JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including with the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with his fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by The Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
I sent the following to the Obama email addresses:
I am disappointed in the AG nominee — he has “amnesty” baggage.
It is critical that the new admin prosecute the Constitutional violations of Gonzalez/Bush if you want to correct past violations of law. Otherwise, the next administration can do the same violations with impunity.
Jonathan Turley, Prof Constitutional Law) at Geoge Washington Univ, would be ideal for the Dept of Justice. Please take the violations of the Constitution seriously.
I hope the Obama admin does the right thing to correct constitutional violations in a strong way.
Respectfully,
Arnold Vagts, PhD
I hope Prof Turley offers his services to bring law and order back into the Justice Dept.
if our own troops undergo waterboarding how can it be torture? torture in my mind is something that does permanent physical or emotional harm.
I think the Geneva convention (as originaly signed) was about hooking wires up to privates, pulling fingernails off, beating the soles of ones feet, operating on people without benefit of being put under (as the Japanese did in China), that type of thing.
All in all I’d say Bush has done a pretty good job with keeping rights intact and providing for our safety. It amazes me that as a liberal you think it perfectly all right to make me wear a seatbelt, not smoke in public, not eat transfat, and to generally reduce my level of freedom through high taxes and regulations that cost me untold thousands of dollars so I am really no better off than a serf and you think you are protecting my liberty when you talk about trying GW for war crimes because he poured water over the head of some guy who is trying to kill me?
If you really are about protecting the rigths of individuals, which I dont believe you are because most liberals are about naked power and control over other people lives, you would be fighting to reduce the tax burden of every man and woman in this country that pays taxes. You may think you are protecting peoples rights but what you are actually doing is paving the way for a totalatarian state. Philosophies have consequences and Kantian ideas are not good.
the thing may speak for itself but i like “a res est quis est quod can exsisto nusquam alius” A=A and ask no man to live for you nor you for another. only that philosophy will lead to a world in which all men truly are brothers engaging in commerce and association not because they have to but because they want to.
AGO SOLVO
I’m listening to your interview on NPR and I’m grateful for your advocacy of our leaders obeying the rule of law. The moral simplicity of that far too easily becomes whitewashed due to partisanship and fear of hypotheticals. Again, thank you for a well reasoned and clearly explained argument on this critical subject.
“If Bush ordered torture, it is a war crime. If it is a war crime, he is a war criminal.”
And what of Bugliosi’s case against Bush for the crime of murder?
Prof. Turley,
I agree with you 100% about letting the torture crimes issues go to a court. However, I do want to clarify one point. The Taliban were and are state actors. They were the controlling government of Afghanistan when we invaded them. I contend that they are still state actors even though they are not officially in power(at least not in Kabul) because they are attempting to regain control. I thought you did a great job on Rachel Maddow’s show. The torture issue is one that just boggles my mind. If they can torture Padilla who was a citizen, Bush is actually claiming he can torture you and I and even Bron98, with impunity.
Rafflaw:
I have always viewed the Taliban as state actors. However, that argument is simply not relevant to the determination of a war crime for torture.
Prof. Turley:
watched you on Rachel Maddox show last night and was really amazed that you wanted to prosecute GW for being a war criminal. Are you serious? What has he done that would rise to that level? The taliban were/are non-state actors, they wear civilian clothes by all rights they could have been shot on site with no trial as spies. So they get a trip to Gitmo, some good chow and a Koran(Quran) how is that violating their rights? Seems to me the US went overboard for them considering what they and their associates did to us.
I say bring that trial on, go right ahead and try Bush and Cheney for war crimes or crimes against humanity. I dont believe you have the vigor to do it. And dont be confused about Bush’s approval rating, my guess is that the vast majority of Americans dissaprove of Bush’s war stance because he did not fight hard enough, nor did he appear to want to win.
I say let the left try, maybe then we can get a little Jeffersonian dialogue going.
The fact that you want to try GW and DC is laughable, I am giggling it is so funny. I am roflmao. The left has lost what little mind they have left.
Is this what is left of the intellectual vigor the left had at the end of the 19th century? Plato, Marx, Hegel and Kant are laughing too and Aristotle is weeping.
Bron98:
Whether or not the Taliban were non-state actors has no bearing on the war crime of torture. The Bush Administration long insisted that it would not comply with the Geneva Conventions on this basis. It later withdrew from that argument and agreed that it would comply with the Geneva Conventions after even its closest allies objected. The war crime of torture applies to anyone. Otherwise, nations could torture civilians and claim to be exempt. If Bush ordered torture, it is a war crime. If it is a war crime, he is a war criminal.
Nevertheless, I am happy to see that we are in accord. Let us have the trial. After the court instruct the jury that as a legal matter waterboarding is torture, the jury will be asked if Bush ordered waterboarding. I am perfectly happy to leave that question up to a jury.
