DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—Senate S14147

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

November 8, 2007 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S14147 great sacrifices in our country’s name What that means is we can’t raise a The majority leader. so that we might continue to be the point of order against those earmarks Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate land of the free and the home of the to strike them out of the bill. the cooperation of everyone. This has brave. Let me give me you some perspective been a difficult day. These are very We are faced tonight with a vote on on what we are talking about. The De- sensitive issues we are dealing with, a bill that our troops need, but the fense appropriations conference text with the troops and the financing of troops are not the focus of this con- was 133 pages long. The Joint Expla- the country, in addition to the nomina- ference report. This political tactic nation of Managers—470 pages long. tion of a Cabinet officer. It is a time does our troops and all Americans who The JES as they call it, contains all of when you need cooperation from both want good government, a disservice. the earmarks, all kinds of substantive sides. That is what we have had. It has I want to provide our troops with the direction and is three times as long as not been easy. I extend my apprecia- funding and the resources they need to the official conference report, and it is tion to my colleagues on the other side be successful in all their objectives. I not subject to a point of order? This is of the aisle and the cooperation of my want the Senate to consider the Fiscal wrong. It’s not what I believe most of Members. I would finally say that for Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act us thought would escape the oversight those of you who have had questions on its merit. Legislating isn’t a barter rules of S. 1 when we voted for it. At asked by Democrats and Republicans, system, or at least it shouldn’t be. The the very least, it seems disingenuous in we are going to finish the farm bill. men and women of our armed services how we sold this bill to the American There is some real movement on that deserve better than having the funding public as a way to clean up our tax- with amendments. I feel comfortable they need to do their job being used in payer-funded shop and how we do busi- we will be able to get that done in the a horse-trading scheme so a Member of ness around here. near future. I appreciate everyone’s co- Congress can get funding for his or her I yield the floor, and I suggest the ab- operation. own special cause. There is more than sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The $50 million worth of projects being The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. slipped in this so-called CR. We are clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk read moving quickly toward midnight. I The assistant legislative clerk pro- the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey, guess that’s a fitting time to vote on a ceeded to call the roll. of New York, to be Attorney General. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The as- bill laden with pork slipped in under Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be sistant majority leader. the cover of darkness. The people of Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Sen- the United States deserve better. rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ate is now taking up the nomination of Mrs. MCCASKILL. Mr. President, Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next with great reluctance, I will vote today SANDERS). Without objection, it is so Attorney General of the United States. in opposition to passage of the 2008 De- ordered. f It is a nomination which has become partment of Defense appropriations controversial. Judge Mukasey has conference bill. This legislation con- EXECUTIVE SESSION served his country in many different tains $459 billion in funding to provide ways. He served as a Federal judge be- the resources needed to run daily mili- NOMINATION OF MICHAEL B. fore he retired, then went into private tary operations. practice and was summoned to serve as I supported this legislation when it MUKASEY TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General by this President. I first came to the Senate floor in Octo- had a chance to meet with him person- ber. However, I can not vote in support Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unan- ally in my office. One cannot help but for the final House-Senate conference imous consent the Senate now proceed be impressed by the man’s intelligence report because it contained $59 million to executive session to consider Execu- and erudition. He clearly is a person of in earmarks that were added during tive Calendar No. 374, the nomination strongly held beliefs and it takes little the closed-door conference negotia- of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney time to appreciate that when you meet tions. One of those earmarks was for $3 General of the United States; that him. million to fund a golf center that is in there be a time limitation of 5 hours of I left, after meeting him in my office, the name of the congressman who re- debate equally divided between the believing his nomination hearings quested it. What is a golf center doing chairman and ranking member of the would be interesting, and they were. on a DOD appropriations bill? Judiciary Committee, with the Demo- On the first day, Judge Mukasey was a This was a difficult decision because cratic time divided as follows: Senator great witness, saying things that need- I strongly support most of the provi- LEAHY, 45 minutes; Senator DORGAN, 15 ed to be said about his plans to change sions in this bill, and I have deep re- minutes; Senator DURBIN, 20 minutes; the Department of Justice from the spect for Chairman INOUYE and Rank- Senator CARDIN, 10 minutes; Senator days of Alberto Gonzales, about his ing Member STEVENS and their efforts REED, 15 minutes; Senator KENNEDY, 10 feeling of responsibility to the country to craft a good funding bill. minutes; Senator HARKIN, 10 minutes; not to abide by any decisions made by However, I made a commitment dur- Senator BOXER, 15 minutes; Senator the President that were inconsistent ing my campaign and when I took my SALAZAR, 10 minutes; that upon the with the law or the Constitution. oath of office in January to reform the conclusion or yielding back of the He went so far as to say he would re- secretive earmarking process. I time, the leaders be recognized for 10 sign before he would allow that to thought we had made real progress minutes each, with the majority leader occur. I can recall speaking to my col- with the passage and enactment of S.1, going last; that the Senate then vote leagues, including Senator SCHUMER, the ethics reform bill, that requires far on confirmation of the nomination; the who sat next to me in the Judiciary more transparency and disclosure on motion to reconsider be laid on the Committee, and saying: What a breath earmarks than there has ever been. Un- table; the President be immediately of fresh air, how refreshing that he fortunately, I have since discovered notified of the Senate’s action, and the would be so candid and forthright. there are still some gaps in the ethics Senate then resume legislative session; After all the years of Alberto Gonzales bill that need to be filled. that the Senate then, without inter- dodging questions, refusing to answer, One of which has to do with the dif- vening action or debate, vote adoption here was a man who answered the ques- ficulty of raising a 60-vote point of of the conference report on H.R. 3222. tions. That was the first day. order on earmarks added during appro- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Then came the second day of the priations conference negotiations. S.1 objection? hearing. When my turn came to ask says that we can do that. But in re- Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to questions, I proceeded to ask Judge ality, we really can’t. Most of these put in the RECORD that this has been Mukasey specific questions about tor- added funding earmarks are contained cleared with the leader on our side ture. His answers to those questions in the Joint Explanatory Statement of also. I have no objection. led to a great deal of controversy and Managers, which, technically, isn’t The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without lead us to this moment in the Senate part of the conference report bill text. objection, it is so ordered. debate. VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:24 Mar 13, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2007SENATE\S08NO7.REC S08NO7 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S14148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 8, 2007 When we write the history of this effective. When I reminded Judge others have, and they did not need four early 21st century in America, there Mukasey that cruel, inhuman, and de- pages of legal obfuscation. I received a are going to be countless stories of grading treatment are illegal under letter from four retired military offi- courage and compassion: Firefighters U.S. law, he said he thought these cials about Judge Mukasey’s position and police officers racing into the terms were ‘‘subjective’’ and suggested on waterboarding.
Recommended publications
  • 2008 Annual Report

