The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) issued this press release today opposing the military tribunal procedures at Guantanamo:

NACDL Comments Critical of Guantánamo Detainee Review Procedures

Washington, D.C. (Mar. 31, 2004) – President E.E. (Bo) Edwards of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Joshua Dratel, Co-Chair, NACDL Committee on Military Tribunals & Terrorism, today faxed a critical letter to the top lawyer for the Defense Department, identifying serious deficiencies in the department’s draft administrative review procedures for detainees at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Edwards and Dratel wrote DOD General Counsel William J. Haynes, II, saying they were “deeply troubled” at the department’s failure to address a number of critical issues. Among the problems they see are:

• Lack of criteria for making determination whether a detainee is or is still “dangerous”;

• No time frames for rendering release decisions or re-review;

• No time limits for detention without charge or other disposition;

• Draft review procedures put the burden on detainee to prove he is “no longer a threat.”

The DOJ memorandum asserts that “[t]he law of war permits the detention of enemy combatants until the end of an armed conflict.” But Edwards and Dratel noted that that statement is true only if the alleged combatants are detained pursuant to the Geneva Conventions. The lawyers suggest that the Guantánamo detainees are entitled to POW status unless and until a “competent tribunal” determines otherwise.

by TChris

One question the 9/11 commission will want to ask Condoleezza Rice: Apart from its preoccupation with Iraq, was the Bush administration more interested in implementing its "unproven, money-munching missile defense system" than in protecting the country from Osama bin Laden?

The question arises from a speech that Rice never had the chance to give.

A speech that was due to be delivered on the day planes crashed into the Pentagon, a field in Pennsylvania and the World Trade Center is getting particular attention: The Washington Post reports national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was due to make remarks that day that discussed national security threats, but never mentioned al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Instead, the remarks focused on the need for missile defense.

Although the Bush administration contends that the President was privately concerned about bin Laden, CBS reports that none of Bush's speeches or public remarks before September 11 mentioned the al Qaeda threat.

by TChris

In 1995, Miami police officers shot two fleeing suspects in the back and then planted guns near their bodies. After years of investigation, a partially successful federal prosecution that charged a pattern of planting guns during four police shootings from 1995 to 1997, a four week trial and three days of deliberations, three officers were convicted for their roles in covering up the truth.

Lt. Israel Gonzalez and Officer Jorge Garcia face up to 10 years in prison for committing perjury to a grand jury and obstructing justice by lying in sworn depositions and conspiracy. Sgt. Jose Quintero faces up to five years for conspiracy for planting one of the guns.

Suspicions were raised when the guns were examined: they had no fingerprints, and one was loaded with the wrong ammunition. The outcry that followed led to important changes.

All the officers belonged to elite plainclothes units when the department was under international pressure to halt a string of deadly tourist robberies. The scandal over the shootings rocked the department and scarred its image, ushering in a new police chief, new shooting policies and a civilian review board.

by TChris

School administrators love to enact dress codes that substitute conformity for individuality in heavy-handed, albeit ineffective, attempts to keep "gang dress" out of public schools. TalkLeft reported yesterday on a school's misguided effort to prevent a Muslim student from wearing a hijab. Now read about Clifford Pierce Middle School in Merrillville, Indiana where students are discouraged from wearing pink, and where students who wore pink to protest the policy were told to change their clothes.

Perhaps school administrators struggling to Leave No Child Behind might want to focus their scarce resources on educating kids rather than telling them how to dress.

A new poll by the Los Angeles Times shows that a majority of Americans believe Richard Clarke's charges against Bush.

Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed echoed the contention by Clarke that Bush placed a higher priority on invading Iraq than combating terrorism. And a smaller majority agreed with the charge by the onetime White House counterterrorism chief that Bush did not focus enough on the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.

What does this portend for the presidential race? Still a statistical dead heat, says the Times:

Indeed, while the new questions about Bush's initial response to the terrorist threat could pose a long-term problem for him, the poll suggests the controversy has not significantly changed the dynamics propelling the country toward another close presidential race. The survey found presumed Democratic nominee John F. Kerry holding a 49% to 46% advantage over Bush among registered voters, a difference within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Not suprisingly, more Democrats than Republicans agreed with Clarke's charges:

By 57% to 37%, those polled agreed with Clarke's contention that "President Bush was more focused on attacking Iraq than dealing with terrorism." Almost four in five Democrats agreed with the claim, while two-thirds of Republicans disagreed.

