As Seen on TV: Jack McCoy Investigates Torture

If you were watching NBC during prime time on Friday night you may have seen something we’ve been waiting for, an investigation into torture during the Bush Administration. The premiere for Law and Order’s 20th season was aptly titled “Memo from the Dark Side.” If you missed the original airdate, it is available for purchase on iTunes, and select clips like this one that emptywheel posted to Youtube here will get you caught up:

The episode does an excellent job of taking the topic of torture and conveying the need for an investigation. As you can see in the clip above, they refuse to accept the label of “harsh interrogation techniques” for the clear authorization of torture. In addition it connects the dots for mainstream America (obviously in a fictionalized way) that Justice Department lawyers could be charged with “conspiracy to torture.”

[Jack McCoy] “This memo he wrote for the Department of Justice laid out the
legal architecture permitting the abuse of prisoners…you could argue this memo
is an element in a conspiracy…”

[Michael Cutter] “You want to prosecute a member of the Bush Administration
for assaulting suspected terrorists?

[JM] “The word is torturing and yes it’s about time somebody did.”

It is indeed about time someone investigated torture during the Bush Administration, and not only by investigating low-level operatives. Attorney General Holder must uphold the Constitution and the law by authorizing a full investigation of those who ordered, designed, and justified torture.

As Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter said in this episode:“It is not disloyal to hold our officials to the highest standards of conduct and it is not disloyal to allow you, the people, to decide what you want done in your name.”

What do you want done in your name? If you believe that torture must be investigated to the full extent of the law, add your name to our petition today.

You can also get involved with AFJ's new film on the role of DOJ lawyers in providing legal cover for torture. The short documentary, Tortured Law, will be released soon, but you can watch the trailer, or sign up to host a screening in your community.

Historic Hearing For Asian American Nominees

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 4 federal district court nominees all nominated to fill seats in California: While Senator Feinstein (D-CA) was scheduled to chair the committee, she ended up busy on the Senate floor and Senator Franken (D-MN) chaired today’s hearing. The four nominees: Jacqueline H. Nguyen to the Central District of California; Edward Milton Chen to the Northern District of California; Dolly M. Gee to the Central District of California; and Richard Seeborg to the Northern District of California represent a number of firsts and the hearing marks a historic day for Asian Americans.

The hearing room was packed with prominent members of the Asian American legal community, family of the nominees, and other supporters, a somewhat unusual occurrence for district court nominees, but expected given its historical significance. There was a noticeable feeling of pride among many of the attendees today surely due to the excellent qualification s of the nominees. Two have proven track records as sitting jurists, and all three of the Asian American nominees have strong support from the Asian Pacific American community in addition to bipartisan support from bar organizations and leaders in the legal community.

If confirmed, Edward Milton Chen would be the first Asian Pacific American district court judge in the history of the NDCA, (this is especially significant given that approximately 35% of the population in San Francisco is Asian Pacific American). Dolly M. Gee would be the first Chinese American female district court judge in the history of the United States, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen would be the first Vietnamese American district court judge in he history of the United States and the first Asian Pacific American female district court judge in California history.

In American history, there have been only four Asian American federal circuit court judges and 14 Asian American federal district court judges. Asian Americans are still significantly underrepresented on the federal bench. To learn more about Asian American federal judges, check out Alliance for Justice’s recently released fact sheet.

The Waiting Is the Hardest Part

Crucial Justice Department nominations are still being held up in the Senate.

Dawn Johnsen, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, and Tom Perez, whom the president picked to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, have been waiting for many months to be confirmed. Seven and five months, respectively. The last action on Johnsen's nomination occurred on March 19 and the last action for Perez on June 4. Both were placed on the executive calendar, but Republicans are obstructing the much-needed restoration of the DOJ’s role as a guardian of civil rights and liberties.

While there may be a vote on the Perez nomination as early as later next week, nothing is certain, and we need to keep up the pressure on all senators – with the message that these are vital positions that need to be filled. There is no reason to object to or obstruct the confirmation process of these highly qualified nominees.

Call your senators now and urge them to do all they can to help confirm Dawn Johnsen and Tom Perez. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121, ask to be connected with your senators’ offices, and tell them it is time to put an end to the partisan games.

The Justice Department was severely damaged during the Bush administration and the leadership of Dawn Johnsen and Tom Perez in two of its most important offices will help get it back on track defending our rights and liberties [not sure if I missed this in the original, but there shouldn't be a colon here] .

