Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Cheye Calvo Reflects on SWAT Shooting

Cheye Calvo is the DC-area small-town mayor who had his two pet dogs shot and killed by a botched drug raid about a year ago.  In an article to be published in this Sunday’s Washington Post, Calvo reflects upon his experience – not just the raid itself, but on the actions of the police department afterward.  Excerpt:

I remain captured by the broader implications of the incident. Namely, that my initial take was wrong: It was no accident but rather business as usual that brought the police to – and through – our front door.

In the words of Prince George’s County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the assault, “the guys did what they were supposed to do” – acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George’s [County] is standard fare. The only difference this time seems to be that the victim was a clean-cut white mayor with community support, resources, and a story to tell the media.

What confounds me is the unmitigated refusal of county leaders to challenge law enforcement and to demand better – as if civil rights are somehow rendered secondary by the war on drugs.

Mr. Calvo has been a super advocate for reform – he has given up countless hours of his spare time to study and speak on this subject so that fewer people will be victimized the same way his family was.  He spoke at a Cato Hill Briefing over the summer.

Calvo told his story at Cato last year.

For related Cato research, go here and here.

And to Think: Senators Once Worked For Legislatures

S. 1536, the “ALERT Drivers” Act (“Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers” – get it?) would reduce federal highway funds available to states if they don’t pass laws prohibiting people from writing, sending, or reading text messages while driving.

The circle is complete. Senators, who were once chosen by state legislatures, now believe it is their role to tell state legislatures what to do.

Federal command over our lives, in ever more intricate detail. It’s the product of exalting democracy – in this case, direct election of senators – over liberty and over the governmental structure originally established in the constitution.

Texting while driving is dangerous to your health and others’. Letting governments amass power is dangerous to your freedom, and ultimately your health (this way, for example, and this way and this way).

Indiana Voter ID Law Struck Down

Constitutional rules often comport with common sense. The Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause — so burdensome to law enforcement, some argue — requires officials to look for evidence of crime where they think they’ll find it and not elsewhere. Common sense.

So it is with an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling that the state’s voter ID law violates the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The law requires in-person voters to show ID, but makes no attempt to verify the identities of absentee voters. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law against a recent challenge, but the Indiana court struck it down based on a broader protection in the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

Think what you will on the legal merits. (I generally appreciate courts breathing independent life into their state constitutions.) What is interesting here is that the result is imbued with constitutional common sense.

Requiring ID at polling stations would have a marginal effect on vote fraud because it makes it harder to impersonate a voter or manufacture a vote-qualified identity. But the risk of in-person voter fraud is very low compared to absentee ballot fraud, which the Indiana law did not touch. The Indiana voter ID law was tantamount to caulking windows to keep out the cold but leaving the front door open. Because of the disproportionate effect on different classes of voters, the court struck it down.

Voter fraud will continue to be a hot issue, and states should continue to tune the balances they strike between voter access and vote integrity. My concern is that the issue might boil over and produce national ID proposals, as we have seen in the past.

A Chance to Fix the PATRIOT Act?

As Tim Lynch noted earlier this week, Barack Obama’s justice department has come out in favor of renewing three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions—on face another in a train of disappointments for anyone who’d hoped some of those broad executive branch surveillance powers might depart with the Bush administration.

But there is a potential silver lining: In the letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) making the case for renewal, the Justice Department also declares its openness to “modifications” of those provisions designed to provide checks and balances, provided they don’t undermine investigations. While the popular press has always framed the fight as being “supporters” and “opponents” of the PATRIOT Act, the problem with many of the law’s provisions is not that the powers they grant are inherently awful, but that they lack necessary constraints and oversight mechanisms.

Consider the much-contested “roving wiretap” provision allowing warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover all the communications devices a target might use without specifying the facilities to be monitored in advance—at least in cases where there are specific facts supporting the belief that a target is likely to take measures to thwart traditional surveillance. The objection to this provision is not that intelligence officers should never be allowed to obtain roving warrants, which also exist in the law governing ordinary law enforcement wiretaps. The issue is that FISA is fairly loosey-goosey about the specification of “targets”—they can be described rather than identified. That flexibility may make some sense in the foreign intel context, but when you combine it with similar flexibility in the specification of the facility to be monitored, you get something that looks a heck of a lot like a general warrant. It’s one thing to say “we have evidence this particular phone line and e-mail account are being used by terrorists, though we don’t know who they are” or “we have evidence this person is a terrorist, but he keeps changing phones.” It’s another—and should not be possible—to mock traditional particularity requirements by obtaining a warrant to tap someone on some line, to be determined. FISA warrants should “rove” over persons or facilities, but never both.

