Dean of Yale Law School: Campus Free Speech Is Not Up for Debate – TIME

Posted on by

Students at Middlebury College shouted down Charles Murray rather than listen to hiscontroversial ideas when he came to speak at their campus in MarchLisa RathkeAP

Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School and the Sol and Lillian Goldman Professor of Law

In this, the summer of our discontent, many college presidents are breathing a sigh of relief that they made it through a politically fraught spring without their campuses erupting. Nobody wants to be the next Middlebury or Claremont McKenna , where demonstrations disrupted controversial speakers.

Law deans, in sharp contrast, have reason to be cheery. Their campuses have been largely exempt from ugly free-speech incidents like these. Charles Murray , the controversial scholar whose speech drew violent reaction at Middlebury, has spoken at Yale Law School twice during the past few years. Students and faculty engaged with him, and students held a separate event to protest and discuss the implications of his work. But he spoke without interruption. That's exactly how a university is supposed to work.

There may be a reason why law students haven't resorted to the extreme tactics we've seen on college campuses: their training. Law school conditions you to know the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. That's why lawyers know how to go to war without turning the other side into an enemy. People love to tell lawyer jokes, but maybe it's time for the rest of the country to take a lesson from the profession they love to hate.

In law schools we don't just teach our students to know the weaknesses in their own arguments. We demand that they imaginatively and sympathetically reconstruct the best argument on the other side. From the first day in class, students must defend an argument they don't believe or pretend to be a judge whose values they dislike. Every professor I know assigns cases that vindicate the side she favors--then brutally dismantles their reasoning. Lawyers learn to see the world as their opponents do, and nothing is more humbling than that. We teach students that even the grandest principles have limits. The day you really become a lawyer is the day you realize that the law doesn't--and shouldn't--match everything you believe. The litigation system is premised on the hope that truth will emerge if we ensure that everyone has a chance to have her say.

The rituals of respect shown inside and outside the courtroom come from this training. Those rituals are so powerful that they can trump even the deepest divides. As Kenneth Mack recounts in his book Representing the Race: The Creation of the Civil Rights Lawyer, Thurgood Marshall was able to do things in court that a black man could never do in any other forum, like subjecting a white woman to cross-examination. Marshall was able to practice even in small, segregated towns in rural Maryland during the early days of the civil rights movement. The reason was simple: despite their bigotry, members of the Maryland bar had decided to treat Marshall as a lawyer, first and foremost.

The values in which my profession is steeped were once values in politics as well. In 2008, I was one of the lawyers in the Obama campaign's "boiler room." Buses delivered the staff to Grant Park to watch Barack Obama accept the win. We arrived just as Senator John McCain was giving his concession speech on the Jumbotrons. The election was hard fought, and there was no love lost between the two campaigns. But even as the crowd around us jeered, the Obama staff practically stood at attention. It was like watching an army surrender--one of the most moving experiences I remember from that extraordinary campaign.

We need to return to what were once core values in politics and what remain core values in my profession. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a war over values. We should fight, and fight hard, for what we believe. But even as we do battle, it's crucial to recognize the best in the other side and the worst in your own.

Read the original here:

Dean of Yale Law School: Campus Free Speech Is Not Up for Debate - TIME

Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? – Inside Higher Ed

Posted on by

Inside Higher Ed
Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost?
Inside Higher Ed
It is clear that lawmakers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are attempting to achieve politically neutral college campuses in the name of protecting free speech -- campuses where all speech is considered equally valuable, no matter how morally repugnant, ...

Excerpt from:

Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? - Inside Higher Ed

Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? – Roanoke Times

Posted on by

Preece is retired. He lives on a farm in Botetourt County.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United gave corporations the same rights as American citizens by allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. The Supreme Court did this by defining money as free speech.

Does it make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy businesses as free speech when money as free speech buys votes with advertising and obligates leaders to serve the source of that money though contributions? Does it even make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy individual citizens as free speech when, again, money as free speech buys votes and politicians?

Doesnt money as free speech promote multiple votes for some citizens, and only one vote for others? Doesnt money as free speech defeat the essential idea of democracy? Even if such nonsense made sense, does it make sense for a corporate officer to vote once as himself and a second time as the corporation? Isnt that one man, two votes?

When a voter receives most of the information about a candidate from advertising that has been paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals, such a voters judgement is significantly influenced. The question arises: Does that citizens vote then come from his own judgment or from the intent of the person that paid for the advertising?

When a politician receives most of the money that gets him elected from a particular source, doesnt that obligate him to favor that particular source in his future political judgment? The question arises: Do the future decisions of the politician originate from his authentic judgment or from judgment favoring the money that got him elected?

Amendments to change the U.S. Constitution are provided for in article V of the constitution. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to our countrys living document are called the Bill of Rights. A citizens right to free speech was established by the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It was intended to protect human beings from the power of the state so that they could speak freely, not so that powerful moneyed interest could be allowed to rule the country like kings and oligarchs.

Thanks to an amendment to the Constitution, America has no slaves. Thanks to another amendment, women get to vote. Thanks to yet another amendment, we get to elect our state senators; and we even get to share an alcoholic drink with a friend if we like.

As American citizens, we have the obligation to advance amendments to our Constitution when we perceive that current laws of the land make no sense. Corporations as citizens makes no sense. We the people need to act to change this. The goal of each American citizen, Republican, Democrat or independent, should be to shift the power of citizenship and the vote back to the people of the United States, and that means away from corporations and big money.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, Should I, an ordinary American citizen, simply accept the present reality that I am not rich enough to deserve the right to free speech or the right to vote? Or should I feel enraged that the ideals of American democracy have been perverted?

See the original post here:

Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? - Roanoke Times

Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior – Mother Jones

Posted on by

Kevin DrumJul. 13, 2017 2:00 PM

We have news from National Review today:

National Review Institute is launching the Center for Unalienable Rights, created to be the home of free-speech warrior David French, whose new podcast, The Liberty Files, is a must-listen for anyone who cares deeply about combating the leftist assault on the First Amendment, whether on our campuses or in any other place patrolled by the ruthless Thought Police.

.The Left wants to gag, marginalize, intimidate, shut up, and, if they can, even criminalize conservatives for what we think and what we say. We intend to fight the intolligentsia, in a more focused way. We intend to beat the determined enemies of our unalienable rights. Help us prevail.

