I meet Brian Dunkiel , a dem lawyer from Burlington, VT. He is on the observer team. He is about 30, sharp, witty and "gets it". In wrap around shades he informs me in a whisper that he is also doing an NPR audio report about the election down here. I tell him I am writing for this blog. I take some photos of the crowd. He freaks."Don't let the republican poll watchers see you. They've been getting the Sheriff's men on any photog they see. We saw one guy arrested moments ago."

No one knows if this is legal or not. But it is clearly intimidating. The Repubs do not want these long lines to be seen. However, the oddity is that tons of news crews are video taping with impunity. I resort to my Motorola V-300. I took a shot of two poll observers inside. These democratic lawyers were about to get involved in my case, but pulled back when they realized I had it under control.

Seriously, I wrote about Rick Scott's swiftboating, lying ways way back in May. Back then I told you about how even if Florida voters overlooked his swiftboaty tactics, they should not and could not overlook his lying, criminal conduct with regard to Columbia/HCA.

Yet, they did. It boggles the mind. Of course, Scott did what he always does, and lied through his teeth about how that whole debacle came to pass and his own involvement in it. Forget that he used some legal maneuvers and plea agreements to end the mess. He was, in his mind anyway, above it all.

Rick Scott has always used this one excuse: "If I had known about the fraud, I would have stopped it." Baloney, and the St. Petersburg Times agrees.

But he was cautioned year after year that the financial incentives Columbia/HCA offered doctors could run afoul of a federal antikickback law that seeks to limit conflicts of interest in Medicare and Medicaid.

They were contained in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that Scott, now the Republican candidate for Florida governor, signed as Columbia/HCA's president and chief executive officer.

Scott's response?

Continue reading »

I almost can't believe I'm writing this, but yesterday the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights received a license that allows them to sue the government -- for ordering the assassination of a U.S. citizen, away from the field of combat, without due process of any kind:

“The license issued by OFAC today will allow us to pursue our litigation relating to the government’s asserted authority to engage in targeted killings of American civilians without due process. While we appreciate OFAC’s quick response to our lawsuit, we continue to believe that OFAC’s regulations are unconstitutional because they require lawyers who are providing uncompensated legal representation to seek the government’s permission before challenging the constitutionality of the government’s conduct. Notably, OFAC has indicated that the license issued to us today can be revoked at any time. We will pursue our claim that OFAC’s attorney-licensing regulations are unconstitutional and should be invalidated.”

Glenn Greenwald wrote about this back in January, and specifically about Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S. citizen targeted by this order:

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained.

But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world.

So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

No evidence should be required for rational people to avoid assuming that Government accusations are inherently true, but for those do need it, there is a mountain of evidence proving that. And in this case, Anwar Aulaqi -- who, despite his name and religion, is every bit as much of an American citizen as Scott Brown and his daughters are -- has a family who vigorously denies that he is a Terrorist and is "pleading" with the U.S. Government not to murder their American son:

His anguish apparent, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki told CNN that his son is not a member of al Qaeda and is not hiding out with terrorists in southern Yemen."I am now afraid of what they will do with my son, he's not Osama Bin Laden, they want to make something out of him that he's not," said Dr. Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. . . ."I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son.

How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said."If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.

Who knows what the truth is here? That's why we have what are called "trials" -- or at least some process -- before we assume that government accusations are true and then mete out punishment accordingly. As Marcy Wheeler notes, the U.S. Government has not only repeatedly made false accusations of Terrorism against foreign nationals in the past, but against U.S. citizens as well. She observes: "I guess the tenuousness of those ties don’t really matter, when the President can dial up the assassination of an American citizen."

This isn't a case of bleeding heart liberals being conned; everyone's aware that Anwar Al-Awlaki is a pretty dangerous individual who calls for jihad against Americans. But he's also a U.S. citizen, and deserves at least as much from the legal process as someone who holds up a bank.

That's what's supposed to make us different.

The news surrounding the pending congressional ethics trial of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is all quite confusing. Despite reports that he has reached a settlement in the case, the House Ethics committee moved forward with his trial.

According to Reuters:

People familiar with the talks say representatives of New York Democrat Charles Rangel and lawyers for the House ethics committee have reached a plea deal in his ethics case. However, committee members have not agreed to the settlement.

It was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.

The committee did meet, and the charges against Rep. Rangel were read. A full copy can be read here (PDF). There are some eyebrow-raising charges, including a failure to report $600,000 of income on his congressional disclosure statements, along with rental income from a Dominican Republic property he purchased in 2005.

This sequence on pages 11-12 got my attention:

78. In April 2008, Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to "close $10M gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hall."

79. At the AIG meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised concerns about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk. Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.