    2008 Annual Report

    5 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE FEATURED ARTICLES AND THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Benjamin Franklin’s Shoe PAGE 4 A Road Rich with Milestones PAGE 10 Today and Tomorrow: 2008 Annual Report PAGE 16 2008 Financials PAGE 22 FEATUREMAILBOX ONE 2 NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER 5 Years of Excellence LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Friends: Exceptional. That is the only word that can fully describe the remarkable strides the National Constitution Center has made in the past five years. Since opening its doors on July 4, 2003, it has developed into one of the most esteemed institutions for the ongoing study, discussion and celebration of the United States’ most cherished document. We’re pleased to present a celebration of the Center’s first five years and the 2008 Annual Report. In the following pages you will read about the Center’s earliest days and the milestones it has experienced. You will learn about the moving exhibitions it has developed and presented over the years. You will look back at the many robust public conversations led by national figures that have occurred on site, and you will be introduced to a new and innovative international initiative destined to carry the Center boldly into the future. It has been a true pleasure to work for this venerable institution, informing and inspiring We the People. We both look forward to witnessing the Center’s future achievements and we are honored that the next chapter of this story will be written by the Center’s new Chairman, President Bill Clinton. Sincerely, President George H. W. Bush Joseph M.
  • Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley

    Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley

    Hofstra Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 6 1999 Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Turley, Jonathan (1999) "Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 28: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Turley: Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison REFLECTIONS ON MURDER, MISDEMEANORS, AND MADISON Jonathan Turley* I. INTRODUCTION Few crimes seem to concentrate the mind more than simple mur- der. Certainly, murder was on the minds of many of the academics testi- fying in the Clinton impeachment hearing While this offense was never seriously alleged during the scandal, it was very much a concern for academics advocating the "executive function theory. 2 Under this theory, a President could only be impeached for acts related to his of- fice, as opposed to purely personal acts.' Since the impeachment of President Clinton raised matters arguably related to his personal mis- conduct, various academics insisted that the allegations fell outside of * J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University of Law School. 1. See Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitutionof the House Comm.
  • Examining Proposals to Limit Guantanamo Detainees’ Access to Habeas Corpus Review