Call now. And ask others to do the same.

Judicial Nominations: Time for a Change of Pace?

Well, the August recess is over, Congress is back in town and as we move into the last quarter of the year, it seemed like a good time to get a sense of the lay of the land when it comes to judicial nominations.

Just two days ago, the White House named Virginia State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Milano Keegan to a seat on the Fourth Circuit; she joins Judge Andre Davis of Baltimore as a nominee to that court. There are currently five vacancies on the Fourth Circuit; the bench, once a bastion of ultra-conservative jurisprudence, is now evenly-divided between Democrat and Republican appointees, particularly as a result of somewhat-unexpected departures of high-profile conservative judges like Michael Luttig, now general counsel at Boeing, and Chief Judge Karen Williams, who resigned just a few months ago for health reasons. An ideological shift on the Fourth Circuit could mean major and positive changes in not just civil rights and criminal cases, among other issues dealt with by courts around the country, but in issues relating to executive power and national security; the Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over many cases relating to the Pentagon, CIA and terrorism policies.

The Fourth Circuit isn’t the only federal appeals court poised for a change: the Third Circuit is also evenly split. President Obama has named Joseph Greenaway and Thomas Vanaskie to fill the two vacancies on that court. (For more information on vacancies and nominees, please see our handy-dandy Federal Circuit Court Vacancies Chart.

Despite tapping the aforementioned nominees, as well as David Hamilton (Seventh Circuit), Gerard Lynch (Second Circuit), Beverly Martin (Eleventh Circuit) and Jane Stranch (Sixth Circuit), there are still 13 circuit court seats awaiting a nominee, as well as 63 district court seats (the president has named nine district court nominees; there are 72 total vacancies).

AFJ has prepared a fact sheet examining the pace of President Obama’s judicial nominations in comparison to President George W. Bush’s at the same time in his presidency. Currently, the disparity between the two is 68% to 38% on court of appeals nominees and 37% to 13% on district court nominees.

Clearly, numbers do not tell the whole story. The president and the Congress are confronting a number of critical issues, the economy and health care among them; they also had a Supreme Court confirmation to handle. However, the numbers can and should serve as a reminder that judicial nominations are also extremely important. Given that the decisions made by the men and women of the federal judiciary affect millions of Americans every day on issues ranging from civil and workers’ rights to environmental and consumer protections and a host of other topics, judicial nominations should not go by the wayside. A president’s nominees to the federal bench are, in many ways, his longest-lasting legacy. Justice John Paul Stevens has sat on the bench for more than 30 years and seven presidencies; Judge Manuel Real was nominated by President Johnson in 1966 and is still an active judge more than 40 years and nine presidencies later.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: judges matter. As we move into the fall and winter of 2009, we urge the White House and the Senate to nominate and confirm highly qualified nominees who will uphold our core constitutional values.

Whistle-Blowers: A Conversation with Daniel Ellsberg and John Dean

For those of you who will be in NYC next week, we hope you are able to attend this exciting event on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. Admission is free, and seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. RSVPs are requested.

Location: New York City
Event Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Event Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Speakers: John Dean, Daniel Ellsberg, Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith, Ann Beeson

What lessons do the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the "war on terror" offer about the abuse of power by the executive branch in times of national crisis? Join Daniel Ellsberg, the RAND strategist whose leak of the Pentagon Papers helped bring down the Nixon presidency and end the Vietnam War, and John Dean, White House counsel to Nixon and later a key whistle-blower on the Watergate scandal, for a conversation about the perils—then and now—of presidential overreach and excessive secrecy.

The event, sponsored by the Open Society Institute National Security and Human Rights Campaign, comes on the eve of the U.S. premiere of the feature documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Filmmakers Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith will present clips from the film. Ann Beeson, executive director for U.S. Programs at the Open Society Institute and former associate legal director at the ACLU, will moderate the discussion with Ellsberg and Dean.

Location
New York Society for Ethical CultureConcert Hall2 West 64th Street (corner of Central Park West)New York, NY
Doors open at 6:00 p.m.

See the Film
On September 16, the day after the above event, the new documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America opens at Film Forum in New York City. More information and tickets are available on the Film Forum website.

