Here at ACLU for details.

Read more »

This is a wish list of things the ACLU should review. Add your own.

 

Read more »

The American government's foolishness has substantial legal and financial consequences for American citizens. One question is what happens when the Framer's vision is not realized:

Federalist 68:

[T]he system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

We need to discuss reforms to the Constitutional framework when, even after a vote for change, the same fools perpetuate mischief. 

Read more »

Court May Open Door To More FOIAs on Alleged FISA Violations

There appears to be a possible doorway for more information about the alleged FISA violations: There may be some documents released. However, EFF is not happy with the WH delays in providing emails on WH-telecom discussions related to immunity.

As a matter of law, it's not established that the Congress-Executive can exercise judicial power and affect the outcome of ongoing litigation against the telecoms.

It will be interesting to see how the new emails open the door to new FOIAs. American civilians and the states need to know the details of the real deal between the telecoms and the US government. It's premature to pretend there's no problem or "more important" issues.

Read more »

The American government and DHS issued another non-sensical statement through the Secretary. DHS announces it needs to spend money to track terrorists in the US:

Secretary Janet Napolitano said law-enforcement authorities are tracking terrorists with al-Qaeda leanings in the U.S.

Instead of tracking them, why not arrest them and deport them? Because they're not here. DHS-IC-law enforcement don't know where they are. American DHS enjoys a climate of "suspicion" to justify their loosely supervised intrusions.

Didn't we vote for change?

Read more »

I've come across some issues which I find frustrating, and rather than bore you with details and length, I wanted to open it up to the TPM community. I'd like to share some information, but keep in general enough so that I don't dig myself into a hole with specifics (ie without including name of institution, types of specific financial issues, ect).

I'm struggling with how to communicate this, be succinct, but give you enough information to possibly look in similar area, while still keeping some confidentiality. What would you prefer -- as far as style, length, details -- that would help move from whining to focusing on solutions which the TPM community might be able to mobilize.

I'm looking for feedback on whether this is the right forum to discuss financial issues, but feel as though some of these might be trivial, but are more anecdotes illustrating a larger problem.

Wondering what level of details might be useful to help focus some interest, but not get bogged down on details. Please feel free to share your reaction to what you're reading. Thanks.

This is more of a question than a comment: War crimes have no statute of limitations  (StOL). There are still in the 21st Century prosecutions for Nazi-related offenses over 60 years ago in WWII.

Today, the US government says that some POWs may not be prosecuted for "war crimes," but that they'll leave open the option to prosecute one released Afghan for "other" things.

This seems absurd. There's a limit to whwat the US can do. Indeed, if the US govenment isn't going to prosecute some of the POWs for war crimes, how does the US propose to prosecute POWs for non-war crimes, and still meet the StOL requirements?

 

Read more »

Xe Services, formerly Blackwater, is alleged to have been linked with "assassination squads" which the CIA planned to use to target foreign adversaries.

We need more information about this planning to understand whether the US government and civilian contractor had jointly agreed to war crimes; and the relationship of this planning with other US government claims about legal compliance reviews on other implemented programs.

.

Read more »

The rendition program is considered by the government a state secret, yet not enough of a secret that DOJ would properly protect all information related to that activity. The US government disclosed investigations and other evidence over matters which are supposedly "state secrets."

The government's claim of "privilege" fails when the government discloses -- or inadvertently confirms the veracity of --  evidence connected with that supposed secret.

The DOJ investigation is not so much an effort to intimidate defense counsel, but creates new lines of evidence for defense counsel to review in court US government-disclosed state secrets.

The US government wants to scuttle the POW trials, and prevent the public from knowing the full scope of the US government involvement in other rendition-like activities against American citizens.

Read more »

American military personnel carry hand-held translation devices. This explains why there may be some confusing responses from civilians on the ground.

Read more »

We need to call the DOJ's bluff. An FBI agent has (apparently) disclosed sensitive, national security information about internal vulnerabilities of the United States.  Why did this agent believe this disclosure would not be examined by DOJ OPR or the enemies of the US on internal security?

One question is whether the FBI agent is inciting others to violence. Here's a good chance for Congress to test the POGO manual on overisight. At a minimum, we should hear whether a grand jury has or has not been empaneled.

 

Read more »

We'd like to call attention to this article at Jurist: Discussing Nuremberg and legal counsel responsibility.

President's Alleged Resource Allocation Decision To Not Spend Time on Geneva

The White House fired US Attorneys for "not" doing something. Indeed, the White House "knew" they were firing US Attorneys, without spending time on Geneva oversight, as they had a legal duty.

There was no "confusion" about the laws of war, but a decision to ignore it. That is an alleged subsequent war crime, and an alleged breach of legal counsel duties to enforce the laws of war.

Read more »

The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) released documents over a week ago related to the White House connection with the US Attorney firings. These documents help partially fill some of the holes the DOJ IG/OPR investigation report identified in the White House communications.

We anticipate that some logical next steps in the wake of the HJC release is for the DOJ IG/OPR, independent of the grand jury investigation, to (1) conduct a review of the White House documents; and (2) issue a subsequent report detailing how the newly released information helps or does not help fill the identified-gaps in the DOJ IG/OPR report, .

Summary Recommendation

We urge the Obama Administration and Congress to guide DOJ IG/OPR to review the newly released WH documents; and publicly report how this information does or does not address the DOJ IG/OPR-identified gaps in the White House communications.

Read more »

We've been skimming over the HJC document dump on the US Attorney firings, and Rove-Harriet Statements. We've noticed that some of the public discussion on various factoids seem, in our view, sort of trivial, but interesting.

We've stumped on a few things, but thought we'd ask a general question:

Read more »

ACLU disclosed on this page, which leads to a redacted document

 

 

Read more »