You are expecting me to mock this, arent you? But Im not! Instead I have a serious suggestion.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberals who are concerned about this stuff too. The safe spaces/microaggressions/hecklers veto/trigger warnings movement is not entirely beloved on the left. If this project were toned down and aimed at free speech repression on both sides, it might actually attract some bipartisan support.

I know thats not really plausible these days. I just felt like mentioning it.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

See the article here:

Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior - Mother Jones

Verify: When does free speech become harassment? – KREM.com

Posted on by

Amanda Roley , KREM 5:46 PM. PDT July 13, 2017

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A woman is facing multiple counts of malicious harassment after court documents said she yelled racially motivated comments at her neighbors.

Court records show the cell phone video was taken of Shalisha Israel yelling things like, "You guys drug dealers or something," and "I think you might be terrorists! This is not your America! You are evil!"

PREVIOUS STORY:Woman arrested after harassing neighbors, calling them 'terrorists'

KREM 2 posted the story online and many people commented that what the woman said was not right but what about her freedom of speech?

To verify when your first amendment rights are protected and when it turns into harassment KREM 2 talked to First Amendment lawyer David Bodney.

He said the line between your freedom of speech and harassment is drawn with three exceptions to your First Amendment rights. The first is, if the statement constitutes incitement. Meaning if there is a serious risk of imminent harm, it is possible your speech can be limited. The second exception is if the speech uses "fighting words" meaning if someone continues to provoke another in close proximity using language that would cause a person to respond aggressively. The final exception, is if the speaker says a true threat, which is where the speaker communicates in a way that is a true threat to the safety of the recipient. However, Bodney said these three exceptions are fairly difficult to prove.

"There are not a lot of fighting word cases out there, and there are not a whole lot of true threat cases out there. And thought the court recognizes this notion of what constitutes incitement, it's a very difficult standard to meet," Bodney said.

Bodney adds that your first amendment right is not absolute. In the case of this woman who shouted racial remarks at her neighbors, Bodney said the video does not show any pronounced evidence of the three exceptions to free speech. Even though the first amendment could be used as a defense, Bodney said it could still go in the victim's favor.

"If the speech is annoying, alarming or otherwise meets the test of a state statute that define harassment it may well be possible to get an order to restrain that kind of speech," Bodney explains.

KREM 2 can verify there are exceptions to your first amendment rights that would classify your speech as harassment. Before you exercise those rights, make sure your speech does not include fighting words, a true threat or constitute incitement.

Help our journalists VERIFY the news.Do you know someone else we should interview for this story? Did we miss anything in our reporting? Is there another story you'd like us to VERIFY?Click here.

2017 KREM-TV

Read the original:

Verify: When does free speech become harassment? - KREM.com

Is Advertising Free Speech? – The American Conservative

Posted on by

We are led to believe that standing up for the Constitution and limiting the tax burden on citizens were Republican tenets. Unfortunately, members of the Republican Party are the ones now considering to stomp on both the First Amendment and the American entrepreneur by changing the way we expense advertising costs.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) is reportedly contemplating the adoption of former Republican Rep. Dave Camps 2014 ad tax proposal, in which commercial advertising would no longer be 100 percent deductible as a business expenseas it has been since the creation of the federal income tax. Instead, it would be 50 percent deductible, leaving the remaining to be amortized over a decade. By holding corporations money for an entire decade, this new tax would treat ads as an asset like machinery instead of as a business expense like research and wages.

I know accounting can be boring, but these are fighting words!

In singling out free, commercial speech from other business expenses, this 50/50 proposal is in clear violation of the First Amendment. After all, the reason commercial advertising has been fully deductible since the income taxs founding in 1913 is because Congress has always known that it cannot constitutionally regulate free, commercial speech by making it a dollars and cents game.

The American Revolution was largely fought over this very issue. Remember the Stamp Act of 1765? The relationship between England and the Colonies was strained already when this tax pushed it to a boiling point. The Stamp Act imposed an across-the-board flat tax on advertising. It levied a tax of two shillings per ad no matter what it was or where it was being printed. Mob violence was triggered. Stamp collectors quit in fear and the British government repealed it a year later to quell the violence, but the goose was cooked. War was on the horizon and the Stamp Act was a rallying cry for the colonists.

After the British were defeated, our Founders set up a form of government with a Constitution in which the First Amendment prevented the government from ever taxing advertising again. Freedom to advertise: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

For centuries, the First Amendment has protected corporate advertising, which goes hand in hand with our formidable entrepreneurial spirit. Businesses must advertise to succeedin fact, advertising spending generates approximately 16 percent of the nations economic activity. Do the Republicans really want to be the party to tax that?

From Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein:

Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. In overturning a prohibition on legal advertising in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that free speech includes paid advertisements or solicitations to pay or to contribute money. The Court elaborated on the consumer benefits of commercial advertising:

The listeners interest is substantial: the consumers concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue. Moreover, significant societal interests are served by such speech. Advertising, though entirely commercial, may often carry information of import to significant issues of the day. [citation omitted]. And commercial speech serves to inform the public of the availability, nature, and prices of products and services, and thus performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources in a free enterprise system. [citation omitted]. In short, such speech serves individual and societal interests in assuring informed and reliable decisionmaking.

A Republican-controlled Congress would go down in history as the party to regulate our First Amendment right in such a way as to extort more from the already burdened American businessmen and women.

Recently, a coalition of 124 House members, led by Reps. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to congress urging them not to mess with the current tax treatment of advertising.

Will Congress heed the warning? Only time will tell.

Steve Sherman is an author, radio commentator, and former Iowa House candidate. His articles have appeared nationally in both print and online. His most recent novel, titled Mercy Shot, can be found on Amazon or at http://www.scsherman.com

See the rest here:

Is Advertising Free Speech? - The American Conservative

Colbert Conundrum: The Liberal TV Host Tackles Atheism, the … – CBN News

Posted on by

Talk-show host Stephen Colbert is probably best known for his attacks on President Trump, most-notably a foul-mouthed reference to the president that resulted in an FCC inquiry in May. That's why some are surprised to learn that he also talks a lot about faith on "The Late Show."

According to The Week,Colbert is dedicated to his Catholic faith, despite his use of off-color language and harsh criticism of many conservative points of view.

In 2007, he spoke with NPR's Terry Gross about God, theology of the afterlife and how he explains such concepts to his children.

His Comedy Central show, "The Colbert Report," regularly featured religion segments in which debated the divinity of Jesus with religious scholar, Bart Ehrman and discussed the pope with a Jesuit priest.

