DOCSLIB.ORG

In a Documentary Companion to Storming the Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In a Documentary Companion to Storming the Court Discussion Questions for Storming the Court and Chapter One, “Introduction,” in A Documentary Companion to Storming the Court. 1. Identify the following people and the role they played in the events of Storming the Court:: Yvonne Pascal Antenor Joseph Jean-Bertrand Aristide Raoul Cedras Evans Paul Harold Koh Michael Ratner Lisa Daugaard Tory Clawson Steve Roos Michael Barr Graham Boyd Sarah Cleveland Paul Sonn Mike Wishnie Ira Kurzband Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett Dr. Frantz Guerrier Gene McNary Jennifer Klein Joe Tringali Robert Rubin Bob Begleiter Scott Dunn Jack Weinstein Eugene Nickerson Sterling Johnson, Jr. Michelle Anderson Claudel Pierre Steven Valentine Pierre Charles Jim Carlson Ray Brescia Guido Calabresi Paul Cappuccio Lucas Guttentag Evelyne Longchamp Decoste Veillard Marie Zette Page 1 of 11 Marcus Antoine Vilsaint Michel Wilson Edouard Donna Hrinak Dudley Sipprelle Elliot Schrage Kenneth Starr Lauri Filppu Stephen Kinder Adrien Marcel Ronald Auborg William Broberg Betty Williams Walter Dellinger Adam Gutride Kathleen Sullivan Donna Shalala Michael Cardozo Jesse Jackson Thomas McLarty Lamar Smith Maureen Mahoney Bernard Nussbaum Webster Hubell Fritznell Camy Yanick Mondesir Ellen Powers Ellen Sue Shapiro Margaret Pierre Dr. Robert Cohen Dr. Douglas Shenson Dr. Jonathan Mann Bud Paulson Joe Trimble Jason Dillman 2. What political event in Haiti gave rise to the army coup? 3. What should the role of the U.S. government be in a situation like Haiti’s in 1991? 4. Why did the U.S. decide to send military ships to bring Haitian refugees back to Haiti? Page 2 of 11 5. Why were Haitian refugees treated differently by the U.S. government than refugees from Kuwait or Lebanon? 6. What agreement did the Reagan government make with the Haitian dictator Duvalier? Why do you suppose? 7. Newly elected President Bush (the first) criticized Hong Kong for sending boat people who had escaped from Communist Vietnam back there. Is that any different than the U.S. sending political refugees back to Haiti? 8. What was Ratner’s “spotlight” theory of litigation? Do you agree? 9. Why did Professor Koh and Ratner choose to file their lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York? 10. Who did Ratner find to be the plaintiffs in this case? 11. Where did the law students get their original information on the situation in Guantanamo? What was that information? 12. What was the “HIV rule”? Where did it come from? How did Koh decide to handle this aspect of the case? What was Lisa Daugaard’s position/reaction? 13. What procedural device did the law students use to try to get the federal judge they wanted to hear the case? Who was that judge? Why did they want him? 14. What argument did the government’s lawyers make against Koh starting this case with a TRO? With what result? 15. At the very first hearing, the government’s lawyers argued that the students’ case was barred by res judicata. How does that argument work? 16. What was the “Affirmation of Michelle Anderson”? What did it say? How did Anderson put it together? What role did it play in the litigation? 17. What argument did the government make the next day, at the second hearing, about the rights of the Haitians on Guantanamo? 18. The government filed a Motion for Sanctions as one of its first responses to the law students’ suit. What is a Motion for Sanctions? How does it work? What arguments did the government make to back up this motion? 19. Ratner thought that Professor Koh was overreacting to the motion for sanctions. Why? How did Koh see the motion? What did Koh do to inform the university of this motion? How was the university even involved? Page 3 of 11 20. What did Judge Johnson rule on the students’ request for the TRO? What effect did that have on the Rule 11 sanctions motion? 21. Who from the plaintiffs’ side made the first trip to Guantanamo? Who accompanied them on the plane? Who did they interview in Guantanamo? What did they find out there that was useful to the case? 22. Professor Koh sends Tory Clawson to Miami on a special mission. What was it? What did Tory find out in Miami? How was it useful to the case? 23. Compare the arguments that Professor Koh and Paul Cappuccio made at the hearing before Judge Johnson regarding the lifting of the TRO. What error did Cappuccio make regarding Bertrand v. Sava? Who pointed that out? 24. What did Judge Johnson rule on the government’s request that he lift his stay barring the government from returning screened-in Haitians to Haiti and halting the asylum hearing process? How did he rule on the First and Fifth Amendment questions? What did he rule about access to the Haitians? Finally, what did his ruling do to the previous TRO? 25. What was Cappuccio’s response to Judge Johnson’s ruling? 