home

House Bill Contains Provision to Investigate Lawyers for Detainees

The House Armed Services Committee defense bill that will soon be considered by the full House contains a provision to investigate lawyers for detainees for misconduct:

The provision would require the Pentagon inspector general to investigate instances in which there was “reasonable suspicion” that lawyers for detainees violated a Pentagon policy, generated “any material risk” to a member of the armed forces, violated a law under the inspector general’s exclusive jurisdiction, or otherwise “interfered with the operations” of the military prison at Guantánamo.

The inspector general would be required to report back to Congress within 90 days after the provision became law about any steps the Pentagon had taken in response to such conduct by either civilian or military lawyers.

Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it? Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed or veto it? [More...]

Democrats on the committee agreed to Mr. Miller’s proposal after several modifications. One change added the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing before a lawyer would be investigated by the inspector general. Another enabled Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to halt such an inquiry if it would interfere with a related criminal investigation.

Detainee lawyers argue that even with such modifications, Mr. Miller’s amendment is broad enough to give pause to all lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees — including the far larger numbers who have sought judicial hearings for prisoners who contend that they are not terrorists and are being held by mistake.

Lawyers are not the enemy. Nor are we a danger. It's people like Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), the Congressman pushing the provision, who are willing to destroy our Constitution and its 200 year heritage. Today it's those with suspected ties to terrorists, tomorrow it will be those with suspected ties to drug traffickers, and the day after that, sex offenders. Pretty soon it will reach down to someone you care about. And it will be too late. Al Qaeda will laugh, all the way to the terrorist bank, as it continues to make deposits of the constitutional rights we've shredded in our misguided responses to our exaggerated fears.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Yoo On Kagan: Too Narrow A View Of Executive Power >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    That last sentence hit it dead on (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by cdub88 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    Exactly what is wrong with people is that they don't see past the immediate implications of any law.

    It's especially prevalent in the Arizona law whereby people only look at the immediate "you can deport illegals" but don't see how cops can use that to target American citizens and exploit them.

    We pass all these laws without thinking about how they can be used down the road to allow for other invasions of privacy because our only thought at the time is immediate gain. It's sad really

    It is sad... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    and the cherry on top is we are terrible at revisiting laws once we realize the unintended harm.

    And the epidemic is getting worse...It took us what, 10 years or so, to figure out alcohol prohibition was a really dumb law that did more harm then good...and here we are still trying to get the equally harmful marijuana prohibition repealed.  We suck.  If they pass this unamerican garbage that hinders a vigorous defense, it will never be repealed.

    Parent

    Obama is consistent (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Andreas on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    Obama protects war criminals such as George Walker Bush, Richard Cherney, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. It therefore would be completely consistent for him to attack lawyers defending those who are imprisoned in Guantanamo.

    Hell HAS frozen over (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    It will be hell freezes over (an expression .. i don't believe in hell) when normal people like me will be locked up because of some mis-application of any terrorism laws.

    Really? Well then Beelzebub must have enjoyed his day of ice-skating. Let Maher Arar tell you all about it:

    Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York's JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny "grave-like" cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

    During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

    On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."

    Of course, the U.S. has yet to admit any wrongdoing or offer any compensation or apology to Mr. Arar.

    So...you were saying?

    Someone forgot some stuff (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    He was picked up while changing planes at JFK because he was on terrorist list provided by the Canadian government. He was offered to the Canadians but they refused him. He was given a deportation hearing in which no representative of Canada showed up nor did his attorney.

    In short, he was given full due process.

    Since he had dual citizenship, Syrian and Canadian and since Canada didn't want him he was deported to Syria.

    That Syria may have treated him terribly is not the fault of the US.

    If you want to whip up on the Canadians I will hold your coat. If you want to whip up on the Syrians I will cheer you on.

    But tell me DO, what should we have done? Release a man on a Canadian terrorist list into the US?

    Parent

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it?

    Yes, of course.

    Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed or veto it?

    Yes, of course. Why do you even ask?



    oh yes you are! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cpinva on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    Lawyers are not the enemy. Nor are we a danger.

    as long as you continue to challenge the executive's right to detain without due process; order the murder (give it any pretty name you want, it comes down to murder) of anyone, anywhere; authorize the introduction of evidence gained by use of illegal methods (read: torture).

    yes, you most certainly are the enemy, and a danger to the "Seven Days in May" government we seem to have acquired.

    Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it?

    that you even feel the need to ask, tells me you already know the answer.

    Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed or veto it?

    again, that you feel the need to ask, gives you your answer.

    in a year and a half, all my concerns about obama as president have come frightenly true: there is no there there. he seems to have no strongly held, career defining positions, on anything. the reason for this is simple, he had little of a career, before running for president.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    "Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it? Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed...?

    Of course.
    Of course.

    Chilling effect on future pro bono (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    representation.

    For clarity's sake (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    what does this allow that wouldn't have otherwise been possible?

    WIll it pass? (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    Well, the knuckleheaded Democrats already let it out of committee.

    Approved unanimously (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    Can you tell it's an election year?

    Parent
    The point of legislation like this (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    ... has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with politics.  The Republicans are just looking for stupid sh*t to propose that they think Democrats will have to embarrass themselves by voting for or equally by voting against.  

    Parent
    Now THAT is fear tactics ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by nyrias on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    "Today it's those with suspected ties to terrorists, tomorrow it will be those with suspected ties to drug traffickers, and the day after that, sex offenders. Pretty soon it will reach down to someone you care about. And it will be too late. Al Qaeda will laugh, all the way to the terrorist bank, as it continues to make deposits of the constitutional rights we've shredded in our misguided responses to our exaggerated fears."

    The famous "slipping slope" argument. Look at history. Using your argument, prohibition will lead to banning of anything objectionable. What happened? It was reversed.

    Using some extreme extrapolation of the law to "scare" people into opposing the current one is as intellectually corrupt as using fear to further other political agendas.

    I don't necessarily agree with this law (and not necessarily oppose .. i haven't made up my mind yet) but certainly i do NOT buy your scare tactics argument.

    Some years ago, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    Jeralyn posted a thread regarding the expanded, non-terrorist-related use of the Patriot Act (the act we were assured would only be used to go after the "terrorists").  Link to the New York Times article referenced in the thread.  So, yes, Jeralyn has a legitimate reason to be wary of the "slippery slope."  You may not have problems with the expanded use of the Patriot Act (which I never liked in the first place) in regular criminal cases, but I do.

    The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.


    Parent
    Well .. i am sure it will affect lawyers ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyrias on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    but normal people like me?

    It is pure scare tactics to say such laws will impact (or induce future change to impact) a significantly number of Americans. It will be hell freezes over (an expression .. i don't believe in hell) when normal people like me will be locked up because of some mis-application of any terrorism laws.

    In fact, just the do-not-fly-list has generated such backlash that the TSA has to find ways to mitigate the inconvenience.

    In fact, i would say that is AS unlikely as being affected by the next terrorist attack

    Parent

    That's always the answer, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    You're essentially saying, "Well, it won't affect normal people like me, so why should I be concerned?"  I'm concerned about every expansion of police powers, every erosion of our civil liberties- including our right to be represented by an attorney.  Anything that might have a chilling effect on that representation is a concern.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one- I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine.

    Parent
    i am saying beyond that ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyrias on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    i am saying the whole tactics of using this slippery slop argument .. is the SAME as the scare tactics of using the fear of terrorism.

    The chance of being hit by a terrorist attack is essentially nil .. the same as tomorrow i am being detained by the FBI for a false terrorism charge.

    If you claim to be better than the "other" side, why are you use the SAME THING you accuse them of using .. scare tactics?

    That is hypocritical.

    Parent

    Whatever. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    I'm done with you.  Have a nice day.

    Parent
    LOL ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by nyrias on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    I wonder if other would have a little more intellectual honesty and face up to the argument.

    I will take that as "you are not happy but there is nothing you can think of to disagree with me".

    Parent

    normal people? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    I mean, I know we all make lawyer jokes but cmon.

    Parent
    Excellent comment (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    and analysis, Donald.  Mahalo.

    Forgot link (none / 0) (#15)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    Uh, let me see (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    From protesting over the possible loss of attorney client confidentially privilege to martial law and the military trying us for whatever...

    Wow.

    Only in America.

    Rep. Jared Polis seems genuinely concerned (none / 0) (#26)
    by gondobie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    about this provision.  On Friday, I stopped by his local office.  His staffperson cut me off in the middle of my diatribe to recite the honorable history of John Adams, and how the pro bono lawyers were acting in that fine tradition, then told me that he was going to call Rep. Polis about this immediately.

    I e-mailed Polis an hour later, and he personally e-mailed me back, copying his defense person on the e-mail and telling me they were going to look into it.  I find that hopeful since he doesn't know me.