When he moved to CBS as host of the Late Show, he continued to talk about faith. In the first month he asked Oprah about her favorite Bible verses.

Other faith segments include his interview with Joel Osteen about the pastor's beliefs and a confrontation with atheist Bill Maher, where he tried to persuade him to accept Christ.

"The door is always open. Golden ticket, right before you," Colbert said. "All you have to do is humble yourself before the presence of the Lord and admit there are things greater than you in the universe that you do not understand. Take Pascal's wager. If you're wrong, you're an idiot. But if I'm right, you're going to hell."

When actor Andrew Garfield appeared on the show to promote the movie "Silence" about Jesuit missionaries in Japan, their talk turned to their beliefes about demons, angels, faith and doubt.

It was an exchange with comedian and atheist Ricky Gervais about the existence of God, however, that went viral, getting more than 3.5 million views on YouTube.

However, even when talking about religion Colbert can cross the line. A recent segment that demonstrates how some Catholic priests are using fidget spinners to explain the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity features a make-believe interview with God that could be interprested as blasphemous.

Read more:

Colbert Conundrum: The Liberal TV Host Tackles Atheism, the ... - CBN News

There’s No Harm in Fantasizing About a Better Future – Reason (blog)

Posted on by

In Radicals for Utopia, published last month, journalist Jamie Bartlett profiles Zoltan Istvan, who ran for president under the Transhumanist Party's banner in 2016. Along with several other journalists, Bartlett traveled across the southwest on Istvan's "immortality bus" (a rickety camper shaped like a coffin-slash-log cabin), and watched Istvan preach the gospel of transhumanism to fellow futurists and skeptics alike.

"Transhumanist science is undeniably exciting and fast-moving," Bartlett writes of watching Istvan tell a half-empty auditorium in Las Vegas that humanity will conquer death within 15 to 25 years. "But the science is not almost there."

He knocks Istvan for "flit[ting] with misleading ease between science and fiction, taking any promising piece of research as proof of victory." In another scene, Bartlett channels the frustration of other futurists who have tired of the transhumanism project altogether. "Transhumanists have been promising us jetpacks and immortality," one biohacker tells Bartlett. "We're sick of [their] bullshit promises." Later, we learn that Istvan is not particularly liked by even other transhumanists, that he is terrible at leading a political party, and that the chief goal of his campaign was to get people to pay attention to him. In other words, that he is like every other person who has ever run for president.

After painting Istvan as bumbling (when the immortality bus breaks down) and unscientific (when he expresses enthusiasm for cryogenics), Bartlett describes him as something like a villain.

"Transhumanism feels like the perfect religion for a modern, selfish age; an extension of society's obsession with individualism, perfection and youth," he writes. He accuses Istvan of "ignor[ing] current problems and overlook[ing] the negative consequences of rapidly advancing technology." It's an odd claim considering Istvan's presidential platform called for "the complete dismantlement and abolition of all nuclear weapons everywhere, as rapidly as possible." Nuclear weapons were once a rapidly advancing technology, they are currently a problem, and Istvan seems to be quite concerned about their negative consequences.

It's an even odder claim considering that the people who are dedicating themselves to the problems du jour don't seem capable of actually fixing any of them. Last I checked, the Israelis and Palestinians are still at it. Al Qaeda, too. The world is less poor than it once was, but there are still three-quarters of a billion people living in extreme poverty. In the U.S., black lives still matter less than blue and white ones. Is this really transhumanism's fault? What would Bartlett have Istvan do? Go back in time and donate the money he spent on the Immortality Bus to Hillary Clinton?

Bartlett then tells us that many other technologists and intellectuals are opposed to the world Istvan hopes one day to live (forever) in. Elon Musk "declared AI to be comparable to summoning the Devil," he writes. "Stephen Hawking said 'the development of artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.'" Francis Fukuyama "called transhumanism 'the world's most dangerous idea.'" Artificial intelligence seems to worry Barlett more than Istvan's other enthusiasms. He notes that self-driving cars will likely displace human truckers and that drones will displace human warehouse workers. Apparently, no one wants to live in a world where poor little boys and girls can't realize their dreams of living out of a long-haul cab and inhaling particulates in storage facilities.

All things considered, Bartlett's treatment of Istvan the candidate is fair. Anyone who desires the powers of the presidency deserves, at the very least, to have his or her vision for the job harshly interrogated. And many aspects of Istvan's vision are pie in the sky. But the techno fear-mongering throughout the rest of the chapter feels off. Everyone can't be expected to worry about everything, and there are plenty of people in Silicon Valley worried about the ramifications of automation and sentient machines. There's Musk, and also Y Combinator, which is running a basic income experiment right now in anticipation of a world with fewer menial jobs for humans. (Bartlett also notes that AI may displace doctors and lawyers, but he reduces it to an employment problem without acknowledging that it might also mean fewer misdiagnoses and overall better care.)

Nobody in Silicon Valley, or outside it, knows which line of inquiry will prove fruitful, or when. Ascribing carelessness, or malice, to the people pursuing those experiments is a disservice to the spirit of inquiry itself. As Scott Alexander noted in May, many of these folks are working on some rather amazing, life-affirming, world-improving applications. Regardless, it is farcical to lay blame for the bad (or the good) at the feet of transhumanists, who are mostly fanboys of the next big thing, not the people making it. And it is particularly disappointing to see someone bash these people for imagining how they might enjoy a future none of us can stop.

More here:

There's No Harm in Fantasizing About a Better Future - Reason (blog)

At NATO Headquarters, Trump Fails Another Leadership Test

Posted on by

Even when a moment designed to affirm some of Americas basic principles is dangled before him, President Donald Trump has a way of batting it aside. In Brussels on Thursday, as he stood at a rostrum at a ceremony in front of the new NATO headquarters, Trump had, to his left, a mangled girder from the World Trade Center; to his right, broken slabs of the Berlin Wall, both of which were being dedicated as memorials; and, behind him, the leaders of the twenty-seven other countries in the alliance. One of them, Germanys Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had just delivered remarks that served as a reminder that, until she was thirty-five years old, she had lived behind that wall, and had been part of the civic movement that peacefully reunified Germany. Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO , who had introduced Merkel, noted that she had been among the crowds filling the streets of East Berlin on the night the Wall came down. A few minutes later, when Stoltenberg introduced Trump, he summoned a personal connection for him, too, noting that the 9/11 terrorists struck at the heart of your own home town, New York. That attack marked the only time that NATO has invoked Article 5 of its charter, the mutual-defense provision, which the new headquarters 9/11 memorial was also supposed to commemorate. In what may have been an attempt at Trump-friendly sloganeering, Stoltenberg summed up Article 5 by declaring, gamely, All for one, and one for all! But Trump had come to praise other ideals, other lands, and other leaders.