26. What was the “magnet effect” argument that Steven Valentine made to the 2d Circuit? What was Koh’s response? What was the 2d Circuit’s decision? What did Lisa Daugaard think of the 2d Circuit panel of judges? 27. What was Cappuccio’s response to the 2d Circuit’s ruling? 28. What was the “Hrinak Declaration”? What did it say? What was it used for? Was Cappuccio within the rules in his use of the declaration? 29. What was Professor Koh’s response to Cappuccio’s use of the Hrinak Declaration? 30. What was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Cappuccio’s motion? Which Justice was the deciding vote on the Court? What law school did that Justice attend? 31. What actions did the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision lead to on Guantanamo? What is the difference in INS speak between a “credible fear” of persecution and a “well- founded” fear? Do we know what happened to the Haitians as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision? 32. Why did Koh reject the habeas corpus petition idea of the students? What is a habeas corpus petition? (Don’t guess. Look it up in your legal dictionary or online at http://www.thefreedictionary.com.) Page 4 of 11 33. Mike Wishnie was worried about the fate of Franz Guerrier. Why? What action could the 2d Circuit have taken that would have helped Guerrier? Did it? What happened when Guerrier was returned to Haiti? What was his ultimate fate? 34. What steps did the Bush administration take to address the 2d Circuit’s decision in terms of the students’ access to their clients? On what basis? 35. What was the purpose of Camp Bulkeley? What were the living conditions like there? 36. What story did the government come up with about Marie Zette? What was the source? What effect did it have on the students’ case? 37. What change in policy did the Bush administration make at the end of May 1992 in terms of how it would handle Haitian refugees stopped on the high seas by American military forces? Was this policy in compliance with the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 that the US had signed? Why or why not? Do you think the students’ lawsuit had anything to do with this change of policy? What action did Professor Koh take once this new policy was announced? 38. May 1992 was the start of the presidential election campaign season. Did the Haitian refugee situation come up in the campaign? If so, how? What position did Bill Clinton, Bush’s Democratic opponent, take? 39. Explain the term “floating Berlin Wall.” Who came up with it? For what purpose? What was the “Kennebunkport order’? Who came up with it? For what purpose? 40. Restate Professor Koh’s argument to the court about the Bush administration’s new policy toward Haitian refugees on the high seas? 41. What arguments did Kenneth Starr make to Judge Johnson in favor of the government? Of what relevance were Article 33 of the UN Convention and the Refugee Act according to Starr? 42. Of what relevance were the circumstances of the ship St. Louis to this case? By the way, what were those circumstances? (The online Holocaust Encyclopedia is a good place to look.) 43. What decision did Judge Johnson reach after hearing the Koh-Starr arguments? On what basis? 44. What was the “fire hose” riot? Describe its circumstances. What was the Camp VII riot? Describe its circumstances. Page 5 of 11 45. At one point, there were over 12,000 Haitians on Guantanamo at one time, and more than 35,000 passed through there. What happened to most of them? 46. Judge Johnson’s opinion on Bush’s new return policy was appealed to the Second Circuit where Koh and Starr argued the case. Describe their arguments and the Second Circuit’s reaction to them. What was the Second Circuit’s decision? 47. The Second Circuit’s decision on Bush’s return policy was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. What was the Supreme Court’s reaction? 48. By the fall of 1992, at the start of the new school year, the law students at the Lowenstein Clinic had two law suits going on against the federal government. Describe both of these lawsuits and their status that fall. Why did the students think that they might not have to go back to court at all? 49. Describe the Filppu-Trigali argument at the status conference before Judge Johnson. What positions did each take? Why? Who was more credible? 