End Unjust Restrictions on Nonprofits that Provide Legal Aid

From AFJ's Nonprofit and Foundation Advocacy Blog:

The members of Congress who are listed below will decide this week whether to end rules that greatly restrict access to justice for Americans who rely on legal aid.Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 TODAY and tell them it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.

Members of the House and Senate Conference Committee

Senate

Mikulski (D-MD), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Inouye (D-HI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Cochran (R-MS), Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Mollohan (D-WV), Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Wolf (R-VA), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Obey (D-WI), Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Lewis (R-CA), Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations

Background
Nearly 200 independent, nonprofit organizations around the country provide legal aid to poor Americans in civil cases with some funding from the federal government. Federal money appropriated for civil legal aid organizations is distributed through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).

As part of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” federal restrictions were imposed on organizations receiving funding from LSC, and have been attached to every federal appropriation for LSC since 1996.

These restrictions limit the tools lawyers at LSC-funded programs can use when representing their clients. The worst of these include: prohibiting LSC-funded programs from participating in class actions, seeking attorneys' fees, or advocating before administrative or legislative bodies for policy reform. The restrictions also make certain groups of people ineligible for legal representation from LSC-funded programs entirely, including some groups of documented immigrants, all undocumented immigrants, and people in prison.

However, the restrictions go much further and block organizations from using any other funds – such as individual donations, foundation grants, and state and local government funds – for any service or activity that they are barred from providing with LSC dollars.

Those Who Rely on Legal Aid Hurt When Their Lawyers’ Hands are Tied
People who rely on LSC-funded programs to receive justice lose when the legal organizations set up to help them cannot use non-federal funds to provide services or advocate for changes in laws and policies.

Legal aid programs should be treated the same as other nonprofits, but they are not. Nonprofits that receive part of their funding from LSC are treated much more stringently than most other government-funded nonprofits, including faith-based organizations. These additional restrictions are out of step with important public-private partnership efforts and result in different rules for LSC-funded organizations than other government-funded entities.

In many states, grantees have had to set up entirely separate organizations and law offices, funded by state and local public funders and private charitable sources, to do the work that LSC-funded programs cannot do. This results in wasteful duplication of overhead, personnel and administrative costs. Federal dollars that could finance more services for clients are also eaten up by the costs of running duplicate offices.

Legislation Before Congress Could End Restrictions on Non-Federal Funds
You can help remove the burdensome, unfair restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by supporting legislation that is currently before Congress.

This year's Senate Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill would lift the worst restrictions on LSC grantees’ non-federal funds. This legislation would allow nonprofits to use their non-federal funds as they and their funders choose.

House and Senate subcommittee chairs are talking this week about resolving differences between two bills: one that has passed the House (which does not do enough to remove restrictions on non-federal funds) and a stronger bill moving through the Senate. These members of Congress are meeting in a rare “pre-conference” committee session, in anticipation of passage of the Senate’s bill next week.

Tell the House and Senate members meeting in the pre-conference committee it is time to remove the unjust restrictions on funds Legal Services Corporation grantees receive from other sources.

Let them know you strongly support the current language in this year's Senate Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill repealing the restriction on non-federal funds. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask to speak to your Senator or Member of Congress.

Overwhelm the Senate Switchboard for the Employee Free Choice Act

Union members have always been a key voice for all Americans on issues like affordable health care, public education, green jobs, and equal opportunity. Restoring the freedom to choose a union is a key to getting America back on track.

But workers who want a union face intimidation, delays, stalling tactics, and are even fired illegally. Without workers’ freedom to bargain, the economy can’t be rebuilt in a way that guarantees the middle class will be rebuilt with it. When more folks can negotiate for better wages, health care, and working conditions by joining a union, things get better for all of us.

That's why hundreds of state leaders are in Washington, DC today, fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act – so workers can fix our economy from the bottom up.

Over 300 state leaders are meeting today with their members of Congress in support of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Will you back up their Capitol Hill efforts by making quick calls to your senators, right now? It takes about 1 minute per call and makes a huge difference! We need to stand with them by OVERWHELMING the Senate switchboard today.

You can make a toll-free call to 1-888-650-9715 and ask to be connected to your senator's office. Tell the staff member who answers the city and state where you live, and that you strongly urge your senator to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act.

After you make the call, tweet about it and ask your followers to retweet this important message. Post it to your Facebook, myspace, and other social network pages to make today’s day of action a success.

