconstitutional. 