He had just come from Saudi Arabia , Trump told the NATO leaders, in a brief speech. There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.That meeting had beenhistoric, Trump said. The leaders of the Middle East had promised him that they would stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe. So that should take care of the problem. He did not define radical ideology,or acknowledge that he was praising a monarch in what seemed to be an attempt to put the assembled elected leaders of democracies to shame. Trumps world view seems to combine a distaste for Islam with a predilection for monarchs of any backgroundfor anyone with a decent palace, really. In viewing his world travels, that mixture can be confusing, but it should not be mistaken for a sign of budding tolerance. (As has been widely noted, Trump once called Brussels ahellhole, on account of its large number of immigrantsmany of whom came from countries whose repressive leaders had joined him at the summit in Riyadh. He has said similar things about Paris: No one wants to go to Paris anymore. When Trump was in Riyadh, though, he couldnt stop talking about how fancy the new buildings were.)He did express his sympathy to Prime Minister Theresa May, of the United Kingdom, who was also in attendance, for the Manchester attack (terrible thing), and called for a moment of silence to honor the dead. But he quickly moved to chastising the leaders for not having taken seriously enough the need for building walls, rather than taking them down.

Terrorism must be stopped in its tracks, orthe horror you saw in Manchester and so many other places will continue forever,Trump said. You have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries and spreading throughout, and in many cases we have no idea who they are.He seemed to suggest that thetracksthat terrorism was on were the same paths that refugees followed, or perhaps just the roads that ran through the deliberately unpoliced borders of the European Union. We must be tough. We must be strong. And we must be vigilant,he continued. The other leaders watched him, with whatever sort of vigilance each thought necessary, as he went on to tell them that they needed to spend more money on defense, and offered his explanation for why.

The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO s eastern and southern borders.These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations.(It is worth noting thatimmigration,without any qualifying phrase, is on Trumps list ofgrave security concerns, which raises the question of where and when he thinks that immigration, including to America, makes a country stronger.) Twenty-three NATO countries were not meeting the alliances target of spending at least two per cent of their G.D.P. on defense, he said, while the UnitedStateswas exceeding that number. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States,Trump said. The idea that other things might be unfair to the American peoplethat, for example, the levelof defense spending might be too high at a time when the Trump Administrations budget is cutting money meant to help children and the disabledhad not seemed to enter his mind. Still, the NATO members had already agreed to spend more money.

Merkel, in her remarks, expressed her countrys unending gratitude toward NATO for the role it played in German reunification. But she also focussed on the people of Central and Eastern Europe, whosecourage,she said, was one of the reasons that pieces of the Berlin Wall were now justa memento.Their courage included crossing borders and, in some cases, risking and even losing their lives in dashes across the no mans land that separated East and West Berlin. Ronald Reagans 1987 Berlin speech, in which he demanded,Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,expressed valuesopenness and democracy among themthat Trump seemed to shrug at. But, as important as Reagans message may have been at the time,andas well as it has stood up in the judgment of history, the moment two years later, when the Wall was brought down not by a Soviet official but by crowds of ordinary East Germans, caught NATO by surprise. The force of the aspiration for freedom, and the will to move to where it can be found, often comes upon governments unexpectedly. ButReagans voice had been one of leadership. Trumps was not, unless you define leadership as always getting to be the one in front. A video caught Trump winning that position by shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro, and then seeming not to notice him. (During the campaign, Trump had wondered why Americans would want to defend countries whose names they couldnt even remember.)

European leaders were reportedly hoping for an affirmation of Article 5 in Trumps remarks; they didnt get it. In general, the approach of his hosts on this trip seems to have been to hope very much that he doesnt actually break anything. Remarks have been kept short, flattery longa reminder, as with the international and unmerited fting of Ivanka, of how Trumpism lowers the level of dialogue all around. Trump does like it when people give gifts (though he may not have appreciated it when Pope Francis, at the Vatican, handed him a copy of his encyclical on climate change), and so he thanked the 9/11 Museum, in New York, which had donated the girders, and Merkel, as a representative of Germany, for donating the slabs. He spoke a few sentences about the memorials symbolic power. But, as he looked around at the new headquarters, he seemed, again, to be dwelling on a different definition of a value.

And I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost,he said, as if he should be thanked for that act of restraint. I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.It was not, perhaps, what Trump would have built. But what would have been the price of that?

Read this article:

At NATO Headquarters, Trump Fails Another Leadership Test

NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on by

Wall Street Journal (subscription)
NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
At NATO headquarters in the Belgian capital, Russian representatives outlined the troops, ships, aircraft and weaponry that will participate in the joint Russian-Belarusian regional exercises scheduled for September, partly on Belarus's.

More:

NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Maddow Fake NSA Documents Alleging Trump-Russ | The Daily Caller

Posted on by

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow gave a heads up to other news organizations on Thursday after she was sent what she believes are faked National Security Agency documents alleging collusion between a member of the Trump campaign and Russian government.

Somebody, for some reason, appears to be shopping a fairly convincing fake NSA document that purports to directly implicate somebody from the Trump campaign in working with the Russians in their attack in the election, Maddow said in a lengthy segment on her show.

She suggested that the unidentified muckraker who sent her the fake documents hopes to undermine news organizations in general and deflate the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which has been going on for nearly a year.

This is news, because: why is someone shopping a forged document of this kind to news organizations covering the Trump-Russia affair? Maddow asked.

On June 7, an unidentified person sent documents to an online tip line for Maddows show, she said.

That was two days after The Intercept published legitimate NSA documents that were stolen by Reality Winner, a contractor for the agency.

Maddow said that the documents sent to her show appeared to have used The Intercepts published documents as a template. Secret ID markings on The Intercept reports appeared on the documents passed to Maddow.

WATCH:

She said that metadata from the set of documents sent to her show preceded the publication of the documents published in The Intercept. Maddow suggested that it was possible that whoever sent her the forgeries had access to The Intercept documents. But she also theorized that whoever sent her the fake documents could have changed the metadata somehow.

The documents Maddow received appeared legitimate at first glance, she said, butseveral clues suggested that they were forgeries.

Typos and spacing issues raised eyebrows, but it was secret markings on the documents as well as their contents that convinced Maddow and her staff that the records were fakes.

But Maddow said that that the big red flag for her and her team was that the document she was given named an American citizen a specific person from the Trump campaign who allegedly cooperated with the Russians during the presidential campaign.

We believe that a U.S. citizens name would not appear in a document like this, asserted Maddow, who said that her team consulted national security experts on the matter.

And so, heads up everybody, Maddow warned.

The host pointed to two recent retractions one at CNN and the other at Vice News and suggested that they were the result of a similar scheme to undermine news outlets covering Trump.

In the case of CNN, three reporters were fired after the network retracted an article alleging that Trump transition team official Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation for ties to a Russian investment fund.

CNN said that the three reporters were fired because of shortcomings in their reporting process, but the network has been tight-lipped about what those shortcomings were.

Vice retracted two articles about a Trump robot display at Disney World.

One way to stab in the heart aggressive American reporting on [the subject of Trump-Russia collusion] is to lay traps for American journalists who are reporting on it, said Maddow.

And then after the fact blow that reporting up. You then hurt the credibility of that news organization. You also cast a shadow over any similar reporting in the futureeven if its true.

Maddow did not provide details about who sent her team the faked NSA documents.

But she concluded her segment saying, We dont know whos doing it, but were working on it.

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Read the original post:

Maddow Fake NSA Documents Alleging Trump-Russ | The Daily Caller

Posted in NSA

Questions for Head of Bahrain’s NSA 10 Days After Ebtisam al Saegh’s Arrest – HuffPost

Posted on by

Dear Sheikh Talal bin Mohammed bin Khalifa Al Khalifa,

I understand you are President of Bahrains National Security Agency (NSA), appointed by your relative the King of Bahrain last August under 2016s royal decree 66.

I write out of concern for human Rights defender Ebtisam Al Saegh, who I understand has been in NSA custody since July 3 when men wearing masks and carrying weapons seized her from her home.

According to reports I have received she has undergone a series of long and abusive interrogations over the last 10 days, some lasting more than 12 hours. For instance, I understand that she was removed from Isa Town Womens Detention Centre at 9am yesterday morning and not returned until 3 am this morning, and was again taken at noon today.

Those who have seen her are seriously alarmed about her health, and fear that she might be left with a permanent disability.

Two days after she was taken, her family lodged complaints with the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman Office and the National Institute for Human Rights. The following day - July 6 - masked men again raided her home, took all the mobile phones in the house, and said "your mother didn't cooperate with us.

As you know, she was previously summoned for interrogation by the NSA on May 26 and held for seven hours. On her release she was hospitalized, injured and traumatized. She said during those hours she was forced to stand throughout the interrogation, blindfolded, and sexually assaulted. She also says she was threatened with rape. She told me she was severely beaten and punched on the head and different parts of the body when she used human rights terms to describe her work, and that her interrogators threatened to harm her children.

I have known Ebtisam al Saegh for six years and I know she is not a liar. She told me that during the torture she was questioned about other Bahraini activists, about myself and about Human Rights First.

Im sure you are aware of the international outcry there was over what happened in May, and about her latest arrest, and the increased scrutiny the NSA now faces. Her case has been raised at the U.S. State Department and in the British parliament.

Since the NSAs powers of arrest were restored earlier this year, following devastating criticism of the agency and the stripping of some of its authority in 2011, a series of reports have emerged of detainees being tortured in NSA custody. We fear the abuse of Al Saegh is not an isolated incident.

Sheikh Al Khalifa, as president of the NSA you have some serious questions to answer about the conduct of those under your supervision.

Can you tell us how you have investigated the allegations of torture made in May, what your findings were and what action you have taken?

Can you also explain why Ebtisam Al Saegh has not been allowed access to a lawyer in the last 10 days, or why her family have not been permitted to see her?

Will you commit to investigating all allegations of mistreatment or torture committed by the NSA and hold those responsible to account?

Sheikh Al Khalifa, I am one of many worried about what is happening to Ebstisam al Saegh. Your speedy answers to these questions would be appreciated by us all.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Go here to see the original:

Questions for Head of Bahrain's NSA 10 Days After Ebtisam al Saegh's Arrest - HuffPost

Posted in NSA

Edward Snowden’s leaks has NSA in damage-control mode, spy agency official tells Lancaster audience – LancasterOnline

Posted on by

A high-ranking official of the National Security Agency said in a talk here Wednesday that the electronic surveillance agency is working to improve its public relations in the wake of Edward Snowdens damaging leaks.

Jonathan Darby, the NSAs deputy chief of cybersecurity operations, said the agency realized it had to get out and talk more about what we do after Snowden in 2013 revealed ways in which U.S. spy agencies collect phone, email and other communications.

Darby contended that most of the Snowden-related stories in 2013 were twisted or dead-out wrong, and he pushed back on a movie glorifying the former NSA contractors actions, saying the leaks put peoples lives at risk.

Snowden fled to Moscow in June 2013 after he was identified as the source of information several newspapers printed about previously undisclosed NSA surveillance programs. Snowden remains in Russia, where he was granted asylum until 2020.

Before an audience of 180 at a Lancaster Rotary Club luncheon, Darby portrayed the NSA as scrupulously law-abiding and completely accountable to Congress and the courts.

If the law does not affirmatively give us the authority to take an action, we can not and we will not do it, said Darby, a Montana native who joined the NSA in 1983 as a foreign language analyst. We do not independently decide what to collect.

He said the $11-billion NSA is a joint military-civilian spy agency with the dual mission of intercepting foreign communications and protecting U.S. government communications.

This spy agency spies. Thats what we do, legally and within policy guidelines, he said.

Darby stressed that the NSA does not spy on Americans at home or abroad unless a federal judge approves it.

Also, if the communications of an American are intercepted incidentally through the valid targeting of a foreigner, the Americans communication is masked, he said. The procedures, in place for decades, have government and court approval, he said.

Darby defended a program, up for Congressional renewal this year, that allows the NSA to compel a U.S. communications company to turn over communications of noncitizens outside of the United States.

Saying the program prevents terrorist attacks, Darby pointed to the 2009 arrest of a man who planned a bombing on a New York City subway.

Darby pushed back against the perception that the NSA indiscriminately vacuums up all communications around the world.

