Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Law Page 14 of 27

Responsibility, Personal and Otherwise

Scott Horton has a short piece at Harpers that I hope everyone at the Department of Justice will read.  I also invite you to read the whole thing.  In case you don’t feel like clicking, though, I’m going to borrow a little more than I should:

The most remarkable part of the [new report entitled “Guantánamo and Its Aftermath , as prepared by The Human Rights Center of the University of California] is certainly the forward written by Patricia Wald, one of the nation’s most respected retired federal appellate judges. Judge Wald has a credential that few of her colleagues share: she left the court of appeals to serve as a war crimes tribunal judge for Yugoslavia and she also served as a member of the Commission President Bush constituted to look at the false allegations of WMDs in Iraq. Judge Wald compared the current allegations surfacing about detainee abuse authorized by President Bush with the cases she examined coming out of the war in Yugoslavia—that resulted in the indictment and conviction of a number of political leaders in the Balkans. Here’s what she has to say:

There are bound to be casualties when any nation veers from its domestic and international obligations to uphold human rights and international humanitarian law. Those casualties are etched on the minds and bodies of many of the 62 former detainees interviewed for this report, many of whom suffered infinite variations on physical and mental abuse, including intimidation, stress positions, enforced nudity, sexual humiliation, and interference with religious practices.

Indeed, I was struck by the similarity between the abuse they suffered and the abuse we found inflicted upon Bosnian Muslim prisoners in Serbian camps when I sat as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, a U.N. court fully supported by the United States. The officials and guards in charge of those prison camps and the civilian leaders who sanctioned their establishment were prosecuted—often by former U.S. government and military lawyers serving with the tribunal—for war crimes, crimes against humanity and, in extreme cases, genocide.

There should be no confusion about what is being said here. One of America’s most prominent judges–and one of our few judicial experts on war crimes–is saying that the factual basis exists to charge officials of the Bush Administration. The test is fairly simple: is the United States now prepared to apply to itself the same legal standards that the United States applied to political leaders in the former Yugoslavia? It is in the end a simple question of justice. And a question of whether the United States is prepared itself to live by the standards it imposes on others.

This is fundamental.

Lori Drew Case: On Track to Make Bad Law

I am shocked the Lori Drew case actually went to trial – opening statements took place yesterday.  I wrote about this case back in August:

The Lori Drew case is a case full of disgusting facts – appalling adult behavior (on all sides) contributed to circumstances that drove a young girl to suicide.  One of those adults is now being prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating the MySpace.com terms of use agreement.  That’s right, Federal prosecutors are trying to treat not complying with those ridiculous click-through agreements on nearly every web site you use as a crime.  Thankfully not everyone is losing their mind over this (horrible) situation, and the EFF, Public Citizen, and others have stepped in with an amicus brief demonstrating just what a bad idea this is.

I haven’t followed things closely, but given what a stretch it is to apply the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to these facts, I assumed it was going to settle.  Because truly, who would expect we were about to move into a world that made it a Federal crime to fill out a website user registration form with anything other than your true and personal information.  And yet we’ll take a big step toward that being the case if Lori Drew is convicted.  And with the facts being presented to the jury, I think that’s a very real possibility.

More background on the case itself here.

Pardon Watch

Senator Russ Feingold kicks it off.  Personally, I think we’ve reached a point where it is has been so abused as to merit a complete revisiting of it.  At a minimum, it ought to be subject to a legislative override – perhaps by a supermajority.  The exercise of the pardon should be an act of mercy, not a service to self and friends.

Repeat After Me: The Fairness Doctrine Is Dead

and it will stay that way, no matter how much the rightwing noise machine would like to say otherwise.

AT&T Sponsors New Privacy Policy Group

The Washington Post has a press release story about the launch of something called the Future of Privacy Forum:

A group of privacy scholars, lawyers and corporate officials are launching an advocacy group today designed to help shape standards around how companies collect, store and use consumer data for business and advertising.

