JONATHAN TURLEY

This morning I will testify in the House Judiciary Committee on the Bush Administration’s record on prosecuting terrorism. The Justice Department continues to inflate the number of terrorism cases by citing such crimes as immigration violations and general fraud as terrorist-related. The result is to give a false impression that there is a great level of domestic terrorism than is truly the case. Below is the testimony (footnotes not included).
Continue reading ‘Body Count Culture: Testimony on the Bush Administration’s Record of Terrorism Prosecution’

A Georgia military contractor, Pyrotechnic Specialties Inc. or PSI, is accused of a conspiracy to defraud the government and to sell defective stun (or “flashbang”) grenades to the military and both state and federal law enforcement officials. Not only were three FBI agents injured, but PSI is accused to luring federal officials with gifts at stripper joints and other perks. Officials are now facing charges of conspiracy, money laundering, mail fraud and defrauding the government. Continue reading ‘Criminal Charges in Defective Grenade Case’

Today, I testified in the House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security), on the new proposed changes to the rules governing federal restitution. They are quite extreme. Continue reading ‘Testimony on New Federal Restitution Law’

President Bush waited until Saturday to veto the ban on waterboarding, hoping to diminish press and congressional attention. He had nothing to fear. Both democrats and republicans have already guaranteed that Bush will not be held accountable for the torture program. After effectively decriminalizing torture, the objections heard from Democrats should be met with a healthy degree of scorn. Continue reading ‘Bush Vetos Ban on Waterboarding — Democrats Feign Shock’

The current legislation to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives has no shortage of passion behind it. Indeed, after testifying repeatedly that this legislation is unconstitutional, I have felt my share of that passion turned to anger. It has been an ironic position for me, because I strongly believe that District residents should be allowed to vote in Congress and I have many close friends on the other side of this debate. Indeed, I supported greater (and permanent) representation — as opposed to his partial representation plan. To that end, I have published a lengthy law review article below explaining why I believe that the law is flawed and why there are better option for the city. Continue reading ‘Too Clever By Half: The Constitutional Argument Against the Current Voting Bill for the District of Columbia’

With states and citizens objecting, the Congress and the Bush Administration have moved ahead to require a national identification card — abandoning decades of opposition to such a system on civil liberties grounds. I testified against this proposal when it was first made in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. What is truly remarkable is that the REAL ID has become little more than an excuse to do something that the Bush Administration has been trying to do for years: create interlocking databases on citizens. Continue reading ‘Your Papers Please: The United States Adopts a National ID Card And Abandons Priniciples’

Given my testimony today in the House Judiciary Committee on prison reform and older prisoners, I thought this previous column may be of interest.  Continue reading ‘Older Prisoners and Overcrowding’

What is most striking about the current disaster presented by the Jefferson ruling is that it was entirely unnecessary. For my prior testimony on the Jefferson raid, click here  

January 20, 2006
This is the opening statement from the hearing immediately after the disclosure of the NSA program. Continue reading ‘Prior Testimony on the NSA Program’

The testimony below concerns the new controversy of the status of tobacco as a product in the U.S. Continue reading ‘Testimony: Tobacco and Regulation by Litigation’

United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, “Ending Taxation Without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257,” May 23, 2007. Continue reading ‘List of Prior Testimony’

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005

House Agriculture Committee

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor
to appear here before the members of this committee.
As we all know, there is a firestorm of controversy of the Su-
preme Court case, which I also believe was wrongly decided, even
though I have argued in the past, in academic pieces, for the ex-
pansion of public use. In some context, I thought this decision was
facially wrong, and I don’t see how the Court came to its conclu-
sion, which required it to negate portions of the takings clause, to
effectively make them nonexistent. The clause makes a reference to
public use. We interpret constitutional amendments so that words
mean something. And in this case, the public use reference didn’t
even amount to a speed bump for the Court on its way of effectively
negating the protections of the clause. Continue reading ‘Testimony on Kelo and the Supreme Court’s Eminent Domain Ruling in Kelo’

Testimony of Jonathan Turley
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School

