Gotta Run; Happy Holidays!

It's time again for us to hit the holiday road so updates here will be sporadic at best for the next ten days or so. Thanks so much to everyone who chipped in on my most recent job search post—I will be putting your advice into practice over the coming weeks. Best wishes and Happy Holidays to all of you!

Posted 06:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally

Was Bush's Secret Spying Technically Legal? That's Not the Point.

Anthony at Three Years of Hell points out that law profs like Ann Althouse and Orin Kerr have suggested that Bush's secret spying program might actually be legal. Perhaps it won't surprise readers of this blog to hear that this future (fingers crossed) public defender doesn't need much detailed legal analysis to say that this program of warrantless searches of American citizens inside the U.S. is an abuse of power that Americans simply ought not tolerate. I can't think of a single thing that would justify this circumvention of existing law, espeically when you consider that existing law would have allowed the administration to do exactly the same thing w/the mere formality that they'd have to justify their actions before a captive court w/in 72 hours. FISA doesn't provide meaningful oversight, but it's more than zero and the zero oversight here is the problem. Sure, as Professor Kerr suggests, these warrantless searches might technically be legal as part of a “border exception” to the warrant clause or via other cracks in the layers of relevant law, but that possible technical legality is far outweighed by the inarguably negative policy implications of allowing the executive to do whatever the hell it wants under the cover of “war.” What comes immediately to mind is the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. Was it legal? The Supreme Court said yes. Was it right? Hell no. The law cannot always anticipate the evil that men will do, but just because a law hasn't anticipated an action and explicitly named it illegal does not mean that action is ok or ought to be tolerated in our democracy.

That intelligent people are so eager to give the administration the benefit of the doubt here is yet another sign of how badly the Fourth Amendment has been eviscerated, both in law and in the hearts and minds of American people. I wonder if people like Ann Althouse— who says “that at the very least fair-minded observers should see that the problem is complex”— really think the dangers this sort of secret spying might prevent are greater than the dangers posed by an executive that does whatever it wants, consequences be damned? This problem is only “complex” if you are willing to grant that Yubbldew is free to violate the law (in principle, if not in technical fact) and the Constitution under the banner of this so-called “war” of his, and that's a possibility I categorically reject. Besides, none of us is a “fair-minded observer” here—we're citizens of a democracy and we should all demand that our elected representatives—the President included—adhere to their oaths of office and uphold the Constitution rather than finding ways to circumvent its protections.

So when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

Posted 10:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | general politics

Should I Have Started Looking Sooner?

I've just searched for public defender jobs in Michigan, Illinois, Montana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and the Dakotas on PSLawNet, Law Crossing, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, GW's job bank, the University of Michigan Law School Job Net and a few other places, and guess what? There is a total of one advertised opening—in Rockford, Illinois. Damn. This job thing is going to be harder than I thought.

Ok, maybe it's not that bad. I just applied for an opening in Montana, although I fear they're going to want someone before this time next year, which is when I will have (fingers crossed) passed the bar. Also, big places like Chicago and Milwaukee (and maybe Detroit?) have rolling applications for public defenders, so I can do those. Still, is now the time for this? Have I missed the window or has it not even opened?

I've complained about this before (sorry!), but I just don't know how to do a public defender job search. I understand that most public defender offices probably don't pay much attention to national job listing websites and only advertise openings locally, but I've checked state bar employment pages as well—still nada. Should I just start sending resumes and cover letters to offices where I'd like to work? Or is there some other strategy I should consider? Maybe I should talk to a career counselor at GW.... Nah, that would be silly!

Posted 08:34 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack | 3L

What Yubbledew Must Say Before He's Impeached

The President's speech last night repeated the same song and dance we've been hearing for week—we not only can “win” in Iraq, but we already are winning!—but it was a bit different in that the President at least made an attempt to sound like he actually cared about and understood what is happening in Iraq. He didn't convince me, though, and he won't until he does the right thing: He must admit that he made a horrible mistake, that the only reason Iraq has become the front line in the “war on terror” is because of that mistake, and that if he had it to do over again, he never would have invaded Iraq. If Yubbledew said those things, I'd fall over dead in shock, but I would also give him three cheers for finally coming to grips with reality and for beginning to do what's necessary to win back the trust and confidence of the American people and the world.* I might even consider supporting a sort of “stay the course” policy because, well, as Colin Powell put it (I believe), we broke Iraq, so we have a responsibility to at least do what we can to make sure it doesn't continue in total chaos indefinitely.