Thank you for standing up for what is right! I’ve listened to you many times over the past several years (CSPAN, MSNBC) – but didn’t know about this website. I’d like to know if you have a student looking for a very interestnig project… if so, I have a really good one! (Regarding my son who has been in prison in South Carolina for 6.5 years; his appeal to SC Supreme Court was denied…they didn’t even bother to notify him!) In any case, I’d like to express my appreciation for your dedication to preserving the United States Constitution. You are just great!!!
Liberal Blogosphere Duped By 3-Year-Old ‘Gaza Bombing Video’
By Noel Sheppard | January 5, 2009 – 15:17
Just how badly do many liberal bloggers want to depict Israelis as heartless killers and Hamas as poor defenseless victims?
On Sunday, a more than three year old video of an accidental munitions truck explosion at a Palestinian rally in September 2005 was spread around the liberal blogosphere as footage of an Israeli attack on Gaza on January 3, 2009.
Two prominent leftwing websites — Raw Story and Democratic Underground — displayed this video for hours before a poster at Reddit exposed the hoax (h/t NBer Blazer).
Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs reported early Sunday:
A gruesome propaganda video uploaded to LiveLeak that purported to show the aftermath of an IDF attack on civilians in Gaza turned out to be a fraud—it actually shows the results of an accidental explosion of a truck full of Hamas rockets at a Palestinian rally.
This didn’t stop the video from reaching the top spot on reddit.com and gaining more than 2,000 up votes, because reddit.com is absolutely infested with antisemites and terror supporters: GRAPHIC Video of Israel Defense Force’s attack on Gaza civilian market — originally uploaded on & banned by YouTube (NSFW) : politics.
Raw Story issued a correction Sunday:
On Sunday, RAW STORY ran video of a bombing in Gaza purported to be recent footage leaked from an exiled Palestinian blogger. We removed the video from the site early Sunday and issued a correction but the original was deleted in a database without the actual html file being removed, so the original persisted through Monday morning without our notice.
The footage is the aftermath of a devastating bombing taking place in a market, said to have been taken on Saturday. According to Haitham Sabbah, it was taken “immediately after a terrorist Israeli air strike hit a busy market where kids with their mothers and fathers were searching for food to eat from one of the local markets early on Saturday 03, Jan 2009.”
Raw Story has removed its original article on this matter, but Question Everything still has the text:
As Israel’s IDF wages it’s [sic] own “media war” via Twitter and YouTube, uncensored footage from Palestine has been completely blacked out in the US.
Until now.
Saturday, before Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Gaza, a Palestinian with a camera witnessed a devastating bombing. His video shows the brutal, bloody results of an air strike on what appears to be a civilian area.
In the footage, scores of bodies – men, women and children – lay strewn about a Gaza market as abject chaos spirals around them. Some struggle to their feet, covered in concrete powder and blood, as others assess their injuries or join the effort to carry away wounded.
Within moments, men in camouflage holding automatic weapons and RPGs assert a growing number among the citizenry. The men, presumably affiliated with Hamas, appear to be helping with crowd control and medical response.
The source of this video was Haitham Sabbah, a self-proclaimed “Palestinian activist and blogger.”
Although he too has updated his blog to reflect his error, this is what he originally wrote concerning this video:
This video clip was taken with a mobile camera immediately after a terrorist Israeli air strike hit a busy market where kids with their mothers and fathers were searching for foot to eat from one of the local markets early on Saturday 03, Jan 2009, Gaza.
As you will see, there are no words to describe the terror of the Jewish state of Israhell. This is why Israel is continuously refusing to allow foreign correspondence and reporters from entering Gaza.
Please spread the video widely. Let the world see what their news TV channels won’t show about reality of Israel. (YouTube deleted the video minutes after it was uploaded, but it is worth trying again).
Get the code for the video to embed on your blog from: http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1642223.
I guess that’s all it takes to get anti-Israeli propaganda spread throughout the liberal blogosphere these days.
How sad.
Greetings Jonathan, I have enjoyed your legal blog very much. The best I have seen. Thank you for your excellent work!
Hi Jonathan your website is simply superb..Keep it Up.
As U.S. Succeeds In Iraq, Network TV Pulls the Plug
By Rich Noyes | December 29, 2008 – 14:49
After reporters such as NBC’s Tom Brokaw derided President Bush’s troop surge as “a folly” and suggested the war itself was a “lost cause,” ABC, CBS and NBC have now all pulled their full time reporters from Iraq. According to correspondent Brian Stelter, the stellar lack of violence means the networks have lost interest in the Iraq story: “Representatives for the networks emphasized that they would continue to cover the war and said the staff adjustments reflected the evolution of the conflict in Iraq from a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and politics.”
