Debo Adegbile
This post is about the Senate vote that failed to confirm Obama's nomination to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. It failed mostly because of the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and more importantly a scare campaign by the GOP, and the defection of 7 Democrats who joined them in voting no.
I must point to Chris Hayes' great piece here and Democracy Now! here
Wikipedia on Mumia Abu-Jamal
Mumia Support Website, FreeMumia.com
WaPo, How Mumia Abu-Jamal Doomed Dego Adegbile
WSJ Explaining Mumia Case
Myths and Facts
Here from the Washington Post, are some examples of the smear campaign
The New Hampshire GOP blasted out a statement this afternoon declaring:
"SHAHEEN VOTES FOR RADICAL OBAMA NOMINEE WHO DEFENDED UNREPENTANT COP
KILLER." The North Carolina Republican party issued a statement saying:
"Kay Hagan Votes For Extremist DOJ Nominee Who Helped Get A Convicted
Cop Killer Off The Hook."
and this I was not aware of until now, that
In 2009, Van Jones' support for a new trial for Abu-Jamal was one of the
things Republicans seized on while pushing for his ouster from the
White House.
Here from 2011 is an article on the Supreme Court ruling, posted on FreeMumia.com
Today the United States Supreme Court rejected a request from the
Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to overturn the most recent federal appeals court decision declaring Mumia Abu-Jamal’s death sentence unconstitutional. The Court’s decision brings to an end nearly thirty years of litigation over the fairness of the sentencing hearing that resulted in Mr. Abu-Jamal’s being condemned to death.
Here is
John Robert's past history as a defense attorney
What kind of person would defend a butcher with the blood of eight people on his hands? It was Chief Justice John Roberts, who devoted 25 pro bono hours to Ferguson’s case when he was working in private practice.
continued
Not everyone is willing to extend that view to Debo Adegbile, President
Obama’s nominee to head the civil rights division at the Department of
Justice.
continued
The conservative campaign against Adegbile recalls an effort during Obama’s first term to attack Justice Department officials
as terrorist sympathizers because they had successfully represented
Gitmo detainees. That effort fizzled when a group of conservative
attorneys signed a letter defending those officials as having done their part to ensure due process.
Here is Senator Patrick Leahy's statement, who Adegbile worked for in the Senate, pointing out the hypocrisy of voting against Adegbile's nomination based on Mumia's case, but also voting against bulletproof vests for police officers.
Despite Debo’s expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a
single case: Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeal of his death sentence for the
1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. It should go without saying
that we all condemn the murder of Officer Faulkner. That was a horrific
tragedy, and my heart goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members
who have lost a loved one in the line of duty. Officer Faulkner served
bravely to protect our community and to defend our system of justice and
our Constitution. It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many
of us to support programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program. I only wish that my proactive effort ignited as much passion
from my friends on the other side of the aisle as their negative
reaction to this nominee. Unfortunately, not a single Senate Republican
has joined me in this fight to protect the lives of police officers
since 2008.
Someone solely watching Fox News might think this nominee himself was
a criminal but of course he is not. The attacks launched against this
nominee demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a
lawyer and the very constitutional system of justice that law
enforcement officers all swear an oath to protect. It is time to clear
the record. (emphasis mine)
Here is Senator Tom Harkin, who I have mentioned a lot in previous blog posts, on the Senate Vote
link
Earlier today a vote was taken in the United States Senate that, to this
Senator, marked about the lowest point that I think this Senate has
descended into in my 30 years here,” Harkin began.
If you are a young white person, and you go to work for a law firm … and
that law firm assigns you to a pro-bono case to defend someone who
killed eight people in cold blood … my advice from what happened today
is you should do that. It’s part of your legal obligation, part of your
procession. Because if you do that, who knows, you might wind up to be
the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
However, if you are a young black person, and you go to work for the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and they assign you under your obligations as
an attorney in keeping with your oath of office, they assign you to
appeal a case of someone who committed a heinous murder … the message
sent today is don’t do it. Don’t do it. Because you know what, if you do
that, in keeping with your legal obligations and your profession, you
will be denied by the U.S. Senate from being an attorney in the U.S.
Department of Justice.
I will fully admit that those of us on the left have not been completely innocent, often making the same charges when we look at prosecutors and defense attorneys in cases we don't agree with. Regardless, both roles are crucial, and while reforms are needed in the criminal justice system, nominations of qualified nominees should go through the Senate without smear campaigns based on false accusations, while those who are against it claim the moral high ground.
This post can go by many themes, as do many GOP actions, especially since Obama has been President.
- Ripples of Racism
- Hurdles of Hatred
- Hypocrisy of History
- Radical Revisionism by Republicans
- GOP "forgets" our Founder's real ideals
This post will focus on John Adams, William Kunstler, and Stanley Cohen as lawyers who live the Constitutional right that those accused of a crime have access to a defense lawyer.
The 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
America has built into its Constitution the right of the accused in a criminal case the right to a defense attorney. This is repeated in Miranda Rights, and in the history of our country, including our Founding Fathers.