Thank you for helping our efforts in the broad coalition of Allies taking Action, creating an undeniable force to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

What We Learn from Van Jones: Vicious Attacks Must Not Silence Progressive Leaders

The resignation of Van Jones silences a much-needed progressive voice in the administration. There is no doubt he will once again don the mantle of advocacy he wears so well and continue to do great work fighting for the environment and civil rights.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones is not the first, nor will he be the last, target of manufactured right-wing outrage or partisan witch hunts. Just ask Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose stellar career and accomplishments were reduced by the right wing to attacks on her “wise Latina” phrase. Or ask Tom Perez and Dawn Johnsen, two nominees to senior Justice Department posts who still await confirmation amidst partisan gameplaying.

Those yelling the loudest now about targeting administration officials--many of whom are women and people of color--for "extremist views" are the same voices who passionately defend the likes of John Ashcroft, Jay Bybee, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Van Jones’ forced resignation is a hard lesson for our progressive community. We have always known the corrosive effect the organized right wing has on reasonable debate, and their willingness to lie and wage baseless attacks on the character of good and strong leaders.

But instead of each group defending leaders of our own communities, all of us -- environmentalists, civil rights, women’s, human rights groups, you name it – must work together to defend progressive leaders from the kind of vicious attacks that have denied America a creative, innovative public servant like Van Jones, and that threaten to keep Dawn Johnsen, Tom Perez, and others from serving in the Obama administration.

Van Jones has much more to offer this country, and Alliance for Justice looks forward to proudly standing with him and other committed progressives to fight for the change America needs.

While Rumors Fly About Possible Supreme Court Vacancy, Senate Moves Forward With Nominees

With the news that Justice John Paul Stevens has hired only one clerk for the Supreme Court’s 2010-2011 term, many in DC are speculating that this may be his final term on the court. While Justice Stevens’ office has confirmed that he only hired one clerk, they would not comment on the possibility of retirement. Regardless of whether or not we’ll see another Supreme Court vacancy any time soon, the Senate Judiciary Committee is resuming their work to fill vacancies on the federal appeals and district courts. A hearing has been scheduled for next Wednesday, September 9th with Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) presiding.

The hearing will consider the nomination of Judge Joseph Greenaway to fill a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in addition to district court nominees Roberto Lange for the District of South Dakota, Irene Berger for the District of West Virginia, and Charlene Honeywell for the Middle District of Florida. The hearing will also consider the nomination of Ignacia Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Energy and National Resource Division. Hopefully, the scheduling of this hearing is a promising sign that the president’s nominees will move more quickly through the confirmation process now that Justice Sotomayor has been confirmed.

And speaking of Justice Sotomayor… Wednesday is shaping up to be quite the busy day. Justice Sotomayor will have an early start to her career as a Supreme Court justice when she hears her first oral argument next week during a special session, the reargument of Citizens United v. FEC. The full Supreme Court term will begin as usual, on the first Monday of October, this year on October 5, 2009.

Former Prosecutor Senator Whitehouse Makes the Case for Broader Investigation

In this week's National Law Journal, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse laid out the case for investigating the architects of the torture regime as only a former prosecutor can. The senator, who is a former United States attorney and attorney general for Rhode Island, noted that the investigation ordered by Attorney General Holder is unexceptional. Were high level government officials not involved, there would be no surprise whatsoever at investigating where there is clear evidence of misconduct and wrong-doing. Senator Whitehouse notes, “In America, high office does not put one outside the law.”

The senator also advocates for a broader scope to the investigation, and the need to follow where the evidence leads, including into the conduct of lawyers like Jay Bybee and John Yoo. Indeed, not investigating their conduct could be akin to prosecutorial misconduct. Or, as Whitehouse puts it, “Indeed, it borders on unethical for a prosecutor to refuse to investigate the corpus delicti of a crime because of concern as to where the evidence may lead.”

This is exactly why we are asking Attorney General Holder to authorize a full-scale investigation of those who ordered, designed, and justified torture. The investigation must follow the facts where the evidence leads, not on a predetermined path. It must reject blame-shifting and include the high-level officials who sanctioned and attempted to justify torture, not just the individuals who carried it out. A crime is a crime, whether committed by an ordinary citizen, a CIA officer, or a Justice Department lawyer. The only way to get at the truth is to have an unfettered investigation. We cannot ignore the lawbreaking of senior government officials and thus the systemic problems that led our country astray in the first place.