Seriously? AIG? In 2008? As the ethics report points out, AIG lobbied members of the House of Representatives on income tax issues, free trade issues and treaty issues. As head of the Ways and Means Committee, Rangel stepped way out of line when he undertook dealings with Verizon, AIG, Nabors Industries and others. That should be enough right there.

Will there be a trial? I'm guessing here, but I think the deal may involve a public release and reading of the charges, and his admission to the understatements of income on his disclosure statements. Ultimately, the charges are damning enough on their face to disgrace him. After all, if the Democrats want to point the finger at Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, et al, then Charlie Rangel surely must also be a target, particularly with the evidence against him.

Charlie Rangel is 80 years old. He's been in Congress since 1971. At some point, his desire for a "legacy" outweighed any sense of ethics he had. So much of these charges center around his apparent need to have the Rangel Center become reality that he used his stationery, his station and evidently traded his soul for it. It's not a day to celebrate, but I am glad to see it coming to light.

If Democrats are smart, they'll point to the fact that at least they're cleaning out the rotten apples, whereas the Republicans double down and let the Vitters and Ensigns rot in the barrel along with everything else. It's about the best outcome there is, given that Charlie Rangel really doesn't have much of a defense for these charges.

Digby provides excellent analysis on Novak: "You can see why Bob Novak's lawyers have told him to keep his mouth shut....read on" and here also Novakula's Tea Bag

JAG Memos Revealed Discourse.net

Marty Lederman has an important post about the torture scandal, The Heroes of the Pentagon's Interrogation Scandal -- Finally, the JAG Memos
. As Marty says, "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story."

The memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

This is pretty important - not just because they need to know how much oil they have to clean up, but because any fine levied against BP will be based on the number of gallons. (Of course, that assumes they don't file for bankruptcy.)

The Deepwater Horizon well is most likely spewing at least 25,000 barrels of oil a day, and may be producing 40,000 or even 50,000 barrels a day, according to preliminary research from two teams of scientists appointed by the federal government to study the flow from the dark geyser at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Another scientific team, however, using a different methodology, estimates a somewhat more modest flow of 12,600 to 21,500 barrels.

The numbers are all over the place, acknowledged U.S. Geological Survey director Marcia McNutt in a news conference Thursday announcing the findings. Several other teams are preparing their own figures in what has been a protracted and often frustrating effort to get a handle on exactly how much oil is surging from the Macondo reservoir three and a half miles below the surface of the gulf.

One group, the so-called "plume team," examined video of the leaking riser pipe before it was sheared on June 3. The team concluded that 20,000 to 40,000 barrels may be flowing, with 25,000 to 30,000 barrels being the most likely rate. If that estimate is correct, and the flow has been more or less consistent, approximately 1.3 million to 1.5 million barrels -- or 53.6 million to 64.3 million gallons -- of oil have emerged from the well since the April 20 blowout. That is roughly five to six times the amount spilled in Alaskan waters in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez.

[...] The flow rate is significant on several fronts. First, it gives the government and BP a sense of how much capacity they'll need among surface ships to handle all the oil gushing out the well and up a pipe to the Discovery Enterprise drillship, which is capable of processing only about 18,000 barrels a day. Other ships are being added to the effort. The site above the blown out well has become crowded with 25 to 30 different vessels at any given time, Allen said Thursday.

Rolling Stone says the spill is even bigger, and notes the White House is doing its best to lowball the estimates:

"The upper bound from the plume group, if it had come out, is very high," says Timothy Crone, a marine geophysicist at Columbia University who has consulted with the government's team. "That's why they had resistance internally. We're talking 100,000 barrels a day."

The median figure for Crone's independent calculations is 55,000 barrels a day – the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez every five days. "That's what the plume team's numbers show too," Crone says. A source privy to internal discussions at one of the world's top oil companies confirms that the industry privately agrees with such estimates. "The industry definitely believes the higher-end values," the source says. "That's accurate – if not more than that." The reason, he adds, is that BP appears to have unleashed one of the 10 most productive wells in the Gulf. "BP screwed up a really big, big find," the source says. "And if they can't cap this, it's not going to blow itself out anytime soon."

(Graph courtesy of Enviroknow.)

This is good news at this point.

As Digby says:

I suppose that's not all that comforting considering how flaccid the White House been about these matters. But still, I'll take it. At least there are some lawyers in the Obama Justice department who have some concerns about this. I'll take what I can get.

ABC News:

A team of Justice Department attorneys has written a recommendation challenging the Arizona immigration law.

The draft recommendation, part of an ongoing Justice Department review, concludes the Arizona legislature exceeded its authority in crafting a law that could impede federal responsibility for enforcing immigration laws.

Some department lawyers are also concerned that the law could lead to abuses based on race.