House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution
Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment
November 9, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Summary: My name is Jonathan Turley. I am a professor at George Washington University Law School where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law. Although I have taught constitutional criminal procedure and lectured on the Madisonian Democracy for years, my views have been most influenced by my litigation in past cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine, executive privilege, and Article II authority. While the current debate over the impeachment standard can appear arcane and theoretical, these standards have concrete expression in cases involving the lives of average citizens and the conduct of Executive Branch officials. When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct. Executive power will fill the space created by any decision of this body………………………………………Page 6

METHODOLOGY

Summary: While I greatly respect the academics on the other side of this debate, I do not believe that there is a basis to exclude the alleged criminal conduct from potential articles of impeachment on any definitional, historical or policy basis. The literature in this area is rich with different theories of constitutional interpretation. There is a danger when these theories are super-imposed on a sparse historical record to advance a claim of clear original intent or restrictive hidden meaning. As will be shown, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is inextricably linked to the structural function of the House. Impeachment was created as a process by which the public could address serious questions of legitimacy in the Chief Executive and other officers. It was a process by which illegitimacy could be remedied by removal and legitimacy could be redeemed by acquittal. This is why criminal acts committed in office, regardless of their motivation or subject matter, should ordinarily be submitted to the Senate……………Page 9 Continue reading ‘Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee’

STATEMENT OF
PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
WASHINGTON, D.C.

BEFORE
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND HOMELAND
SECURITY

“A REVIEW OF THE TOOLS TO FIGHT TERRORISM ACT”

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before the Subcommittee
and to discuss the provisions of the Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004. Continue reading ‘Senate Testimony: National Security and Civil Liberties’

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY
PROFESSOR OF LAW
DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ADVOCACY CENTER
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATM LAW
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 7, 1998

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you today. The subject of this hearing
is enormously important to many individuals, communities and
agencies in this country. I will not be able to do justice to the
myriad of issues raised by this hearing in my short appearance
before the Subcommittee. I was invited to appear before this
Subcommittee only two days ago while out of town on litigation.
Nonetheless, I felt strongly that some issues should be raised
during the hearing, albeit in an abbreviated form. Mr. Chairman,
with the permission of the Subcommittee, I would like to submit
my complete written statement into the record and to submit a
supplemental statement at a later date. Continue reading ‘Bobby Unser and the Alleged Abuses of Park Rangers: Testimony in the House of Representatives’

PREPARED STATEMENT OF
JONATHAN TURLEY
LEAD DEFENSE COUNSELFOR PETTY OFFICER DANIEL M. KING

SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jonathan Turley. I currently represent Petty Officer Daniel M. King and I served as the lead defense counsel for Petty Officer King during his prosecution for alleged espionage. I am also a professor at George Washington University Law School where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law.

I greatly appreciate your invitation to discuss the King case. As a defense attorney and an academic in the national security field,1 I have never encountered a more troubling case. My co-counsel and I were formally invited to testify late last week and have attempted to assemble a comprehensive presentation of the facts in this case over the weekend. Each of our statements today will isolate different aspects of these facts. Like my colleagues, I wish to associate myself with their formal statements as part of our unified presentation. After discussing the charges and basic evidence in the case, my comments will focus on the areas previously identified by the Committee as the subject of today’s hearing. LT Matthew Freedus will then offer a detailed presentation of the facts in this case and the course of the investigation and prosecution. LT Robert Bailey will then detail the specific violations and abuses that have been identified and made part of the record. We understand that your time is limited and, with the consent of the Committee, we have submitted three formal statements. I apologize for the length but we find ourselves in the same position as Blaise Pascal when he apologized for the length of a letter because he lacked the time to write it shorter.2 Continue reading ‘Testimony in Senate Intelligence Committee on Abuses By Naval Intelligence and the Daniel King Case’

Statement for the Record
Jonathan Turley
J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School

