Hello, Accuracy

The Accuracy Blog appears to be a new blog about law school, politics, and current events by law student Chris Laurel. In one recent post he/she decries the sorry state of legal education and proposes a relatively simple fix: more frequent testing to measure progress and more teaching assistants to help students learn. That sounds like a fine start to me, although I would still add that the 3rd year seems unnecessary, at least in its current “more of the same” form.

Anyway: Welcome to the law student blog thing, Chris!

Posted 03:12 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack | law school meta-blogging

Domestic Spying and Criminal Appeals

I haven't found any specific news of this, but it seems possible (if not likely) that someone convicted of a terrorism-related or other crime might soon mount an appeal of that conviction by arguing that the evidence on which it was based was obtained illegally through the NSA's domestic spying program. What would a court faced with such an appeal do? And if evidence obtained through the NSA's warrantless spying was found to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution, how would that affect the argument that Bush broke the law in ordering the spying in the first place?

On a related note, attorney Harvey Silverglate has condemned the warrantless domestic spying program, as well as Bush's lame argument that the NY Times' disclosure of the program was a threat to national security:

The NSA has been around for 54 years and has been permitted to conduct unbridled foreign surveillance for the duration; the FISA extended that reach to include Americans, albeit with a readily obtainable warrant. The terrorists would have to be pretty dumb to have learned about electronic tapping by reading last week’s New York Times. And Bush would have to be pretty dumb for thinking we’d swallow such a line.

Silverglate's argument seems accurate; as many have already pointed out, the threat to the U.S. here is not that the press has brought this domestic spying program to light, but that the program exists in the first place. But if many people are saying this, why bother to point out Silverglate's article? Because he has a very interesting attorney-at-law website, that's why. Silverglate appears to be an accomplished and respectable lawyer, but what image, exactly, is he trying to present there?

Posted 02:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack |

Sue the Communications Companies!

I just heard a talking head on NPR suggest that phone companies could be liable for damages if they assisted the NSA in spying on Americans w/out warrants. The Patriot Act gives those companies immunity from suit if they cooperate w/court ordered wiretaps, but if there's no warrant, the phone company should be liable for invading your privacy.

Suing communications companies wouldn't be the same as holding public officials accountable for ordering this in the first place (impeachment is the only mechanism I see for that), but I'd love to see phone companies have to fork over serious damages for their part in this ongoing debacle. Maybe that would teach them how to say “no” the next time some “authority” asks them to do something that's illegal. Of course, how are you going to know you were spied upon so that you'll have standing to sue? Hmm...

Posted 07:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics

Why Domestic Spying Matters

Rumors are flying about whether the NSA's domestic spying program was eavesdropping on CNN reporter Christian Amanpour after NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell brought up the possibility. As America Blog points out, the consequences of such spying would be devastating to the democratic process. Was Bush spying on John Kerry and other Democratic opponents throughout the 2004 elections? Will we ever know? By circumventing established law and the Constitution by admitting it has and continues to spy on Americans without their knowledge and w/out any judicial oversight, the Bush administration has lost any shred of credibilty it might have had. If Bush denies that he spied on his political opponents, how can anyone trust that it's true?

I'll spare you an extended rant, but as the Huffington Post notes, Bush's domestic spying does not involve a “tradeoff” between security and civil liberties. Existing laws give the NSA plenty of room to get secret warrants and accomplish the same thing if they think it's necessary for U.S. security purposes:

There is no “trade off” issue here. There is no amount of security that would have been “traded off” had Bush followed the law. He would have gotten all the wiretaps we needed and we'd have gotten all the security that resulted from them.

Meanwhile, it appears some Democrats are taking this seriously and are accusing Bush of breaking the law. This is a new spin on viewing this domestic spying as a criminal act, but it sounds just as persuasive—if not more so—as simply arguing that Bush violated the 4th Amendment.

Posted 04:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics

Torture Poll: We Love It!

The last Ambivalent Poll asked: “If you could save a million lives by torturing one person, would you do it?” (Related post.) The final results were:

• 72% of respondents said unequivocally: “Yes.”
• 14.2% said: “impeach bush”
• 6.3% said:“The question is stupid. That's not a choice we really face.”
• 3.9% said: “I don't believe torture would save the millions lives; the information gained would not be reliable.”
• 3.1% said: “No”

I was in the minority with “No.” Shocker, eh? As L.'s brother might say, I guess I'm just a paper-pants hippie.

Posted 12:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | general politics

2006: The Year the Fourth Amendment Disappears?

Hi there. We just returned last night from our travels and we had a most excellent time relaxing and enjoying the company of family and friends. My loved ones spoiled me ridiculously so I have lots and lots of loot to wear, play with, and use in this new year, for all of which I am extremely thankful. Family and friends are the best part of life—something that's easy to forget in the day-to-day when you're far away from them. I'm very much looking forward to finishing law school and finding a job closer to the people I care about and who care about me the most.

Being immersed in all that family goodness for the last 10 days or so meant that I was largely tuned out of what was going on in the world. I tried to follow the domestic spying story but found that the Billings Gazette didn't seem to think it important enough to cover, other than to say the spying was more widespread than was originally thought. Instead I heard bits and pieces about the one-year anniversary of the tsunami, I learned that the Billings, Montana City Council seems pretty spineless, and more recently I heard repeatedly about an Iraqi child with spina bifida who has come to the U.S. for treatment. CNN Headline News seemed obsessed with that story the other day and curiously kept repeating that U.S. troops found the child during a raid on her parents' home. The message seemed to be that it's a great thing for U.S. troops to raid your home because then they can find your disabled child and maybe get her some medical help! Gee, CNN, when you put it that way, I'm thinking maybe we should all hope our homes get raided by U.S. troops! I'm sure they could find something they could help me out with.

The lesson I learned was this: If you depend on your local small-town newspaper and/or CNN for news of what's going on in the world, you're likely to get a really strange, fragmented, and incomplete picture. Oh, how I missed the internets!

And yet, now that I'm back and catching up on what matters to me most at the moment, I'm sickened to learn that just before Christmas 49% of Americans thought Bush's domestic spying was Constitutional and 50% thought it made the country safer. All I can say is that these people do not know their history. When the President starts spying on any American he wants and does so in secret and without any oversight, that can never make anyone safer and if it's only Constitutional if the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. But what's worse is the brazen way Bush continues to claim what he's done (and apparently is continuing to do!) is legal and necessary. Not only that, but he's trying to shift the focus from his own impeachable offenses:

The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States.

No, Mr. President, Whoever “leaked” this to the press is a hero. the fact that you are unilaterally spying on Americans without their knowledge or consent and without any judicial oversight in contravention of the Fourth Amendment is what is causing great harm to the United States.

Oh yeah, Happy New Year!

*sigh*

p.s.: Thanks to Marshall for making my point better than I did in arguing that whether the domestic spying is legal is not the point in terms of this being an impeachable offense. Marshall writes in the comments to that post:

Strictly sepaking, impeachment isn't a criminal remedy. It's way for democratically elected representatives to redress wrongdoing. In the impeachment context, “wrong” is not limited to simply criminal acts. Incompetence or malfeasance or a gross offense against those who elected you will do. I'd say this president has been guilty of all three at various times.

I could not agree more.

Posted 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics life generally