Well, okay.  That’s certainly something that I’d like to see get more attention.  But what does this group bring to the discussion that the Center for Democracy & Technology, EPIC, and the EFF don’t already?  Oh, here’s the answer:

The group, the Future of Privacy Forum, will be led by Jules Polonetsky, who until this month was in charge of AOL‘s privacy policy, and Chris Wolf, a privacy lawyer for law firm Proskauer Rose [ed. note – and also one of AT&T’s law firms] . They say the organization, which is sponsored by AT&T, aims to develop ways to give consumers more control over how personal information is used for behavioral-targeted advertising.

Because AT&T cares about your privacy.   Also from the press release story:

Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which represents online publishers such as Google and Yahoo as well as advertisers such as Verizon, said online privacy issues have long been debated and that “having another voice in this area could help.”

Yup.  I think it’s probably a safe bet that we can look forward to this group muddying the waters of most any privacy policy discussion in the near future.  That isn’t to say this is an entirely useless voice – it’s expected to generally argue for “opt-in” tracking – but anything they issue should be viewed with the question of how it will benefit AT&T.

Professional Disgust

There are a million reasons (most of them good, I’d like to think) that I don’t write about the practice of law or my area of expertise, here.  One of the reasons (maybe not so good) is that most interesting legal issues are never what they seem to the public, and are often more work to explain than they’re worth.

But this?  This is straight up disgusting.

Friday Notes: Sovereign Edition

Happy 60th Birthday, Chuck.  Now get a job and move out of your parents’ house(s), you twit.

~

Speaking of twits and Kings, the King kids are as classy as ever, looking for a piece of the action on t-shirts featuring pictures of Obama and King.

~

How’d you like to be in the position of having to buy a new country?  The Maldives, who expect their homeland to be submerged by rising sea levels (thanks, Global Warming!) are testing the market.

~

So, what did eight years of a Bush Administration – which is all about promoting democracy (with a little dash of By Any Means Necessary, remember) – do for Burma, which suffers from one of the most repressive regimes on the planet?  Nothing.

EU Evolution

The European Union (finally) comes to its senses:

If there has been one truly effective stick to beat the EU with over the years, it has been the bizarre and Byzantine reams of regulation it is accused of promulgating.

The classic anti-EU story is that “faceless eurocrats” were banning the curved cucumber. It was all the more powerful for having a solid basis in truth. Namely, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88 of 15 June 1988.

Class I cucumbers must “be reasonably well shaped and practically straight (maximum height of the arc: 10 mm per 10 cm of the length of cucumber)”. Class II “slightly crooked cucumbers may have a maximum height of the arc of 20 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber”.

These are allowed to have some blemishes and discolourations. Any cucumber more crooked must be packed separately and must be otherwise cosmetically perfect.

So if a cucumber is crooked and has a blemish on it, it cannot be sold in a shop or market. It is allowed to go for processing, but often the cost of transport to a manufacturer is prohibitive and the produce is simply allowed to rot.

As of next summer, this regulation (for cucumbers and 25 other similarly regulated fruits and vegetables) will be repealed.  And it only took 20 years!

Regulatory D’Oh

If this holds up, a lot of the work that’s been going on in DC in the past couple of months will be for naught:

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

President Bill Clinton finalized regulations within 60 days of the 2001 inauguration, meaning Bush could come in and easily reverse them.

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

Ouch.  Bonus point?  The CRA was a product of the Contract With America.

(For those of you interested in the mechanics, this appears to be a good summary.)

Watch Obama on Intelligence

From today’s WSJ:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.

This is likely just an opening salvo from one (of many sides) in a war over the future of our government, but this should serve as a wake-up call to those Obama supporters who are willing to just sit back and “trust him” on most everything.  Who’s driving this particular story?

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration.

That is to say, largely those that have a vested interest in the status quo, and a future interest in the contractors that support it.  Add them together with Obama’s demonstrated cautious nature, and the inevitable bias towards keeping power that has already accured to the office, and we’ve got a problem.  He may yet surprise and please.  But it’s something to watch carefully.

Page 14 of 27

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén