Thursday News and Open Thread
I absolutely have to get back to work. I have jails to visit and briefs to write. Here's what I would be writing about if I had the time:
- Never leave a reporter and two lawyers on a jury. Here's a report of the Uma Thurman jury deliberations from a reporter who served on the jury. On the other hand, perhaps he just helped the defendant in a bid for a new trial.
Tuesday morning, when we reconvened, a couple of my fellow jurors said they woke up sick to their stomachs. Another burst into the room saying he'd seen the drawings sketched by the court artists, and that they'd done a good job depicting us.
Aren't the jurors admonished to avoid media reports of the trial? Where would s/he have seen the sketch artist's depictions but in a newspaper?
More…
As for not leaving a lawyer on the jury,
I had a question. The charge was for the period from May 1, 2005, until Aug. 17, 2007, but Mr. Jordan's obsession wasn't pushed over the edge until August last year. Could we say he was guilty of the stalking charge, if he wasn't stalking her for that entire period?
One of the lawyers on the jury said that his behavior wasn't to be interpreted in a vacuum. Each of his actions during that period — from the praying-girl card Mr. Jordan delivered at the movie set to the notes he pushed through her door — was to be interpreted as one criminal act.
If that was the case, then I could say he was guilty.
The F.B.I. has withdrawn a National Security Letter.
The FBI has withdrawn an unconstitutional national security letter (NSL) issued to the Internet Archive after a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). As the result of a settlement agreement, the FBI withdrew the NSL and agreed to the unsealing of the case, finally allowing the Archive's founder to speak out for the first time about his battle against the record demand.
The ACLU has this press release.
NSLs are secretly issued by the government to obtain access to personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions, and credit reporting agencies. In almost all cases, recipients of the NSLs are forbidden, or “gagged,” from disclosing that they have received the letters. The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in federal court in two other cases where the judges found the gags unconstitutional: one involving an Internet Service Provider (ISP); the second, a group of librarians. In the ISP case, the district court invalidated the entire NSL statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in the government's appeal of that case next month.
Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase, to nearly 200,000 between 2003 and 2006. EFF's investigations have uncovered multiple NSL misuses, including an improper NSL issued to North Carolina State University.
There will be a Senate committee hearing on Iraq today, specifically, an oversight hearing on waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq.
DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE HEARING WILL EXAMINE WHETHER AMERICAN RECONSTRUCTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION FAILURES HAVE UNDERMINED THE U.S. MISSION IN IRAQ
The U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee will conduct a hearing on Monday, May 12 at 2:00 PM to examine the impact of American. reconstruction and anti-corruption failures on the U.S. mission in Iraq, Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND) announced Wednesday.
Witnesses will include two former Bush Administration officials who served in top posts in Iraq, and a retired two-star General with extensive experience in peace-keeping operations in Bosnia and as a civilian administrator for the United Nations in Kosovo.
SDSU students and a group of concerned parents will hold a mock graduation ceremony with 77 “missing” students today in protest of Tuesday’s announcement of a massive drug sting orchestrated by the DEA with the help of SDSU officials. Officials have described the five-month sting as a response to two recent fatal drug overdoses on campus, but those gathered today are criticizing the DEA’s show of force as counterproductive and are calling on the university to enact a life-saving Good Samaritan Policy that encourages students to call for help during a drug overdose emergency.
Today’s demonstration…will display 77 empty chairs and diplomas, symbolizing the 75 students arrested in the sting, as well as the two students who died recently of preventable drug overdoses. Large banners will be hoisted that read: “77 students are gone, but drug abuse isn’t” and “Save lives. Enact a Good Samaritan Policy.”
Their point:
“Sensational drug stings will do nothing to reduce the demand for drugs on campus, nor will they decrease the supply for these drugs for more than a few days,” said Randy Hencken, president of SSDP at SDSU. “ So long as students have the desire to use illegal drugs, and so long as the prohibition of drugs sustains a lucrative black market, drug stings will do little more than create openings for others to step in and supply drugs to SDSU students. This is a complicated problem that requires complex solutions but the discussion needs to start here.”
In interviews and a court filing Tuesday, lawyers for detainees at Guantánamo said they believed government agents had monitored their conversations. The assertions are the most specific to date by Guantánamo lawyers that officials may be violating legal principles that have generally kept government agents from eavesdropping on lawyers.
“I think they are listening to my telephone calls all the time,” said John A. Chandler, a prominent lawyer in Atlanta and Army veteran who represents six Guantánamo detainees.
Several of the lawyers, including partners at large corporate law firms, said the concerns had changed the way they went about their work apart from Guantánamo cases. A lawyer in Chicago, H. Candace Gorman, said in an affidavit that she was no longer accepting new clients of any type because she could not assure them of confidentiality.
The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the suit.
he new filing, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, came in a 2007 lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in which Guantánamo lawyers are seeking records to determine whether they have been targets of surveillance.
The Justice Department declined to comment Tuesday. But in a legal response in March, its lawyers said they could neither confirm nor deny that detainees’ lawyers had been targets of such surveillance “because doing so would compromise the United States Intelligence Communities sources and methods.”
Here's the deal: They tell you you are being video-monitored without sound for your own protection when meeting with your client.
Several of the lawyers said a program of surveillance would be consistent with obstacles they had encountered in representing detainees. In 2004, officials proposed “real-time monitoring” of lawyers’ interviews with Guantánamo detainees.
A federal judge barred that, saying that listening to lawyers’ meetings failed to recognize “the exceptional place in the legal system of the United States” for attorney-client communications.
Guantánamo officials say they monitor attorney-client meetings for the safety of lawyers with video cameras but that meeting areas are not wired for sound.
But several lawyers said their clients had told them that shortly after detainees met with lawyers, interrogators had asked the detainees about topics that had been discussed.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is cooridnating the lawsuit. They say: They say,
ast night, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel filed an opposition brief in Wilner v. NSA, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of 24 attorneys who represent detainees at Guantánamo – including CCR staff attorneys Gitanjali Gutierrez and Wells Dixon, as well as law professors and partners at prominent international law firms. These attorneys believe they may have been targeted by the government’s warrantless wiretapping program that began shortly after September 11, 2001 because of their representation of Guantánamo prisoners labeled “enemy combatants” by the government. They seek access to records showing whether the government has intercepted communications relating to their representation of these clients.
“The existence of the spying program inhibits our ability to do our work,” said CCR attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, a plaintiff in the case. “We sometimes have to warn clients and potential witnesses that their communications with us may be monitored by the government. The NSA program prevents us from assuring them of confidentiality, making clients and witnesses less likely to want to participate in any cases against the government.”
Although CCR argues that any warrantless surveillance of the plaintiffs would be illegal, not only have the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to turn over the relevant records, they have refused to confirm or deny whether the plaintiffs were in fact subject to surveillance under the program. The newly-filed brief argues that the government must provide the records if they exist because the FOIA statute cannot be used to hide illegal activities.
For further informaton on the case and filing details, go here. “>here.
If you find other news of interest, please feel free to post in the comments.