The review, however, is not yet complete and there are some within the Justice Department who challenge the recommendation's legal analysis. Sources tell ABC News that the ongoing review may take weeks more and that no formal recommendation has been sent to the White House.

The White House will have to give its stamp of approval for the Justice Department to challenge the law because this is a civil case.

The Arizona immigration law passed in late April is set to be implemented on July 29, barring any legal challenges. The controversial law that has attracted international attention and sparked protests around the country essentially gives Arizona law enforcement greater authority to look for and arrest illegal immigrants.

The bill would allow the police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status, and to charge undocumented citizens with "trespassing."

Meanwhile, back to Sanityville, ten police chiefs from around the country went to see AG Holder:

Ten police chiefs from cities across the country, including three from Arizona, traveled to Washington, DC today to meet with Attorney General Eric Holder and reiterate what they’ve been saying for weeks: Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law will make their jobs harder, erode working relationships built on mutual trust and cooperation between law enforcement and immigrants, and make communities less safe. The federal government should step in to prevent more states from following suit.
--

That message came through loud and clear during a news conference the chiefs held today. One after another they spoke of the challenges immigration enforcement laws such as Arizona’s present to police departments, including three police departments in Arizona – Phoenix, Tucson and Sahuarita – that are most likely to feel the effects first if the law goes into effect, as expected, on July 29.

“The primary job of local law enforcement is not immigration enforcement,” said Charlie Beck, Los Angeles’ police chief. “It is to protect the community from crime. The Arizona legislation does not do this. We now very well how to do our job and legislation like this inhibits us from doing our job.”

Like other city residents, he said, “Undocumented immigrants are witnesses to all kinds of crime. If people don’t come forward to report crimes, regardless of their immigration status, it really inhibits our jobs and threatens the work that we have done” establishing good working relationships with immigrant communities...read on

Opinion polls are always skewed when it comes to race, so it's no shock that there's more support for SB 1070 via the polls than are against.

This is a moral issue, first and foremost. But it's also a practical issue: After all, the ultimate outcome of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's obsessive enforcement of immigration laws in Maricopa County -- Arpaio provided the role model for SB1070 -- has been exactly what these police chiefs fear for their jurisdictions:

Although MCSO is adept at self-promotion and is an unquestionably “tough” law-enforcement agency, under its watch violent crime rates recently have soared, both in absolute terms and relative to other jurisdictions. It has diverted resources away from basic law-enforcement functions to highly publicized immigration sweeps, which are ineffective in policing illegal immigration and in reducing crime generally, and to extensive trips by MCSO officials to Honduras for purposes that are nebulous at best. Profligate spending on those diversions helped produce a financial crisis in late 2007 that forced MCSO to curtail or reduce important law-enforcement functions.

In terms of support services, MCSO has allowed a huge backlog of outstanding warrants to accumulate, and has seriously disadvantaged local police departments by closing satellite booking facilities.

At some point, when they're inundated with a wave of crime unlike anything they saw before SB 1070, Arizonans will also realize they've cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Al Snyder's son died in Iraq in May of 2006. Members of the rabidly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed his son Matthew's funeral, causing immense personal, emotional pain for him, his family and their friends.

Snyder won a $5 million civil lawsuit against the church and the Phelps family, but it was recently tossed out of a federal court. To add insult to injury, the court has now ordered Snyder to pay all of the church's legal fees:

BALTIMORE — Lawyers for the father of a Marine who died in Iraq say a court has ordered him to pay legal costs for the anti-gay protesters who picketed his son's funeral.

The protesters are led by Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., had won a $5 million verdict against Phelps, but it was thrown out on appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to consider whether the protesters' provocative messages, which include phrases like "Thank God for dead soldiers," are protected by the First Amendment.

Lawyers say Snyder already is struggling to come up with the fees associated with filing the brief with the high court. Read on...

I really hate to waste Mr. Amato's bandwidth on these despicable people, but Mr. Snyder needs our moral support as well as help with legal costs. I hope he doesn't pay one thin dime to these people, but he'll need lawyers to help continue the fight. There is a legal fund set up for him, if you'd like to show him some love, you can do so by clicking here.

www.thedailyshow.com

This man is just f*&king sick and he's emblematic of the people that worked in George Bush's White House. All of a sudden lawyers are terrorists now. Conservatives will do and say anything for a vote and the media will regurgitate it because it's good for "Ratings." I think Liz Cheney is getting hammered pretty good over her demented ad even by other republicans, but you know most of them still enjoyed it.

How do you think the parents of the victims of Gacey, Dahmer or Bundy felt watching them have representation in court? Everyone knew they were guilty of unspeakable horrors, but that's what makes our justice system as good as it is. I thought the rule of law was something conservative a-holes like Theissen support. What I'm saying is pretty obvious except to the likes of a Bush speech writer. We can add Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol to this new stable of psychopaths.