He said the quantity of data the NSA collects is analogous to a dime on the floor of a basketball court.

Darby said NSA employees take an oath to defend the Constitution, including its guarantees of civil liberties.

Some will say that (strict oversight and legal restrictions) ties one arm behind our back, Darby said. As an NSAer, I say, Damn straight. Thats fine. Thats who we are as a country.

Asked about allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, Darby said the NSA joined with the FBI and CIA in coming to that assessment.

It goes back to, Heres the facts, Darby said. We laid out the facts.

On cybersecurity, Darby said the country increasingly understands the threats to the nations computer networks and that existing security measures arent adequate for the long term.

Read more:

Edward Snowden's leaks has NSA in damage-control mode, spy agency official tells Lancaster audience - LancasterOnline

Posted in NSA

Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

Early last month, Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDan CoatsGranting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake Sessions, deputy AG to tour Guantanamo Bay prison The Memo: GOP pushes Trump to curb Mueller attacks MOREreneged on a promisethat the National Security Agency would provide an estimate of just how many Americans have seen their communications collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was the same broken promise made to Congress by his predecessor, James Clapper.

Indeed, for the past six years, the NSA has flummoxed congressional oversight with its reluctance to give lawmakers this kind of hard data. And yet, despite this pattern of obfuscation of promising transparency and then dialing back said promisesCongress is now debating a bill that would give immense power to that same agency.

The legislation, which has left many privacy advocates aghast, comes in the form ofa proposalby Sen. Tom CottonTom CottonOvernight Finance: GOP goes after arbitration rule | Bill allocates .6B for Trump border wall | Fed officials cautious on rate hike | McConnell aiming for debt vote before August recess Overnight Regulation: GOP senator aims to repeal arbitration rule | Feds to rethink fuel efficiency fines | EPA moves to roll back restrictions on Alaska mine Lawmakers press Sessions over online gambling MORE (R-Ark.) for a so-called "clean" reauthorization that would leave the current Section 702 intact. Of course, it isn't actually clean, in that Cotton's bill would remove the sunset provision that forces the program to expireDec. 31unless Congress explicitly re-authorizes it. In other words, even as Coats now deems it infeasible that the NSA will ever tell Congress how many Americans have been surveilled under Section 702a number that likely would shock the conscienceCotton wants to ensure 702 is never up for debate again.

Coatsexplainedto the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that the NSA ended about collectionthat is, the practice of collecting digital communications in which a foreign target is mentioned, but is not the sender or recipientdue to technical limitations on the agency's ability to protect wholly domestic communications. However, he didnt rule out resuming about collection if the agency discovers a technological fix. Paul Morris, deputy general counsel for operation at the NSA,toldthe Senate Judiciary Committee several weeks later they might decide to come back to it anytime. NSA representatives also havewarnedthey would oppose a permanent legislative ban on this type of collection.

A recurring theme from law-enforcement and intelligence community representatives in recent House and Senate hearings is that technological developments can drastically change how government conducts surveillance. But even as agency representatives tell us how rapidly surveillance methods change, a permanent reauthorization of current surveillance methods presumes that future revolutions in technology won't affect Americans relative privacy. Not long ago, few could have conceived of an email or that it would become a major tool of communication.

If the intelligence community decides to resume about collection, a method proven to have violated Americans rights in the past, Congresss oversight role should not be hamstrung by a permanent reauthorization. Eliminating the law's sunset provision would limit Congress's ability to revisit these questions and examine exactly how surveillance methods might change in the future. With far-reaching technological change always looming, Congress must periodically revisit the legal authority behind these intelligence tools both to ensure they remain effective at protecting the nation, and that adapting an old law to new technologies doesnt open the door to abuse.

Establishing a sunset for the program shouldnt be anathema to those who are primarily concerned with national security. To the contrary, it is the best way to ensure the program remains viable and accomplishes the purpose of keeping Americans safe. Permanent reauthorization would limit any attempts to modify surveillance. It also increases the risk of another leak and public outcry, which easily leads to a knee-jerk reaction. Intelligence agencies could shy away from reasonable and effective procedures, absent any obligation to report to congressional oversight.

A kid genius working from a basement today may change the way our systems work tomorrow, crippling the effectiveness of Section 702 or opening the door to abuse. Giving law enforcement and the intelligence community's great power without built in opportunities to revisit that authorization would be a disservice to the security and civil rights of the American people. In the end, the most critical reform to Section 702 might already be part of thestatus quo.

Arthur Rizer(@ArthurRizer)is the national security and justice policy director at the R Street Institute, and Ashkhen Kazaryan (@Ashkhen) is an affiliated fellow at the non-profit TechFreedom.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Link:

Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake - The Hill (blog)

Posted in NSA

India-China border row: NSA Ajit Doval likely to visit Beijing for BRICS NSAs meeting on 27 and 28 July – Firstpost

Posted on by

As the border standoff between India and China in Doka La, Sikkim continues, reports said that National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval is likely to visit Beijing for the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) NSAs meeting scheduled to take place on 27 and 28 July.

If the NSA does end up visiting Beijing, it will be a crucial trip and a probable step to resolve the almost-month-old border dispute.The Indian Express also reported that the meeting will be hosted by Doval's counterpart and Chinese state councillor Yang Jiechi. Both Doval and Jiechi are special representatives designated by their respective governments to discuss border issues.

File image of Ajit Doval. AFP

India on Thursday had maintained that the current border standoff in Doklam would be resolved diplomatically, similar to how all its disputes with Beijing in the past had been solved using diplomatic channels.

External affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay had said diplomatic channels were "available" to the two countries that would continue to be used.

He had referred to a "conversation" between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg last week "where they spoke on a range of issues".

"As far as the Doklam issue is concerned, you know we have diplomatic channels. Embassies are there in both the countries and those channels will continue to be used," Baglay had said in his weekly media briefing.

India and China are locked in a standoff in the Doklam area in Sikkim sector near the Bhutan tri-junction for over three weeks after the Chinese army attempted to build a road in the disputed narrow stretch of land.

Doklam is the Indian name for the region which China refers to as Donglong.

Asked about the provocative statements from China and the Chinese media over the border issue, the spokesperson had said that the government had "clearly laid out" its position and approach to deal with the matter.

"We have referred to how the two governments have been engaged in the last few years in addressing this issue, the boundary matter and the tri-junction. We have also mentioned understandings between the two countries," he had said.