But instead of really taking responsibility and admitting what a mistake the whole Iraq debacle has been, Yubbledew continues to bob and weave, hiding behind his charade of firm resolve to “stay the course” in order to avoid the abominable truth that more than 2000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because he made the most egregious and horrible mistake that a President can make. So long as Yubbledew remains so unable to accept reality, the “stay the course” policy seems ludicrous and the “pull out now” policy remains a legitimate option simply because doing so might in fact help stabilize Iraq by removing one of the main incentives for terrorism there.

But whatever the case about staying or going in Iraq, we all know that Yubbledew will never admit his mistake. Maybe he can't admit his mistake because, well, it wasn't a mistake. Mountains of evidence suggest that he knew all along that Iraq had no WMD and that he was unabashedly lying to the world in order to take over Iraq. I hate to have to admit that because even I, who have always loathed this worm of a man and his politics, would prefer to believe he's not that affirmatively evil, that he really did just make a horrible, horrible unintentional error. The man in the White House is definitely an evil-doer, but could he really possibly be that evil? My mind recoils in defense of my sanity, yet the evidence remains.

Yet, bad as the Iraq debacle is, for some reason it hasn't been enough to get him impeached. Now we have a new debacle which absolutely justifies impeachment—his administration has been spying on its own citizens! Will Americans demand accountability for this egregious breach of the law and the demands of the United States Constitution? How far will we let the madness go?

* Speaking of world trust, the speech contained more doublespeak as Bush said we must stay the course in order to show the world that America keeps its word. What about America keeping its word not to torture? What about America keeping its word to respect sovereign nations and diplomacy instead of unilaterally invading places for utterly inexplicable reasons? Do those things show the world that America keeps its word?

Posted 10:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics

Are Torture-Supporters Moral Relativists?

This is the hot topic from last week and before, but I'm just now getting around to it so: After months spent defending his administration's right and obligation to torture (often by proxy via Dick Cheney), Bush has agreed to support a ban on torture. Terrific! Still, it seems some people think this is just a wink/nod sort of thing, and that it's still ok to torture under certain circumstances. What do you think?

Please respond in the poll in the right column. Is it ok to torture, or isn't it? And if you claim that it's ok sometimes, but not usually, aren't you engaging in the dreaded “moral relativism” for which conservatives have long condemned liberals?

Oh, and just for the record, two weeks ago George Bush supposedly called the United States Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper!” Even if he didn't say it, he's provided ample evidence that that's how he really feels.

Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | general politics

That Damned “Liberal” Media

L. pointed this out to me: One of the things that makes the news of the illegal Bush Administration domestic spying even more disturbing is the fact that the NY Times sat on the story for at least a year. The Times has explained that:

A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

Yeah, right. And did the Administration also argue, sometime before, oh, let's say, November 2, 2004—election day—that revealing that it had absolutely no respect for the Fourth Amendment might, um, not be good for its chances in that little political contest? Nah, that never would have happened. I mean, the Times wouldn't have sat on a story that could have totally changed election results, right? It would never do something like that.

Posted 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics

Asian Provocations

Asian Provacateur has been stirring up some very interesting trouble recently. For example, have you heard about the Chappelle Theory? Asian Provocateur has. This makes a certain sense, but.... What is Chappelle saying/doing now?

Asian Provacateur also notes that the Bush Administration has been working on a Nike commercial. That's what this piece by Jack Cafferty on CNN suggests. The video there is worth watching. Let me just add one thing: Who cares about his so-called “mandate” (that never existed). Want to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney? Just do it!

Posted 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics tv land