Below is my column in USA Today on the use of set aside categories based on race, gender, or other criteria for government contracts. While the set aside issue arose in the recent controversy over Braulio Castillo, there are legitimate questions that should be discussed over the efficiencies and equities of the system. There is also the question of self-identification on these issues. Veteran’s status is easier to confirm, though in the Castillo case we saw the definition can be wildly out of whack. However, we have seen controversies involving people who self-identify as having minority status based on questionable basis such as the controversy over Senator Elizabeth Warren who listed herself as a minority due to Native American blood. There is presumably some criteria for such claims when made in government contracts but I am not sure who where that line is drawn. The real question is whether it would not be better for Congress to directly fund programs to help minority groups rather than require special treatment in government contracting. Hopefully, we can have such a debate without rancor and personal recriminations. There are good-faith reasons to debate whether government contracting should be based solely on the best price and product determination in my view. It is not questioning the purpose of this policy but the means used to achieve it.
Category: Congress
In a blow to secularists and civil libertarians, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Greece v. Galloway to allow Christian prayers at a local council. The Court again left little clarity on the standard for future cases in what proved a highly fractured decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy tipped the balance in favor of the Town of Greece with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. However, his opinion was left in pieces by a series of concurring opinions. Scalia and Thomas specifically bolted over Part II-B of Kennedy’s opinion (except as to Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.) Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia in part. Even the dissenting justices divided with a Breyer opinion for himself and a dissent by Kagan that was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. In other words, an unholy mess.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has handed down a major decision on responsibility for 9-11 liability. In a decision by Judge Dennis Jacobs, a panel ruled that American Airlines, United Airlines and the World Trade Center leaseholder are not liable for environmental cleanup costs for the attacks in New York City. It is not the conclusion but the rationale that raises concerns about the immunity decision. The panel ruled that none of these parties were responsible for the attacks because it constitutes an act of war. That rationale negates the obvious responsibility of not just the government in ignored numerous indicators of the attacks but the refusal of the airlines to take rudimentary security changes advocated for years such as secure cockpit doors and flight protocols. The decision is In Re September 11 Litigation, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8293.
I have been a long critic of many of Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinions which often reject basic individual rights while embracing police and national security powers. However, I believe that Thomas is often treated unfairly for being a black conservative on the Court. While others like Justices Alito, Scalia, and Roberts routinely vote along the same lines, Thomas’ race is commonly cited in commentary while that is not a factor in the other justices on the right of the Court. This unfairness was vividly shown by the comments of Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) that Thomas is an “Uncle Tom” and suggested that he was not an authenticate black person. He has refused to retract or apologize of the attack. In the meantime, Democrats are uniformly silent in the face of this uncivil and outrageous attack.
There is yet another victory for the national security state under President Obama. The Obama Administration has succeeded, with the help of Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, in quietly removing a provision that would seem unobjectionable to a President who pledged “the most transparent Administration in history.” The provision simply required disclosure of the number of people killed each year by U.S. drone attacks. Not the details mind you. Just the figure. That sent the intelligence community into outrage over having to tell the public how many people have been killed in just this one area. The result was that it was simply stripped out of the Senate bill without a vote or debate.
For many civil libertarians, the American political system appears caught in a vicious loop. While Americans are demanding change and hold both parties at record lows, the party elite have changed nothing. (Indeed, a new poll shows the Democrats at a new low and now in danger of losing not just the White House but Congress). The leading candidate for the Democrats is Hillary Clinton (who has also been shown to have low numbers in recent polls). The Republicans are pushing another Bush. For many libertarians and civil libertarians, Clinton is a non-starter. She supported the wars under Bush as well as the Libyan intervention under Obama. She is the very face of the Democratic establishment for many. That image was reinforced last week at the University of Connecticut, when Clinton discussed Edward Snowden and expressed utter confusion why he would ever do what he did.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty-(rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
If you were like me, you may never have heard the term “Communications Management Units” before. They are basically a section of a prison where certain prisoners are housed with limited or no access to communications or family visitations. The reason very little was known about the CMU’s is that when they first were initiated at prisons in Indiana and Illinois, their existence was kept from the public.
“The units opened almost in secret in 2006 and 2008. Critics say they flouted federal law by not publishing the proposed rule and opening up a period for public comment.” Readers Supported News If a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights had not been filed in 2010, we may never have known much about these abusive tactics in our domestic prison system. Maybe the harshest aspect of being sent to the CMU was the realization that you may never know why you were sent there or how you could get out of it. Continue reading “Communications Management Units and Prisoners Rights”
While President Obama ran on a pledge to be the most transparent presidency in history, critics have charged that — as with promises to protect civil liberties and international law — Obama has done precisely the opposite of what he promised. His Administration has radically expanded the national security state while fighting every effort in court to challenge unchecked executive powers, including his successful effort to get Congress to dismiss dozens of public interest lawsuits over surveillance, torture, etc. The latest effort of the Obama Administration was to refuse to release even redacted version of legal memoranda on Obama’s use of drones to kill U.S. citizens. I have previously written about Obama Kill list policy in columns and blog posts. What is interesting is that the Obama Administration shows utter contempt for the federal courts in first claiming that any release of redacted classified legal arguments would endanger national security and then, after the district court yielded to the government, proceeding to discuss the very same information in public when it suited the Administration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally said enough. The problem is that the district court did not exercise its authority to reject the clearly excessive claims of the government. It is only because the government contradicted itself — not the facially overboard claims made before the district court. The case is New York Times v. United States Department of Justice, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7387. The case highlights the extreme hostility shown by the Obama Administration to both transparency and the media.