The DOJ letter describes the so-called “Lone Wolf” amendment to FISA as simply allowing surveillance of targets who are agents of foreign powers without having identified which foreign power (i.e. which particular terrorist group) they’re working for. They say they’ve never invoked this ability, but want to keep it in reserve. If that description were accurate, I’d say let them. But as currently written, the “lone wolf” language potentially covers people who are really conventional domestic threats with only the most tenuous international ties—the DOJ letter alludes to people who “self-radicalize” by reading online propaganda, but are not actually agents of a foreign group at all.

Finally, there’s the “business records” provision, which actually covers the seizure of any “tangible thing.”  The problems with this one probably deserve their own post, and ideally you’d just go through the ordinary warrant procedure for this. But at the very, very least there should be some more specific nexus to a particular foreign target than “relevance” to a ongoing investigation before an order issues. The gag orders that automatically accompany these document requests also require more robust judicial scrutiny.

Some of these fixes—and quite a few other salutary reforms besides—appear to be part of the JUSTICE Act which I see that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced earlier this afternoon.  I’ll take a closer look at the provisions of that bill in a post tomorrow.

Bagram, Habeas, and the Rule of Law

Andrew C. McCarthy has an article up  at National Review criticizing a recent decision by Obama administration officials to improve the detention procedures in Bagram, Afghanistan.

McCarthy calls the decision an example of pandering to a “despotic” judiciary that is imposing its will on a war that should be run by the political branches. McCarthy’s essay is factually misleading, ignores the history of wartime detention in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, and encourages the President to ignore national security decisions coming out of the federal courts.

More details after the jump.

McCarthy is Factually Misleading

McCarthy begins by criticizing a decision by District Judge John Bates to allow three detainees in Bagram, Afghanistan, to file habeas corpus petitions testing the legitimacy of their continued detention. McCarthy would have you believe that this is wrong because they are held in a combat zone and that they have already received an extraordinary amount of process by wartime detention standards. He is a bit off on both accounts.

First, this is not an instance where legal privileges are “extended to America’s enemies in Afghanistan.” The petition from Bagram originally had four plaintiffs, none of whom were captured in Afghanistan – they were taken into custody elsewhere and moved to Bagram, which is quite a different matter than a Taliban foot soldier taken into custody after an attack on an American base. As Judge Bates says in his decision, “It is one thing to detain t

hose captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram, which [government attorneys] correctly maintain is in a theater of war. It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries – far from any Afghan battlefield – and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach.”

Judge Bates also took into account the political considerations of hearing a petition from Haji Wazir, an Afghan man detained in Dubai and then

moved to Bagram. Because of the diplomatic implications of ruling on an Afghan who is on Afghan soil, Bates dismissed Wazir’s petition. So much for judicial “despotism” and judicial interference on the battlefield, unless you define the world as your battlefield.

Second, the detainees have not been given very much process. Their detentions have been approved in “Unlawful Enemy Combatant Review Boards.” Detainees in these proceedings have no American representative, are not present at the hearings, and submit a written statement as to why they should be released without any knowledge of what factual basis the government is using to justify their detention. This is far less than the Combatant Status Review Tribunal procedures held insufficient in the Supreme Court’s Boumediene ruling.

Yes, Fix Detention in Afghanistan

McCarthy then chides the Obama administration for trying to get ahead of the courts by affording more process to detainees: “See, we can give the enemy more rights without a judge ordering us to do so!”

Well, yes. We should fix the detention procedures used in Afghanistan to provide the adequate “habeas substitute” required by Boumediene so that courts either: (1) don’t see a need to intervene; or (2) when they do review detention, they ratify the military’s decision more often than not.

Thing is, the only substitute for habeas is habeas. Habeas demands a hearing, with a judge, with counsel for both the detainee and the government, and a weighing of evidence and intelligence that a federal court will take seriously. If the military does this itself, then the success rate in both detaining the right people and sustaining detention decisions upon review are improved.

This is nothing new or unprecedented. Salim Hamdan, Usama Bin Laden’s driver, received such a hearing prior to his military commission. The CSRT procedures that the Bagram detainees are now going to face were insufficient to subject Hamdan to a military commission, so Navy Captain Keith Allred granted Hamdan’s motion for a hearing under Article V of the Geneva Conventions to determine his legal status.