Strangely, a majority of those polled thought Bush has made this country more secure. Good news: The economy still is a negative factor for Bush --53% disapproved. His overall approval rating: 51%, with 44% disapproving Both of these numbers are down since November.

Give a big welcome to The Majority Report, the new blog for Air America Radio. Here is the link to listen live.

And we're happy to report that Neal Pollack is back to blogging.

by TChris

Did the White House counsel feed questions for Richard Clarke to Republican members of the 9/11 commission?

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called commissioner Fred F. Fielding, one of five GOP members of the body, and, according to one observer, also called Republican commission member James R. Thompson. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, wrote to Gonzales yesterday asking him to confirm and describe the conversations.

Waxman believes such ex parte contacts would be improper because "the conduct of the White House is one of the key issues being investigated by the commission."

In fairness, let's hear the other side of the story:

White House spokesmen were unable to get a response from Gonzales. Fielding did not return phone calls seeking comment. Thompson declined yesterday to say whether he spoke with Gonzales.

Maybe we'll hear their story when they've got one ready.

by TChris

Presidents claim executive privilege on behalf of their advisers because (they say) their advisers might be discouraged from giving honest and candid advice if the advice could become public. Executive privilege might prevent Congress from asking "What advice did you give to the President?," but it should not be invoked to prevent Congress from asking "Did the administration lie to Congress?"

The Bush administration, having abandoned executive privilege for Condoleezza Rice, is invoking it to keep health-policy adviser Douglas Badger mum. Congress wonders whether Badger gave the President more accurate estimates about the cost of the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit than the President gave Congress.

Several Ways and Means Committee members wanted to know whether Badger suppressed or passed on to senior Bush administration officials figures he obtained in early June indicating that the drug benefit might cost more than $500 billion in its first 10 years. When lawmakers narrowly passed the measure in November, many relied on a $395 billion Congressional Budget Office estimate.

The inquiry follows Richard Foster's disclosure that Medicare administrator Thomas Scully threatened to fire him if he reported the higher estimate to members of Congress.

by TChris

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a defendant's sentence is enhanced if the defendant used a "special skill" to commit the crime. Lawyers and accountants, for instance, might use special skills to steal from clients. (Please, no lawyer jokes.)

Federal prosecutors in California convinced a judge that sharp eyesight is a special skill. Jing Bing Liang was sentenced for casino racketeering, based in part on his ability, with the help of others, to see cards as they were being dealt.

In arguing to increase Liang's sentence, federal prosecutors said the San Francisco gambler had "extraordinary eyesight," and that he had become specially adept at peaking at cards.

The creativity of the argument would be admirable if not for the months it added to Liang's sentence. The Ninth Circuit was less impressed than the district judge, and Liang will be resentenced as if he had normal eyesight.

by TChris

A police officer sees a car with a license plate that is registered to a different car. Before the officer can stop the driver to write a ticket, the driver parks the car. The officer parks and the driver walks toward the officer. The officer points out the license plate problem, and the driver says someone just gave him the car. The driver, not a man of brilliance, agrees to be searched, and the officer finds drugs. Can the officer search the car?

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case today. Useful background on Thornton v. United States is here.

Martha Stewart's lawyers filed a motion for a new trial today. The chief ground is that a juror lied about a prior assault arrest.

Stewart lawyer Robert Morvillo said in papers filed in federal court that he would have sought to strike juror Chappell Hartridge had he known about his past. "These facts, in and of themselves, establish that Ms. Stewart is entitled to a new trial," Morvillo wrote. The papers also accused Hartridge of seeking money for post-trial interviews. On the day of the guilty verdict, the juror said publicly that he believed the decision was "a victory for the little guys."

Stewart's lawyers said Hartridge was arrested in 1997 after a woman with whom he was living filed an assault complaint. They said Hartridge spent several days in jail before the woman withdrew her complaint because she could not miss work to attend court. In a juror questionnaire, Hartridge claimed he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation, the defense lawyers said. The defense also said that Hartridge lied on his jury questionnaire by omitting that he has been sued at least three times. It said he also lied by not disclosing that he was once accused of stealing from a Little League group.

[comments now closed]

An excellent private investigations firm in Denver is seeking a web designer to modernize and update their website. If you're interested, or have a recommendation, please leave a comment or send us an email. We'll forward them on. Thanks.