Examples of earlier reporting:
■ “Like a folly.” Last Tuesday on NBC’s Today, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw argued that the way Saddam Hussein was executed revealed Iraq as “a deeply divided country along tribal lines,” and that sending more troops would “seem to most people…like a folly.” Brokaw added: “I think a lot of people who are raising their hands to join the armed services are wondering, ‘I’m giving my life for that?’”
■ “Wrong Way Corrigan.” The next morning on Today, political analyst Chris Matthews declared the President’s plan dead on arrival: “I expect it will be treated the way Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia was reacted to. The American people aren’t gonna like it.” Matthews insisted that the voters wanted to end, not mend, Bush’s Iraq policies and “for the President to go Wrong Way Corrigan on this thing and to increase the number of troops, take us deeper into Iraq, would be to reject the opinion of the American people.”
■ “Absolutely no difference.” This week, as more details of the President’s plan were revealed, the anti-surge drum-beat got louder. On CBS’s Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Baghdad reporter Lara Logan if extra troops would make a difference. “The best thing we have is to look at what has happened already. When the U.S. brought in 12,000 more troops into Baghdad last summer, it made absolutely no difference,” Logan replied. “In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.”
■ “Lost Cause?” On Tuesday’s Today, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith. “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” NBC’s graphic headline read “Lost Cause? Can U.S. Win the War In Iraq?” Gregory also cited unnamed “critics” to suggest Bush’s motives were psychological: “U.S. commanders who opposed adding troops to Iraq have been replaced, prompting critics to charge the President’s resolve has become stubbornness.”
■ Roll call of critics. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted White House aide Dan Bartlett: “I just want to run through a partial roll call of the number of people who have either opposed what the President is going to do, or expressed serious reservations.” As she read off names such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, their names and faces scrolled over her right shoulder. “I could go on and on,” Sawyer told Bartlett. “What don’t they get? What don’t they understand?” Bartlett objected, saying some of the generals she listed as critics “helped devise this plan.”
■ “Breaking Point.” On yesterday’s Today, co-host Meredith Vieira doubted that the U.S. military could meet the challenge: “The cornerstone of his plan is sending around 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war zone. But is the military stretched to the breaking point already?” Reporter Jim Miklaszewski suggested it was: “The pace of two wars has left two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades rated ‘Not Ready to Fight.’”
I thank Turley for keeping me in law school. He showed me that it’s normal to be a good person and a lawyer and for that I will be forever thankful.
Cable Ranker: Week of Dec. 15
For the 20th week out of the last 20, Fox News Channel ranked as one of the top 5 networks in all of cable last week in prime time (Live+SD).
FNC averaged 2,563,000 Total Viewers for 3th place, while CNN was #21 (1,002,000) and MSNBC was #24 (952,000).
In total day, FNC was #3 (1,455,000), CNN #20 (654,000) and MSNBC #26 (501,000).
Mr. Turley, are you going to be leading the charge for Obama to reverse all those horrendous attacks on our Constitution that you have alleged President Bush committed?
When he ignores you, will you bad mouth him as you have bad mouthed our President for the last number of years?
Please limit your appearances on such ridiculous shows as rachael maddow or keith olbermann.
Being on either of those two left wing wacked out stooges shows lowers what little credibility is left for attorneys in America.
You must have noticed their ratings are half their competitors.
If you insist on appearing on those shows please demand they have some balance on with you otherwise it is kind of like watching paint dry.
Thank you, Mike, much appreciated.
I just came across your blog and look forward to reading it regularly. I have enjoyed your numerous appearances on MSNBC and particularly appreciate your commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law at a time when both are under attack by our own government. Please keep up your efforts.
Jonathon
I hail from NZ and first saw a clip of you on Olberman. I can only echo all the good things said about your work.
Wish we had someone of your calibre here in NZ. When others cower and comply with the criminals, you speak truth with seeming ease with both your name and face for all to see. You are in a class of your own and I imagine are living at a higher spiritual level than most of us.
Jonathan,
I am as shocked an dismayed as you are at the lack of movement to investigate the possible war crimes committed by the administration.
So shocked, that I have made a film that details the torture policies of the Bush administration in a fun and engaging way that makes it exciting and accessible to the general populace.
It stars Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura – “Star trek”, NBC’s “Heroes”).
Is there any chance we could send you a copy?
WEBSITE: http://thetorturer.com
Best,
Graham
wish contact Jonathan Turley regarding a federal lawsuit against the government regarding free speech rights- I am a journalist
roger wiegand
511 1/2 Chamberlain St.
Flushing, Mi. 48433
810-659-6310 phone and fax