Allred found that Hamdan’s service to Al Qaeda as Osama Bin Laden’s driver and occasional bodyguard, pledge of bayat (allegiance) to Bin Laden, training in a terrorist camp, and transport of weapons for Al Qaeda and affiliated forces supported finding him an enemy combatant. Hamdan was captured at a roadblock with two surface-to-air missiles in the back of his vehicle. The Taliban had no air force; the only planes in the sky were American. Hamdan was driving toward Kandahar, where Taliban and American forces were engaged in a major battle. The officer that took Hamdan into custody took pictures of the missiles in Hamdan’s vehicle before destroying them.

Hamdan’s past association with the Ansars (supporters), a regularized fighting unit under the Taliban, did not make him a lawful combatant. Though the Ansars wore uniforms and bore their arms openly, Hamdan was taken into custody in civilian clothes and had no distinctive uniform or insignia. Based on his “direct participation in hostilities” and lack of actions to make him a lawful combatant, Captain Allred found that Hamdan was an unlawful enemy combatant.

Hamdan’s Article V hearing should be the template for battlefield detention. Charles “Cully” Stimson at the Heritage Foundation, a judge in the Navy JAG reserves and former Bush administration detainee affairs official, wrote a proposal to do exactly that, Holding Terrorists Accountable: A Lawful Detention Framework for the Long War.

The more we legitimize and regularize these decisions, the better off we are. Military judges should be writing decisions on detention and publishing declassified versions in military law reporters. One of the great tragedies of litigating the detainees from the early days in Afghanistan is that a number were simply handed to us by the Northern Alliance with little to no proof and plenty of financial motive for false positives. My friends in the service tell me that we are still running quite a catch-and-release program in Afghanistan. I attribute this to arguing over dumb cases from the beginning of the war when we had little cultural awareness and a far less sophisticated intelligence apparatus. Detention has become a dirty word. By not establishing a durable legal regime for military detention, we created lawfare fodder for our enemies and made it politically costly to detain captured fighters.

The Long-Term Picture

McCarthy, along with too many on the Right, is fixated on maintaining executive detention without legal recourse as our go-to policy for incapacitating terrorists and insurgents. In the long run we need to downshift our conflicts from warmaking to law enforcement, and at some point detention transitions to trial and conviction.

McCarthy might blast me for using the “rule of law” approach that he associates with the Left and pre-9/11 counterterrorism efforts. Which is fine, since, just as federal judges “have no institutional competence in the conduct of war,” neither do former federal prosecutors.

Counterterrorism and counterinsurgency are not pursued solely by military or law enforcement means. We should use both. The military is a tool of necessity, but in the long run, the law is our most effective weapon.

History dictates an approach that uses military force as a means to re-impose order and the law to enforce it. The United States did this in Iraq, separating hard core foreign fighters from local flunkies and conducting counterinsurgency inside its own detention facilities. The guys who were shooting at Americans for a quick buck were given some job training and signed over to a relative who assumed legal responsibility for the detainee’s oath not to take up arms again. We moved detainees who could be connected to specific crimes into the Iraqi Central Criminal Court for prosecution. We did all of this under the Law and Order Task Force, establishing Iraqi criminal law as the law of the land.

We did the same in Vietnam, establishing joint boards with the Vietnamese to triage detainees into Prisoner of War, unlawful combatant, criminal defendant, and rehabilitation categories.

The Washington Post article on our detention reforms in Afghanistan indicates that we are following a pattern similar to past conflicts. How this is a novel and dangerous course of action escapes me.

Who’s the Despot Here?

McCarthy points to FDR as a model for our actions in this conflict between the Executive and Judiciary branches. He says that the President should ignore the judgments of the courts in the realm of national security and their “despotic” decrees. I do not think this word means what he thinks it means.

FDR was the despot in this chapter of American history, threatening to pack the Supreme Court unless they adopted an expansive view of federal economic regulatory power. The effects of an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause are felt today in an upending of the balance of power that the Founders envisioned between the states and the federal government.

McCarthy does not seem bothered by other historical events involving the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief in the realm of national security. The Supreme Court has rightly held that the President’s war powers do not extend to breaking strikes at domestic factories when Congress declined to do so during the Korean War, trying American citizens by military commission in places where the federal courts are still open and functioning, and declaring the application of martial law to civilians unconstitutional while World War II was under way.

The Constitution establishes the Judiciary as a check on the majoritarian desires of the Legislature and the actions of the Executive, even during wartime. To think otherwise is willful blindness.