Baglay had referred to Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar's speech in Singapore earlier this week when he had said that India and China have handled their border issues in the past and there was no reason why they would not be able to deal with it this time.

"He (Jaishankar) referred to the understanding between the two leaders (Modi and Xi) which essentially underlines the approach we are following in this regard. So, we are very much seized of the matter, we are very much sure of the approach that is being taken and that is where it stands," the spokesperson had said.

On Wednesday, Chinese foreign office spokesman Geng Shuang had dismissed Jaishankar's remarks, saying the "trespass" by the Indian troops in Doklam was different from the "frictions in the undefined sections of the boundary" between India and China.

Asked if Modi and Xi particularly talked about the Doklam issue, Baglay had refused a direct reply, saying, "I would leave it to your imagination and common sense to summarise what can be covered in the range of issues."

With inputs from PTI

See the original post here:

India-China border row: NSA Ajit Doval likely to visit Beijing for BRICS NSAs meeting on 27 and 28 July - Firstpost

Posted in NSA

Ajit Doval likely to visit China: NSA’s famed ‘Doval doctrine’ and deconstructing India’s stand on Beijing – Firstpost

Posted on by

As India resolvesto dissolve the Sikkim sector border standoff with Beijing through diplomatic channels, all eyes are on National Security Advisor Ajit Doval'slikely visit to Chinafor BRICS NSAs' meeting on 27 and 28 July.

If the NSA does end upvisitingBeijing, it will be a crucial trip and a probable step to resolve the almost-month-old border dispute. However, at a time when China remains unyielding in the face of the current crisis, Doval's traditional tough stance against Beijing raises doubts over whether any meaningful progress can be expected from his visit.

File image of National Security Adviser Ajit Doval with China's State Councillor, Yang Jiechi. PTI

Doval, who was famously characterised as 'the hawkish Doval' by former RAW chief AS Dulat, is known for his hardliner stance in negotiating border disputes with China.

His rare public interactions, since he assumed office of NSA, have revealed that Doval prefers depending on military solutions over ceding ground in compromises. When India's traditional policy in handling border disputes with its neighbours has propagated a defensive approach, it was Doval who pitched the concept of defensive-offensive and offensive foreign policy.

It was under Doval's leadership that India carried out surgical strikes against Pakistan, and it was the current NSA who remarked that 'India would not compromise on its territorial interests and sovereignty,' when asked about his views on negotiations with China.

An article inAsia Timesin 2016 commented on the said statement of Doval: "He (Doval) said at the Munich Security Conference in New Delhi in October 2014 that 'India would not compromise on its territorial interests', when the very purpose of the meetings of the Special Representatives of the two countries is to seek a compromise on the dispute."

The impact of Doval's policy views, which clearly pervades Modi government's foreign policy, has been markedly different from his predecessors so much that his ideas on China, Pakistan and India's territorial disputes are now commonly referred to as the Doval doctrine.Firstpost looked at his selective public remarks mostly made duringhis Nani Palkiwala Memorial Lecture, 2014 and the Lalit Doshi Memorial Lecture, 2015 to help decode his views on China in context of the current border row.

Answering a question about tackling China's growing might, Doval conceded that China's militaryis much more stronger than India, even as the former Intelligence Bureau directorhailedIndia's missile technology. He said that it was tough for India to match China's might in the next fifty years, but he advocated ramping up missile technology to target China's economic installations, which he said were the Dragon's only vulnerable spot.

These remarks were made during a public interaction on 27 August, 2010, as shown in this YouTube video, however,Firstpostcould not independently verify the source's veracity. Doval's past comments on China's 'bottomless territorial hunger' assumes importance in these times, as the NSA's visit to Beijing in the coming week could be a make-or-break situation on India-China border stalemate.

The NSA's past comments become crucialalso becauseChina is slowly increasing its naval presence in Indian Ocean region and has carried out military exercises in Tibet, even as the border standoff in Sikkim is going on.

Another report inThe Times of India,quoted Doval's remarks at theMunich Security Conference in 2014. Doval had said that even though relationship with China are "very important", India must not compromise on issues of sovereignty. "I would like to develop our relations to such an extent till the time our territorial and integral sovereignty ... we would not able to compromise on it," Doval said.

Doval's remarks gain significance at atimeChina isramping up the anti-India rhetoric,in what it views as an unprecedented dispute with New Delhi. India and China are locked in a standoff in the Doklam area in Sikkim sector near the Bhutan tri-junction for over three weeks after the Chinese army attempted to build a road in the disputed narrow stretch of land. China has made it clear that back channel negotiations will only bear fruit after India withdraws its troop.

It will be interesting to see whether Doval sticks to his hardliner approach towards Beijing at a time when China too shows no inclination to compromise. TheAsian Timesarticle had compared Doval's approach to his predecessors. The article stated, that while Narendra Modi under Doval's influence has stuck to requesting China to'reconsider' its received positions on existing disputes with India, Doval's predecessorBrajesh Mishra had clocked considerable progress in Sino-India ties and had been hopeful of reaching positive results.

Read more:

Ajit Doval likely to visit China: NSA's famed 'Doval doctrine' and deconstructing India's stand on Beijing - Firstpost

Posted in NSA

Advocacy group ranks Shelby Co. DA as worst for violating Constitution – FOX13 Memphis

Posted on by

by: Zach Crenshaw Updated: Jul 13, 2017 - 10:13 PM

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A new report says the Shelby County District Attorneys Office violates the constitution more than any other office in Tennessee.

The Harvard Law study highlighted misconduct and overturned convictions over the past six years.

>>Read the full report for yourself here

Its critical of Amy Weirich andher entire office which the new report says has repeatedly violated their constitutional and ethical duties.

Weirich called the report inaccurate.

In March, Weirich held a press conference to announce she had taken a private reprimand from the states Board of Professional Responsibility.

Weirich characterized the reprimand as a mistake.

A report by the Fair Punishment Project though, characterized it as part of a larger pattern of misconduct.

The report, by a Harvard Law group, found Weirichs office was number one in 'misconduct' and 'reversal' out of Tennessees 95 counties.Per capita, Shelby County was also in the top ten for both.

"Well, there's nothing new in the report," saidJosh Spickler, Executive Director ofthe Memphis advocacy group Just City.

"I think the report, for the first time,really allows us to compare our jurisdiction in Shelby County with others in the state and see just how poorly we are doing," said Spickler

The report looked at the Shelby County cases of misconduct and overturned convictions from 2011 to the present day.