50. After that pre-trial conference Cappuccio on behalf of the government made an offer of settlement to Ratner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons Learned in an X-Treme Clinic Stacy Caplow Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship Fall 2006 "Deport All the Students": Lessons Learned in an X-treme Clinic Stacy Caplow Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 13 Clinical L. Rev. 633 (2006-2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. "DEPORT ALL THE STUDENTS": LESSONS LEARNED IN AN X-TREME CLINIC STACY CAPLOW* STORMING THE COURT - How A BUNCH OF YALE LAW STUDENTS SUED THE PRESIDENT AND WON by Brandt Goldstein, Scribner, 2005, Pp. 371, $26 When the Lowenstein InternationalHuman Rights Clinic at Yale Law School began to represent Haitian refugees detained at Guantd- namo no one anticipated that the litigation would span almost two years and involve more than 100 law students. Storming the Court chronicles the cases that took the students, their professors, and many cooperating lawyers to the U.S. District Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court. This review examines possible lessons for clinical teachers and students that can be ex- tractedfrom the experience described in the book and concludes that despite many differences between this litigation and the typical clinic cases, the story is both engaging and instructive. Storming the Court I is a multilayered tale in the best tradition of legal storytelling.2 It relates the parallel stories of the Haitian refugee crisis and the lawsuits brought by the Allard K.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition« Flights, Torture and Accountability – a European Approach Edited By: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights E.V
    WITH A PREFACE BY MANFRED NOWAK (UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE) 1 SECOND EDITION 2 3 CIA- »EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION« FLIGHTS, TORTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY – A EUROPEAN APPROACH EDITED BY: EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS E.V. (ECCHR) SECOND EDITION 4 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 09 PREFACE by Manfred Nowak, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture © by European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights e.V. (ECCHR) 13 JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN EUROPE – DISCUSSING Second Edition, Originally published in March 2008 STRATEGIES by Wolfgang Kaleck, ECCHR This booklet is available through the ECCHR at a service charge of 6 EUR + shipping. Please contact [email protected] for more information. 27 THE U.S. PROGRAM OF EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND SECRET DETENTION: PAST AND FUTURE Printed in Germany, January 2009 by Margaret Satterthwaite, New York University All rights reserved. 59 PENDING INVESTIGATION AND COURT CASES ISBN 978-3-00-026794-9 by Denise Bentele, Kamil Majchrzak and Georgios Sotiriadis, ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) I. The Freedom of Information Cases (USA/Europe) Greifswalder Strasse 4, D-10405 Berlin 59 FOIA Cases in the U.S. Phone: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 90 / 40 04 85 91 62 Freedom of Information Cases in Eastern Europe Fax: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 92 Mail: [email protected], Web: www.ECCHR.eu II. The Criminal Cases Council: Michael Ratner, Lotte Leicht, Christian Bommarius, Dieter Hummel 68 The Case of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Al Zery (Sweden) Secretary General: Wolfgang
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Country Studies Regarding Truth, Justice, and Reparations for Gross Human Rights Violations
    COMPARATIVE COUNTRY STUDIES REGARDING TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND REPARATIONS FOR GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BRAZIL, CHILE, AND GUATEMALA APRIL 2014 IHRLC Working Paper Series No. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Working Paper was prepared by students in the International Human Rights Law Clinic under the supervision of Laurel E. Fletcher, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic for the Project on Armed Conflict Resolution and People's Rights (ACRes), Center for Social Sector Leadership, Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. Angana Chatterji, Co-Chair of ACRes and Mallika Kaur, Director of Programs, ACRes provided helpful comments. Clinical Fellow Katrina Natale ’15 gave invaluable editorial assistance. We thank Olivia Layug, Associate Administrator for Berkeley Law’s clinical program for her help with production. We would also like to thank Dean Sujit Choudhry and the individual donors to the International Human Rights Law Clinic without whom this work would not be possible. International Human Rights Law Clinic University of California, Berkeley, School of Law 353 Boalt Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Phone: (510) 643-4800 / www.humanrightsclinic.org The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development. The IHRLC employs an interdisciplinary model that leverages the intellectual capital of the university to provide innovative solutions to emerging human rights issues. The IHRLC develops collaborative partnerships with researchers, scholars, and human rights activists worldwide. Students are integral to all phases of the IHRLC’s work and acquire unparalleled experience generating knowledge and employing strategies to address the most urgent human rights issues of our day.