    Examining Proposals to Limit Guantanamo Detainees’ Access to Habeas Corpus Review

    S. HRG. 109–658 EXAMINING PROPOSALS TO LIMIT GUANTANAMO DETAINEES’ ACCESS TO HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 Serial No. J–109–113 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 30–633 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:33 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 030633 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30633.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:33 Nov 09, 2006 Jkt 030633 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30633.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ..............................
  • Interrogation's Law

    Interrogation's Law

    THEYAEAW JOUNA WILLIAM RANNEY LEVI Interrogation's Law ABSTRACT. Conventional wisdom states that recent U.S. authorization of coercive interrogation techniques, and the legal decisions that sanctioned them, constitute a dramatic break with the past. This is false. U.S. interrogation policy well prior to 9/11 has allowed a great deal more flexibility than the high-minded legal prohibitions of coercive tactics would suggest: all interrogation methods allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, have been authorized before. The conventional wisdom thus elides an intrinsic characteristic of all former and current laws on interrogation: they are vague and contestable, and thus, when context so demands, manipulable. A U TH O R. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2oo; Stanford University, B.A. 2006. Three individuals were central to the development of this project. Jack L. Goldsmith offered invaluable guidance from the beginning; I could not ask for a better mentor. Owen M. Fiss graciously supported this project, providing thoughtful comments and helpful criticism. Harold H. Koh consulted and advised throughout; I am immensely grateful for his encouragement. I am thankful to Mariano-Florentino Cullar, Jeremy M. Licht, Martin S. Lederman, David F. Levi, and Benjamin Wittes. This Note was completed before the Justice Department released four additional memoranda on April 16, 2009. 1434 NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1436 1. THE LAW'S LATITUDE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TO THE PRESENT 1442 A. Law and Interrogation: The Central Intelligence Agency 1443 1. The Torture Statute 1444 2. The Fifth Amendment 1448 3. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Military Commissions Act 1452 B.
  • The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives

    The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives

    THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT OF 1976 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2019 Serial No. 116–5 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–840 WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:06 Oct 12, 2019 Jkt 037840 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\B840.XXX B840 dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia Wisconsin THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio KAREN BASS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JIM JORDAN, Ohio HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York KEN BUCK, Colorado DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California MATT GAETZ, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ANDY BIGGS, Arizona VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida TOM MCCLINTOCK, California J. LUIS CORREA, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania Vice-Chair BEN CLINE, Virginia SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida LUCY MCBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, ERIC SWALWELL, California Ranking Member MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio SYLVIA R.
  • National Security and Statutory Interpretation

    National Security and Statutory Interpretation

    SMU Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2000 Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation, 53 SMU L. REV. 205 (2000) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS DARKLY: NATIONAL SECURITY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Jonathan Turley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 206 II. AREA 51: A CASE STUDY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AREA ......................... 210 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 210 B. RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND JUDICIAL R ULINGS .............................................. 214 C. THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE ON THE ANALYSIS IN KASZA AND FRosT ................................................. 219 III. THE INTERPLAY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION ............................ 221 A. THEORIES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE COMPANY OF THE COMMON LAW ..................... 222 B. PREEMPTION AND JUDICIAL CHOICE: THE USE OF COMMON LAW AS AN OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ELEMENT IN THE FROST CASE ........................ 228 C. THE ADOPTION OF AN ABSOLUTE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION .............. 231 IV. THE LEGISPRUDENCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE COMMON LAW ............................. 237 A. THE DIALOGIC EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ..............
  • Executive Plans and Authorizations to Violate International Law Concerning Treatment and Interrogation of Detainees

    Executive Plans and Authorizations to Violate International Law Concerning Treatment and Interrogation of Detainees

    PAUST PRINT VERSION.DOC 05/20/05 7:29 PM Executive Plans and Authorizations to Violate International Law Concerning Treatment and Interrogation of Detainees JORDAN J. PAUST* Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons detained during war. This Article provides detailed exposition of the types of improprieties abetted by previously secret memos and letters of various lawyers and others within the Bush Administration. The Article demonstrates why several of the claims in such memos were in serious error; what type of illegal orders and authorizations were actually given by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and various military commanders at Guantanamo and in Iraq; what type of other authorizations in support of a common plan to violate the Geneva Conventions and human rights law existed; and what type of illegal interrogation tactics were approved and used at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and apparently elsewhere by U.S. military personnel, civilians, and the CIA. The Article also provides detailed attention to various laws of war and human rights relevant to interrogation and treatment of detained persons; why relevant rights and duties are absolute and remain so regardless of claims by the President and others to deny full coverage to alleged terrorists and enemy combatants; why there can be leader responsibility for dereliction of duty in addition to responsibility of perpetrators, aiders and abettors, and those who issued illegal orders; and why the President and all within the executive branch are * Law Foundation Professor, University of Houston.
  • Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest

    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest

    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013 Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of the United States. The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it is often more important how you do things than what you do. We have long benefited from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved. However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest to use them.
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device

    Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device

    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
  • Anonymity, Obscurity, and Technology: Reconsidering Privacy in the Age of Biometrics

    Anonymity, Obscurity, and Technology: Reconsidering Privacy in the Age of Biometrics

    ANONYMITY, OBSCURITY, AND TECHNOLOGY: RECONSIDERING PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF BIOMETRICS JONATHAN TURLEY ABSTRACT For decades, cinematic and literary works have explored worlds without privacy: fishbowl societies with continual, omnipresent surveillance. For those worried about a post-privacy world, facial recognition technology and other biometric technology could well be the expanding portal to that dystopia. These technologies are rapidly transforming a society predicated on privacy into a diaphanous society where identity and transparency are defining elements. Biometric technology is perfectly suited to evade current privacy protections and doctrines because it presents new challenges to the existing legal framework protecting privacy. The greatest threat of this technological shift is to democratic activities—the very reason that countries such as China have invested so heavily into biometric surveillance systems. This Article explores how our traditional privacy notions fit into a new age of biometrics. It seeks to frame the debate on what values society’s notions of privacy protect, and how to protect them. After exploring prior approaches and definitions to privacy, it proposes a shift from an emphasis on anonymity to a focus on obscurity. The truth is that we now live in a “nonymous” world where our movements and associations will be made increasingly transparent. This Article concludes by recommending a comprehensive approach to biometric technology that would obscure increasingly available images and data while recasting privacy protections to fit a new and unfolding biometric reality. This obscurity will allow participation in society to continue unimpeded by the chilling effects created by the new technology. Without it, our democratic society will never be the same.
  • Jonathan Turley on Trump Emolument Clause

    Jonathan Turley on Trump Emolument Clause

    Jonathan Turley On Trump Emolument Clause Transferrable Stafford machinates some hugeousness and incurvate his doolies so bilingually! Inexpressive and knurliest Garcia grow her streps carpogoniums tours and chastens classically. Waine is gneissic and subsidizes collectively while tubbiest Dion overbuilding and reeving. Throughout both parties, turley on trump but we will be chaired this body would have Other hypos can be raised. Does this seems more information technology that remedy for business records obtained and consistently found, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of jonathan turley told to! The investigations to the president trump, llp and tom paine said before the courts recognize such an impeachment inquiry, some of the. How on emoluments clause, emolument as a number of the ones. We on these funds to jonathan elliot, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of law professor? In trump emoluments clause inspection of jonathan turley argued that the ones that it is not good of care act and his particular. Ambassador to external sites are monstrously evil cabal of jonathan turley on trump emolument clause and then went on biden always two primary allegations make scotus reject earlier following the ransom is nothing. Deposition on emoluments clause does turley about raising their liberty protected rights page features some good doctor degree to! Circuit court struck them the tire Air Interstate Rule that implemented a flutter and trade written for pollutants. Live on one! Supreme Court agreed to review cases presenting gay marriage issues. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, Ambassador Taylor asked to resemble with him privately. Dem candidate trump had with meaning and the financial services are provided sufficient reason, but it was explicit that body of state! Uk on trump executive branch from jonathan turley argued against trump extended an emolument clause would be our criminal.
  • The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley

    The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley

    Maryland Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 11 Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege, 60 Md. L. Rev. 205 (2001) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol60/iss1/11 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARADISE LOST: THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE EROSION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JONATHAN TuRLEY* INTRODUCTION In Paradise Lost, Milton once described a "Serbonian Bog ... [w]here Armies whole have sunk."' This illusion could have easily been taken from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton crisis. On a myriad of different fronts, the Clinton defense teams advanced sweep- ing executive privilege arguments, only to be defeated in a series of judicial opinions. This "Serbonian Bog" ultimately proved to be the greatest factor in undoing efforts to combat inquiries into the Presi- dent's conduct in the Lewinsky affair and the collateral scandals.2 More importantly, it proved to be the undoing of years of effort to protect executive privilege from risky assertions or judicial tests.' In the course of the Clinton litigation, courts imposed a series of new * J.B. & Maurice C.