In 2015, it mentions the Noura Jackson case where Weirich was reprimanded for withholding key evidence from the defense and asking questions of Jackson after she took the fifth amendment.

In 2004, Weirich called two defendants greed and evil multiple times. She was admonished by a higher court.

Also in 2004, a defense attorney said they found an envelope initialed by Weirich with, Do not show defense written on it.

Weirich sent FOX13 the following statement:

This is a grossly inaccurate and incomplete account of these cases as seen through the eyes of a defense advocacy group. I became a prosecutor to hold the guilty accountable and to protect the innocent in every case, and that is what I have tried to do throughout my career. I will never apologize for trying to seek justice for victims of crime.

"This report is not about those cases," said Spickler. "This report is about a pattern of statistics really, about how often cases are overturned, how often misconduct is found, and how often ethics violations occur in the prosecutors office."

Weirich, known for not backing down in the courtroom, is not flinching.

Spickler, however, hopes the report helps hold the office accountable which he said starts at the top.

"It would be great to see something from this office that indicates that there is a pattern that is problematic and we are doing something to make sure it doesn't happen in the future."

The Harvard Law group that put the study together told us their research only reflected the rulings of judges.

The director also told us their board includes a former U.S. prosecutor and state district attorney.

2017 Cox Media Group.

Read the original:

Advocacy group ranks Shelby Co. DA as worst for violating Constitution - FOX13 Memphis

Somali-American family from Eagan sues over detention upon return from Canada – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Posted on by

An Eagan family is suing U.S. officials for civil rights violations after what they describe as an abusive detention in early 2015 at the Canada border.

Abdisalam Wilwal, who was allegedly held for more than 10 hours with his wife and four children at the Portal, N.D., station of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was detained because of his placement on a terrorist watch list used by agencies of the federal government. A lawsuit filed Thursday in district court on the Wilwal familys behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union and private litigation firm Robin Kaplan LLP states Wilwal does not know why he is on such a list and does not believe there is cause.

Wilwal and his wife, Sagal Abdigani, are originally from Somalia and immigrated to the U.S. in 2000. They were both U.S. citizens when they were crossing the border to re-enter the country from Canada, where they said they had been visiting Abdiganis sister in Saskatchewan.

The complaint filed by the ACLU and Robin Kaplan asserts the detention at the border violated the Wilwal familys protection under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as constitutional rights namely their Fourth Amendment right to be be free from unreasonable search and seizure as well as due process rights contained in the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit names as defendants a host of high-ranking U.S. officials, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security head John Kelly and FBI chief Andrew McCabe.

The complaint seeks a declaration from the court that the defendants violated the Wilwal familys rights. It also seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from arresting, seizing, searching, or interrogating (Wilwal) because of his placement on a terrorism-related watch list, as well as subjecting Wilwals family to similar treatment due to their association with him.

The lawsuit also asks the court to require the defendants to provide Wilwal with the rationale leading to his placement on a watch list and allow him an opportunity to contest that listing and be removed from it. Finally, the injunction asks the court to require the defendants to destroy information illegally gathered on the family.

Hugh Handeyside, an ACLU attorney listed on the complaint, described the watch list system in a press release as a due process disaster that accuses people while providing them with no legal recourse to deny claims of terrorist activity.

Wilwal also spoke against the system in the release.

I came to this country seeking safety and freedom, and Im proud to be an American, he said. But our own government just shouldnt be treating my family and me or anyone else this way. Its wrong.

Go here to read the rest:

Somali-American family from Eagan sues over detention upon return from Canada - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

‘Takings’ Meant Something Different at First – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on by

Wall Street Journal (subscription)
'Takings' Meant Something Different at First
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Regulatory takings weren't part of the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the Constitution. Quoting a footnote from the Supreme Court's 1992 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council opinion: early constitutional theorists did ...

and more »

Originally posted here:

'Takings' Meant Something Different at First - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Law Review: Never lend your car to your brother-in-law – Sierra Sun

Posted on by

If you are driving without a valid driver's license can the police, in this case the Los Angeles Police Department, impound your vehicle?

That question is too easy for you smart readers, even for you average readers. How's this: If you can prove you have a valid driver's license, can you get your impounded car back? That's our case of the day, case du jour.

Never lend your car to your brother-in-law

Lamya Brewster loaned her car to Yonnie Percy, her brother-in-law. Brewster later learned she should have asked Percy if he had a valid driver's license. He didn't. Percy was stopped by LAPD officers, who quickly determined his driver's license was suspended. The officers seized the vehicle under California Vehicle Code 14602.6(a)(1).

Brewster filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all vehicle owners whose vehicles were subjected to the 30-day impoundment, claiming the impound is a warrantless seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. The federal trial court ruled for the LAPD. Brewster appealed.

Vehicle Code 14602.6

Vehicle Code 14602.6(a)(1) authorizes impounding a vehicle when the driver has a suspended license. Vehicles seized must be held in impound for 30 days, which is to deter unlicensed drivers or drivers with suspended licenses from driving. No problem with that.

Give Me My Car Back

Three days after the impoundment, Brewster documented she was the registered owner of the vehicle and had a valid California driver's license. She offered to pay all towing and storage fees, but the LAPD refused to release the vehicle before the mandatory 30-day holding period had lapsed. That was the legal issue.

Brewster filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all vehicle owners whose vehicles were subjected to the 30-day impoundment, claiming the impound is a "warrantless seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment." The federal trial court ruled for the LAPD. Brewster appealed.

Fourth Amendment Seizure

The federal Court of Appeals, with an opinion written by the brilliant Judge Alex Kozinski, ruled that because a 30-day impound is a "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in [his] property," the Fourth Amendment is implicated.

The impoundment/seizure is justified under the Fourth Amendment only to the extent that the government's justification holds force. But after Brewster proved she had a valid driver's license, there was no justification to hold her vehicle.

Once Brewster proved she had a valid driver's license, she was entitled to her car. Mandatory 30-day hold unconstitutional. Makes sense to me.

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter Simon licensed in California and Nevada, with offices in Truckee, Tahoe City and Reno, Nevada. His practice areas include: development, construction, business, HOAs, contracts, personal injury, accidents, mediation and other transactional matters. He may be reached atporter@portersimon.comorhttp://www.portersimon.com.

Visit link:

Law Review: Never lend your car to your brother-in-law - Sierra Sun