    [Show full text]
  • Bush Administration's Torture Memos
    Lawyers’ Statement on Bush Administration’s Torture Memos TO: President George W. Bush Vice President Richard B. Cheney Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Attorney General John Ashcroft Members of Congress his is a statement on the memoranda, prepared by the White House, Department of Justice, and Department of T Defense, concerning the war powers of the President, torture, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, and related matters. The Administration’s memoranda, dated January 9, 2002, January 25, 2002, August 1, 2002 and April 4, 2003, ignore and misinterpret the U.S. Constitution and laws, interna- tional treaties and rules of international law. The lawyers who approved and signed these memoranda have not met their high obligation to defend the Constitution. Americans have faith that our government respects the ᮣ Assert the permissibility of the use of mind-alter- Constitution, the Bill of Rights, laws passed by Congress, ing drugs that do not “disrupt profoundly the and treaties which the United States has signed. We have sense of personality.” According to the memoran- always looked to lawyers to protect these rights. Yet, the dum: “By requiring that the procedures and the most senior lawyers in the Department of Justice, the drugs create a profound disruption, the statute White House, the Department of Defense, and the Vice requires more than that the acts ‘forcibly separate’ President’s office have sought to justify actions that violate or ‘rend’ the senses or personality. Those acts the most basic rights of all human beings. must penetrate to the core of an individual’s abil- ity to perceive the world around him, The memoranda prepared and approved by these lawyers: substantially interfering with his cognitive abili- ties, or fundamentally alter his personality.” (DOJ ᮣ Claim a power for the President as Commander- memo, August 1, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Rumsfeld - ECCHR - EUROPEAN CENTER for CONSTITUTIONAL and HUMAN RIGHTS (En) 06/03/18, 1823
    Rumsfeld - ECCHR - EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS (en) 06/03/18, 1823 SEARCH (en/home.html) (en/home.html) Rumsfeld torture cases Between 2004 and 2007 three complaints were filed in Germany and in France against members of the US Government, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and members of the military forces in connection with war crimes, torture and other criminal acts which took place in the military prisons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In all three cases, however, the court authorities in Karlsruhe and Paris, where the cases were filed, refused to initiate investigations and rejected appeals against these decisions. The public was shocked when news broke of the torture and inhuman treatment in the US operated Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, and in the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Despite the outrage surrounding these incidents, those responsible for overseeing these crimes have to this day not been held accountable. While some lower ranking military personnel have been convicted in military courts for torture committed at Abu Ghraib, their senior officers, the military and political leadership, remain unprosecuted. This is despite the fact that these individuals directly or indirectly ordered and – in the case of top government lawyers – attempted to legitimize these crimes. The criminal complaints focused on the impunity of leading representatives of the government, the armed forces and the intelligence services. The complaints were based on the principle of universal jurisdiction which has been laid down in the German and French legal systems. Under this principle it is possible to pursue legal action in national courts in cases of so called "core crimes," such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, even if the relevant criminal acts took place on foreign soil.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reflection on the Work of Human Rights Clinics Richard J
    Human Rights Brief Volume 13 | Issue 3 Article 12 2006 Many Guantánamos: A Reflection on the Work of Human Rights Clinics Richard J. Wilson American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilson, Richard J. "Many Guantánamos: A Reflection on the Work of Human Rights Clinics." Human Rights Brief 13, no. 3 (2006): 46-48. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wilson: Many Guantánamos: A Reflection on the Work of Human Rights Clinic Many Guantánamos: A Reflection on the Work of Human Rights Clinics by Richard J. Wilson HIS ARTICLE AND PERSONAL REFLECTION reviews Brandt That lesson, learned by David and Arzoo in their work, is one of the Goldstein’s Storming the Court: How a Band of Yale Law many lessons reflected more broadly in Goldstein’s fascinating book. Students Sued the President — and Won.1 The aspect of Among the thousands captured and turned back at personal reflection lies in a comparison of the work of two Guantánamo, Silieses was the first Haitian detainee to make it to Thuman rights clinics and two cases. The clinics are the International the shores of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Bradley Manning: a Show Trial of State Secrecy | Michael Ratner | Comment
