One of the messes transferred to the Obama administration from George Bush’s DOJ is the misbehavior of federal prosecutors in the Siegelman case in Alabama. Scott Horton reports for Harpers:
U.W. Clemon, formerly Alabama’s most senior federal judge, has written a scorching letter to Attorney General Eric Holder itemizing gross misconduct by federal prosecutors involved in the Siegelman case and demanding that the Justice Department open a full investigation into the matter. “The 2004 prosecution of Mr. Siegelman in the Northern District of Alabama was the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career,” he writes. “In my judgment, his prosecution was completely without legal merit; and it could not have been accomplished without the approval of the Department of Justice.” Clemon goes on to note that prosecutors engaged in judicial forum shopping, attempted to poison the jury pool, and filed and pressed bogus charges.
The Ninth Circuit has ruled, in United States v. Reynolds, in effect, that a claim of “state secrets” cannot be sufficient to grant immunity to the government by an outright dismissal of a case. Rather, the government must proceed with the case and argue about specific items of evidence and whether such evidence is privileged from disclosure under the doctrine.
“This historic decision marks the beginning, not the end, of this litigation,” said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, who argued the case for the plaintiffs. “Our clients, who are among the hundreds of victims of torture under the Bush administration, have waited for years just to get a foot in the courthouse door. Now, at long last, they will have their day in court. Today’s ruling demolishes once and for all the legal fiction, advanced by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, that facts known throughout the world could be deemed ‘secrets’ in a court of law.”
The Ninth Circuit has ruled, in United States v. Reynolds, in effect, that a claim of “state secrets” cannot be sufficient to grant immunity to the government by an outright dismissal of a case. Rather, the government must proceed with the case and argue about specific items of evidence and whether such evidence is privileged from disclosure under the doctrine.
\
“This historic decision marks the beginning, not the end, of this litigation,” said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, who argued the case for the plaintiffs. “Our clients, who are among the hundreds of victims of torture under the Bush administration, have waited for years just to get a foot in the courthouse door. Now, at long last, they will have their day in court. Today’s ruling demolishes once and for all the legal fiction, advanced by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, that facts known throughout the world could be deemed ‘secrets’ in a court of law.”
… and they are available here. They should be required reading. More to come on this as I am still reading them. But from what I have read so far, I think Andrew Sullivan summarizes it very effectively:
Perhaps you are reading these documents alongside me. I’ve only read the Bybee memo, as chilling an artefact as you are ever likely to read in a democratic society, the work clearly not of a lawyer assessing torture techniques in good faith, but of an administration official tasked with finding how torture techniques already decided upon can be parsed in exquisitely disingenuous ways to fit the law, even when they clearly do not. This is what Hannah Arendt wrote of when she talked of the banality of evil. To read a bureaucrat finding ways to describe and parse away the clear infliction of torture on a terror suspect well outside any “ticking time bomb” scenario is to realize what so many of us feared and sensed from the shards of information we have been piecing together for years. It is all true. These memos form a coda to the Red Cross report, confirming its evidentiary conclusions, while finding exquisite, legalistic and preposterous ways to deny the obvious.
During the Bush administration, the Republicans (with too much help from the Democrats) greatly increased centralized government power, all in the name of “security.” So now, when the DHS puts out a report warning local police agencies about a growing risk of violence from right-wing fringe groups, the Republican blogosphere goes crazy. Glenn Greenwald asks where their outrage was during the last eight years. The usual trope of the right – if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear – doesn’t seem to calm them this time.
It’s certainly true that federal police efforts directed at domestic political movements — even ones with a history of inspiring violence in both the distant and recent past — require real vigilance and oversight, and it’s also true that the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief. But the political faction screeching about the dangers of the DHS is the same one that spent the last eight years vastly expanding the domestic Surveillance State and federal police powers in every area. DHS — and the still-creepy phrase “homeland security” — became George Bush’s calling card. The Republicans won the 2002 election by demonizing those who opposed its creation. All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State — from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA “reforms” to massive increases in domestic “counter-Terrorism” programs — are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.
When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it’s going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That’s its nature.
At several points in the last few years, as I gamely tried to convince conservatives that they should be concerned about the scale and scope of the Bush-Cheney surveillance state, the torture program, the claimed presidential right to seize, detain and torture anyone deemed an “enemy combatant”, the avoidance of the FISA law, the suspension of habeas corpus, I was ridiculed as an hysteric. When forced to defend basic civil liberties against a presidency claiming unprecedented war powers within the boundaries of the US and potentially against American citizens, I found only one argument got through. What if Hillary Clinton got this kind of power?
Finally. The “secret” overseas prison facilities where the Bush administration tortured prisoners (or so says the Red Cross, allied governments, Eric Holder and numerous other experts) are being closed by the CIA. Another step in the right direction by the Obama administration.
However, several more actions are required to begin to undo the damage, including a release of the “secret” torture memos produced by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, and a full “truth commission” type of investigation that brings everything out into the open as a means of dissuading future similar actions.
The Office of Legal Counsel is a department with the DOJ. Its job is to act essentially as the law firm for the federal government, offering various officials guidance as to what is legal. Today, the DOJ released a number of previously unpublished memoranda from the OLC. The main torture memorandums appear missing, however. Fascinating reading nonetheless and hopefully these newly expressed repudiations will resestablish some measure of consititutional government in this country.
The DOJ Inspector General has released its report analyzing actions taken in the Civil Rights Division under Bush by Bradley Schlozman. It is isn’t pretty. It concludes that ideological (political) decisions on hiring attorneys incivil service, non-political positions was rampant.
The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law – the Civil Service Reform Act – and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices. Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee.
Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.
The DOJ declined to prosecute Schlozman, according to the report.
… and they are available 
The DOJ Inspector General has released its