May 26, 2006

Before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Hoekstra, Representative Harman, members of the Select Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the role and responsibility of journalists in covering classified subjects.
The subject of today’s hearing carries particular significance for me as someone who regularly works in both the law and the media. On the legal side, I hold the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University where I teach relevant subjects that range from constitutional law to defamation to criminal procedure. In addition to writing on national security subjects as an academic, I have served as counsel in a variety of national security and espionage cases, including as lead counsel in the current terrorism case United States v. Al-Timimi. My litigation background includes cases that have dealt with attorney and journalistic privileges as well as executive privilege and the military and state secrets privilege. Due to my work in cases handling classified material, I have held a clearance since the 1980s.
On the media side, I have worked as a legal commentator for roughly two decades. I am a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors and write regularly for various newspapers, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and other publications. I have also had four stints under contract with NBC and CBS news and continue to appear as a legal analyst regularly on various broadcast and cable programs.
Many lawyers and journalists have become increasingly alarmed by the erosion of protections for the media in this country. While we often refer to our country as the cradle of press freedom, it is not true that the United States currently represents the high water mark for journalistic rights and privileges. Despite our great tradition of a free press and our extensive media industry, other nations now extend greater protections to their reporters and recent coercive measures against reporters have made the United States an area of considerable concern for international organizations.
The recent controversy over press freedom comes at a time when we have never been more dependent on the Fourth Estate to challenge and check the government’s otherwise unbridled authority. In the last few years, we have faced one of the most serious constitutional crises in our history. President Bush has claimed the authority to violate or to circumvent federal law when he deems it to be in the nation’s interest. There continues to be a raging debate over the President’s authority to order warrantless domestic surveillance and other controversial (and potentially criminal) operations. These are controversies that the Administration obviously would have preferred to avoid. Much anger has been directed at the media and there have been calls for new penalties and prosecutions for reporters and their sources. Continue reading ‘Press Freedom and the War on Terrorism: Testimony in the House Intelligence Committee’

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5388,
THE “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAIR AND EQUAL HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2006”

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the important question of the representational status of the District of Columbia in Congress. I expect that everyone here today would agree that the current non-voting status of the District is fundamentally at odds with the principles and traditions of our constitutional system. As Justice Black stated in Wesberry v. Sanders: “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Continue reading ‘D.C. Vote in Congress: House Judiciary Committee’

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

ENDING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION:
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 1257

MAY 23, 2007

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THE UNITED STATES SENATE

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Feingold, Senator Specter, members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the important question of the representational status of the District of Columbia in Congress. At the outset, I believe that it is important for people of good faith to acknowledge that this is not a debate between people who want District residents to have the vote and those who do not. I expect that everyone here today would agree that the current non-voting status of the District is fundamentally at odds with the principles and traditions of our constitutional system. As Justice Black stated in Wesberry v. Sanders: “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

Today, we are all seeking a way to address the glaring denial of basic rights to the citizens of our Capitol City. Clearly, this is a matter that is heavily laden with passions from decades of disenfranchisement. However, there is a tendency to personalize the barriers to such representation and to ignore any countervailing evidence in the constitutional debates. In the last Senate hearing, my friend Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Senators that if they are going to vote against this bill, “do not to blame the Framers blame Jonathan Turley.” Del. Norton went further to argue that it was “slander” to claim that the Framers intended to leave District residents without their own representatives in Congress. In reality, I have long argued for full representation for the District and abhor the status of its residents. As for claims of slandering the Framers, truth remains an absolute defense to defamation and the record in this case could not be more clear as to the intentions of the Framers. While some may view it as obnoxious (and indeed some at the time held the same view), the Framers most certainly did understand the implications of creating a federal enclave represented by Congress as a whole.

Unlike many issues before Congress, there has always been a disagreement about the means rather than the ends of full representation for the District residents. Regrettably, I believe that S. 1257 is the wrong means. Despite the best of motivations, the bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for District residents. Indeed, considerable expense would likely come from an inevitable and likely successful legal challenge — all for a bill that would ultimately achieve only partial representational status. The effort to fashion this as a civil rights measure ignores the fact that it confers only partial representation without any guarantee that it will continue in the future. It is the equivalent of allowing Rosa Parks to move halfway to the front of the bus in the name of progress. District residents deserve full representation and, while this bill would not offer such reform, there are alternatives, including a three-phased proposal that I have advocated in the past. Continue reading ‘Testimony: D.C. Vote in Congress (Senate Judiciary Committee)’