    Bradley Manning: a show trial of state secrecy | Michael Ratner | Comment... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/24/bradl... Printing sponsored by: Bradley Manning: a show trial of state secrecy The US government's suppression of all accountability and transparency in prosecuting the WikiLeaks suspect is totalitarian Michael Ratner guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 April 2012 14.12 EDT Article history Bradley Manning is seen arriving for a motion hearing in the case United States v Manning at Fort Meade in Maryland. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images On 24 April, a hearing in one of the most important court martial cases in decades will take place in Fort Meade, Maryland. The accused faces life in prison for the 22 charges against him, which include "aiding the enemy" and "transmitting defense information". His status as an alleged high-profile whistleblower and the importance of the issues his case raises should all but guarantee the proceedings a prominent spot in major media, as well as in public debate. Yet, in spite of the grave implications, not to mention the press and public's first amendment right of full and open access to criminal trials, no outside parties will have access to the evidence, the court documents, court orders or off-the-record arguments that will ultimately decide his fate. Under these circumstances, whatever the outcome of the case, the loser will be the transparency necessary for democratic government, accountable courts and faith in our justice system. In the two years since his arrest for allegedly leaking the confidential files that exposed grand-scale military misconduct, potential war crimes and questionable diplomatic tactics, army private Bradley Manning has been subjected to an extremely secretive criminal procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Pub Lic Security and Human Rights Public Security and Human Rights
    huan internationalman forum for debating humanr rightsights dFall 2002iaSeries 2logueNumber 8 $5.00 PublicPub lic Security Security and and Human Rights PPerspectives from Nigeria • Colombia • Brazil • Malaysia • United States this issue PUBLIC SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 3 At the Table developments in the Brazilian human rights scene; Andressa Caldas, Sandra Carvalho, and James Cavallaro weigh in from the activists’ perspective. 4 Introduction 20 A View from the Inside 6 The New Face of Impunity Carlos Basombrío offers a perspective on human Rachel Neild explains the phenomenon of rising rights, crime, and police reform in Peru from his new crime and the challenges it poses to human rights position as vice minister of the interior. activists worldwide. 21 Roundtable on U.S. Civil Liberties in 8 Restricting the Right to Shoot September 11’s Wake Martin Schönteich details the life and eventual p a s s age of a controversial piece of legislation in Dialogue met with U.S. rights leaders Jamie Fellner, crime-ridden South Africa. Makubetse Sekhonyane Elisa Massimino, and Michael Ratner to learn how provides some insights from the street based on his their work has changed since September 11, and how work with officers. they are sticking to their guns in a climate of fear. Kit Gage describes how she and others organized one of the largest and most diverse coalitions of U.S. activists 11 Responding to Vigilantism ever assembled following September 11. One human rights group in Nigeria, writes Innocent Chukwuma, is working with community vigilante groups to help them fight crime—the right way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enduring Legacies of the Haitian Refugee Litigation
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 61 Issue 1 Storming the Court Article 2 January 2017 The Enduring Legacies of the Haitian Refugee Litigation HAROLD HONGJU KOH Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation HAROLD H. KOH, The Enduring Legacies of the Haitian Refugee Litigation, 61 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. (2016-2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 | 2016/17 VOLUME 61 | 2016/17 HAROLD HONGJU KOH Te Enduring Legacies of the Haitian Refugee Litigation 61 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 31 (2016–2017) ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Professor Koh is the Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. He first began teaching at Yale Law School in 1985 and served as its fifteenth Dean from 2004 to 2009. From 2009 to 2013, he took leave as the Martin R. Flug ’55 Professor of International Law to join the U.S. State Department as Legal Adviser, service for which he received the Secretary’s Distinguished Service Award. From 1998 to 2001, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. He was Counsel of Record in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993) and Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Constitutional Rights1