We only recently passed the 20,000,000 mark last February but we just hit 21,000,000, according to WordPress. Congratulations everyone. This has been a banner year for the site with a continuing increase in traffic, links on other sites, and new voices on the blog. These milestones are coming faster and they give us a chance to look at the spread of our regular readers and commentators. As always, I want to offer special thanks for our weekend contributors: Mark Esposito, Eliane Magliaro, Mike Appleton, Larry Rafferty, Charlton Stanley and Darren Smith. The increasing traffic on the site is gratifying and reaffirms that there are many people looking for mature and civil debate. Even among the top ten sites, I believe that we offer a unique forum of different views and backgrounds in the discussion of law and politics (and a few quirky items).
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
We have seen and heard the claims from Donald Rumsfeld and others that the leaked Senate torture report is off base because the enhanced interrogation techniques were not only legal according to the Office of Legal Counsel, but they also produced results. Putting aside the idea that just because an allegedly illegal act is claimed to have been successful in producing actionable intelligence, does not make it any more legal or illegal, is there a reason why we should listen to the participants who authorized the waterboarding and other torture procedures when they claim that all is well?
Now it seems that Donald Rumsfeld has company. “In an uncompromising and wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, his first public remarks since he was linked to the program in 2007, James Mitchell was dismissive of a Senate intelligence committee report on CIA torture in which he features, and which is currently at the heart of an intense row between legislators and the agency.
The committee’s report found that the interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell, a retired air force psychologist, were far more brutal than disclosed at the time, and did not yield useful intelligence. These included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation for days at a time, confinement in a box and being slammed into walls.
But Mitchell, who was reported to have personally waterboarded accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains unrepentant. “The people on the ground did the best they could with the way they understood the law at the time,” he said. “You can’t ask someone to put their life on the line and think and make a decision without the benefit of hindsight and then eviscerate them in the press 10 years later.” ‘ Reader Supported News Continue reading “The CIA Psychologist Who Designed the Torture Program Claims It Was Not Torture”
The Brennan Center is an impressive public interest organization with an equally impressive staff of lawyers who advocate for legal reforms. While widely viewed as a liberal and pro-Obama organization, it often offers well-reasoned and compelling legal analysis. It is out of this respect for its work that I have to take a moment to criticize an aspect of its recent publication of “15 Executive Actions” for President Obama to take to counter opponents in Congress. Authors Michael Waldman and Inimai M. Chettiar are both highly credible and respected individuals in this field. I clearly do not agree with them on their view of Obama’s unilateral actions. I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, one argument appears to have become a “talking point” with the White House and, in my view, should not appear in any serious academic or legal analysis: the simple comparison of the number of executive orders by presidents as a measure of their relative circumvention of Congress.
Our government has long seemed to be descending into a type of Orwellian universe of double speak. The Libyan War was not a war but a “time-limited, scope-limited military action” under Obama. Torture of detainees was not torture but “enhanced interrogation” under Bush. Now it appears open bribery of foreign officials is not bribery but “incentives” to implement policies favorable to their own people. Congressional members are moving to address what is being called a “slush fund” with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) where millions are paid to political figures in foreign countries. We have previously discussed such payments by the CIA to the openly corrupt Afghanistan government, including suitcases of cash to President Helmit Karzai. What is most interesting is that an act that is a federal crime for citizens doing business abroad can be not only legal but an official program by government officials. It appears that in the handshake shown on the USAID seal, there is often a sawbuck or two in the palm.
Continue reading “Congress Investigates “Slush Fund” At USAID Used To Get Lawmakers To Pass Reforms”
This week, U.S. Rep. Vance McAllister was faced with the scandalous release of a security video to his kissing his married aide, Melissa Anne Hixon Peacock, at his office in Louisiana. That would normally be the stuff of scandal, but it is even worse when you are married and ran as a religious conservative. McAllister went public with an apology to everyone (except personally to Peacock’s husband who is now divorcing his wife). He asked forgiveness but is now demanding an investigation to potentially jail whoever revealed his conduct: a curious path for a self-proclaimed redemptive sinner.
There is a disturbing case out of Northern Virginia where Braulio Castillo, the CEO of a computer company, is accused of beating his wife and then hanging her from the ceiling to make it look like a suicide. Castillo has been under investigation by Congress over $500 million in contracts secured through a special service-disabled veteran status law.
Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden has long been the face and voice of the growing security state within the United States. While many of his representations have been challenged, he continues (like Dick Cheney) to create his own reality to justify powers viewed as authoritarian and unlawful. Now, with the approaching release of a comprehensive report on the torture program, Hayden is out in the press denying the findings of the report that torture did not result in any meaningful new intelligence and that the CIA tortured people who were already cooperating with conventional (and legal) interrogations. Hayden took to the airways to champion torture by attacking the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Cal.) and said that she was just being “emotional” and should not be involved in such a serious debate.
Continue reading “Hayden: Feinstein Too “Emotional” To Discuss The Torture Program”