Obama: I Want Those Patriot Act Powers

Yesterday, President Obama’s lawyers informed members of Congress that the president does not want any provision of the  Patriot Act to expire.  Turns out that  Obama wants to have the sweeping powers.  This is just the latest example of the cacophony that pervades Washington.  When Bush was in the White House, the Dems postured against his runaway spending, his military quagmires, and his constitutional violations.  With Obama in the White House, Bush’s most misguided policies either continue or worsen.

Obama is in the news today for his “off-the-record” comment about Kanye West.  It would have been better had a reporter overheard Obama saying something like, “John Ashcroft was a terrific Attorney General, but  I’ll never admit that publicly.”

For related Cato work, go here and here.

Google Book Search, Class Actions and the Separation of Powers

In response to yesterday’s post making the case against the Google Book Search Deal, I had spirited conversation with Google policy analyst Derek Slater, who helped me understand Google’s perspective on the case and some of the issues I discussed.

He raised a reasonable objection to my claim that “the settlement would give Google carte blanche to use these orphan works without making a serious effort to contact their owners.” He points out that the settlement stipulates that the Book Rights Registry will make an effort to locate orphan works holders and hold funds in escrow for five years to be paid to any orphan work holders who surface. Describing this as “carte blanche” was probably too strong. I think my basic point—that Google won’t be required to conduct the kind of “diligent search” for rightsholders before using a work—is still valid, but I could have made this point more carefully.

He also quibbled with my contention that the settlement would confer permanent competitive advantages on Google. I think I’m on firmer ground here; although the settlement does extend to Google’s competitors some of the advantages Google itself enjoys, the fact remains that Google would receive broad immunity from copyright lawsuits that would not be extended to Google’s competitors.

Much of our conversation focused on how various parties would be helped or harmed by the settlement. Derek explained that approving the settlement would have some worthwhile consequences: the orphan works problem would be mitigated, libraries and universities would get access to a vast database of books online, and consumers would continue to enjoy access the great product that is Google Book Search. He pointed to various provisions that give third parties access to some of the same licensing opportunities available to Google itself. And he may be right, for example, that most orphan works holders would be made better off by the settlement, since the deal would generate extra income that would be escrowed for them should they subsequently surface.

The problem is that I don’t really know how the various class members might be affected by the settlement. And more importantly, I don’t think the judge does either. The settlement is extremely complex, and it will have too many effects on too many parties for anyone to fully evaluate all of them. In the last month, we’ve seen literally dozens of parties file comments with the courts in support or opposition to the settlement. Indeed, the volume of the comment is so large that I suspect the judge is beginning to feel overwhelmed. And there are doubtless many other parties that would object to the settlement but lack the knowledge or legal savvy to submit comments.

The judicial process works well precisely because it typically makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, fitting the circumstances of each case to an evolving body of precedent. This incremental approach tends to produce a body of law that adapts well to changing circumstances while giving all affected parties the opportunity to have their interests represented. Because different cases are heard by different judges, the mistakes of any one judge won’t unduly influence the direction of the law’s evolution. The class mechanism tends to undermine these beneficial properties of our legal system. Rather than many cases being decided by many judges over a period of years, a class action lawsuit asks a single judge to render justice for thousands of plaintiffs whose individual interests can’t possibly all be represented by the attorneys presenting arguments to the judge. Especially when the proposed class is as large and heterogeneous as the plaintiffs in the Google Book Search case, the class action mechanism demands that the judge to balance the competing interests of thousands of different parties, many of whom have divergent interests. No single person could possibly weigh all the competing arguments in a systematic fashion.

Fortunately, we have an institution with the infrastructure and accountability to deal with precisely this kind of situation: the legislative branch. I think many people find the Google Book Search settlement appealing precisely because it provides an opportunity to bypass the stalemate on Capitol Hill and achieve some de facto changes in the copyright regime that lots of people (including me) regard as desirable. But this perspective misunderstands why the legislative process is so slow and cumbersome. The problem isn’t that Congress is taking a simple problem and making it more complicated than it needs to be. The problem is that orphan works reform is a genuinely difficult problem that will affect the rights of many different people. Achieving consensus is genuinely difficult, we want a slow, sprawling, messy process to make sure everyone gets a fair hearing. The Google Book Search deal wouldn’t really resolve the complex trade-offs Congress is wrestling with, it would simply put the judiciary’s thumb on the scales in favor of those who happen to have the judges ear thanks to the peculiar structure of this lawsuit. This is undoubtedly a faster way to deal with the orphan works problem, but I don’t think it’s a better one.