    Call for Submissions on the Protection of Sources and Whistleblowers by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye Written Submission of the Center for Constitutional Rights1 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614-6464 June 22, 2015 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................2 I. States must protect as a category of vulnerable persons individuals who, in the public interest, access and collect information exposing abuses...................................................................................................4 A. Whistleblowers are a vulnerable group under international law......................................................4 1. International standards support the vulnerability of whistleblowers............................................4 2. National laws and asylum practices reflect a consensus on the vulnerability of whistleblowers ........................................................................................................................................................10 B. The vulnerability experienced by whistleblowers is shared by human rights fact-finding sources and publishers......................................................................................................................................13 1. Whistleblowers belong to a broader class of individuals, including UN monitors
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSCRIPT “Security and the Constitution ETS Pictures, Ltd
    TRANSCRIPT “Security and the Constitution ETS Pictures, Ltd. (Images of the World Trade Center attacks fill the screen) NARRATOR: On September 11th, 2001, the United States was confronted with a new and unprecedented terrorist threat. NARRATOR: Since that day, America has taken steps to secure itself against terrorism, and has undertaken a debate that touches the core of American democracy. TOM HEFFELFINGER: The goal here is to prevent a recurrence of the terrorist acts we saw on September 11th, 2001. NARRATOR: As federal officials have sought new methods to combat terrorism, their actions have brought old controversies about the extent of government power into fresh focus. NANCY CHANG: We appear to be facing a permanent war on terrorism ... one that we’ve been told will not end in our lifetime. And what I’m most concerned about, is a permanent downward ratcheting of our civil liberties. NARRATOR: National security and civil liberties converge in this program, as we explore security ... and the constitution. TITLE: “Security and the Constitution” NARRATOR: Debates over the scope of the government’s emergency powers are rooted in interpretations of the central documents of American democracy - the Constitution from the Bill of Rights. TITLE: “Peter Erliner: Former President, National Lawyers’ Guild” PETER ERLINDER: Well I think we have to start talking about the concept of “balance of powers”, which is actually written into the Constitution itself. It comes from philosophical principles that were advanced by Montesque, a French philosopher. Montesque’s view, was that it was necessary to separate the executive branch, from the judicial branch, from the legislative branch ..
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Speech in an Age of Computer Hacktivism
    Title Freedom of Speech in an Age of Computer Hacktivism Author(s) Kirsch, Julie E. Citation Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy, 8, 28-32 Issue Date 2016 DOI 10.14943/jaep.8.28 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/63695 Type bulletin (article) File Information JAEP8_28-32p.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP 28 FreedomofSpeechinanAgeofComputerHacktivismJulieE.Kirsch Freedom of Speech in an Age of Computer Hacktivism Julie E. Kirsch D'Youville College Is Whistle-Blowing a Legally Recognized Introduction Form Of Free Speech? In his recent book, Natural Human Rights: A Theory, Edward Snowden leaked classified documents to the Michael Boylan defends a theory of natural human rights Guardian and Washington Post that exposed the National built upon an agency-based approach to ethics that he has Security Agency’s (or the NSA’s) top-secret surveillance developed over much of his career. Unlike other agency program directed at innocent Americans. Snowden accounts, Boylan’s own presents us with a hierarchy of revealed that the government had been collecting goods that is captured by his ‘table of embeddedness’. metadata associated with innocent Americans and using According to Boylan, we must always prioritize more- it to construct ‘patterns of life,’ or detailed pictures embedded to less-embedded goods. The good that of targets and those associated with them (Dance and I would like to focus upon in this essay is the level- Macaskill). The NSA tapped directly into nine Internet two basic good of freedom of speech. I am particularly firms (including Facebook, Google, and Microsoft) and interested in how Boylan would deal with cases in had direct access to Verizon’s phone records (“Edward which there is a tension between level-one basic goods, Snowden: Leaks”).
    [Show full text]