From
NOLO on Miranda Warnings
Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their
rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to
read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use
anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial. Of
course, as with nearly all legal rules, there are exceptions. (To read
about one such exception, see The Emergency Exception to the Miranda Rule.)
The Emergency Exception to Miranda was used in the Boston Marathon Bombing case, and was widely discussed in the news at the time.
Justia.com 4/22/2013
While
it is important that the media and the public understand that the
public safety exception should guide courts, not law enforcement, it is
equally important that law enforcement officers understand the same. The
public safety exception is not a carte blanche for law enforcement
officers to cite public safety in disregarding arrestees’ constitutional
rights; rather, it is a means by which courts may acknowledge (and not
penalize) that certain specific lines of questioning were done with the
good-faith intent of preserving public safety.
While
it is important that the media and the public understand that the
public safety exception should guide courts, not law enforcement, it is
equally important that law enforcement officers understand the same. The
public safety exception is not a carte blanche for law enforcement
officers to cite public safety in disregarding arrestees’ constitutional
rights; rather, it is a means by which courts may acknowledge (and not
penalize) that certain specific lines of questioning were done with the
good-faith intent of preserving public safety. - See more at:
http://verdict.justia.com/2013/04/22/mirandas-public-safety-exception#sthash.mICWZWo4.dpuf
New Yorker 4/21/2013
Tsarnaev might not be able to be Mirandized at the moment—it is not clear how bad his condition is. [Update: he was questioned Sunday, without a Miranda warning.] But there was a decision not to do so as soon as he was captured.
continued
The loose notion that there is a fixed forty-eight-hour waiver became so
quickly entrenched that there seemed to be more worries about the clock
ticking than about the timer on any bomb still out there; Lindsey
Graham, on CNN, suggested that it constituted a sort of deadline for
starting to treat him as an enemy combatant. (Graham did remind people that, being an American citizen, Tsarnaev couldn’t be tried before a military commission.
Before Glenn Greenwald started disclosing NSA documents leaked by Whistleblower Edward Snowden, Greenwald
wrote about Lindsey Graham's comments about the Boston Bombing and about a precedent, Jose Padilla [
emphasis mine]
But given how Graham's statements were treated like some sort of
shocking aberration, it is worth noting that the US government
previously did exactly what he advocated. In 2002, US citizen Jose
Padilla was arrested on terrorism charges on US soil (at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport), and shortly before he was to be tried,
the Bush administration declared him to be an "enemy combatant",
transferred him to a military brig, and then imprisoned him (and tortured him)
for the next 3 1/2 years without charges, a lawyer, or any contact with
the outside world. That was the incident that most propelled me to
start political writing, but it barely registered as a political
controversy.
The brilliant blogger Marcy Wheeler also was discussing the Boston Marathon case before the Snowden documents were released.
April 20, 2013
link
Now, thus far, I’m actually not that worked up about Miranda rights (though I may get there soon). As Orin Kerr explains,
the public safety exception is a legally recognized law, and Miranda
itself only limits what can be admitted as testimony against Dzhokhar in
his trial (I’m betting he’ll plead guilty in any case). The government
appears to have so much evidence against him in any case, any confession
he makes will likely not be necessary to convict him.
Marcy writes that instead of Miranda, the bigger issue is not bringing a defendant before a judge fast enough
But the big issue, in my opinion, is presentment, whether he is brought
before a judge within 48 hours. In addition to stretching Miranda, the
government has also been holding and interrogating suspects for periods —
up to two weeks for American citizens and far longer for non-citizens —
before they see a judge.
continued
In my opinion, two of the most troubling cases like this, both
involving naturalized citizens accused of terrorism, are Faisal Shahzad
and Manssor Arbabsiar.
Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, was
held and questioned, reportedly with the help of the HIG, for two weeks
before he first appeared before a judge. Each day during that period, he
signed a waiver of his right to appear before a judge. Ultimately, he
plead guilty, so no one every questioned whether his confessions were
coerced or not.
continued
There are a lot of reasons why delaying reading Dzhokar his Miranda
rights are wrong, ethically. But I’m not as worried about that as the
possibility they’ll stash Dzhokar away for a couple of weeks without a
lawyer or any oversight. And in any case, the Administration seems
intent on developing both means of curtailing rights.
The lawyer and blogger at Emptywheel known as Bmaz replies in a comment that
the presumption of Rule 5 I/A presentment within 48 hours still
holds, absent exceptional circumstances. That said, the medical
disabilities are likely such exceptional circumstances.
More on Miranda and Boston Bombing case:
New York Times 4/21/2013
The talk about treating an American citizen as an enemy combatant and stripping him of his rights flies in the face of another case in Boston, The Boston "Massacre" of 1770, when British soldiers, still in a British Colony at the time, fired on a group of protestors, killing 5 and injuring 6 others. John Adams, who was later to become our President,
defended the BRITISH soldiers, as an example of the equal rights of the accused to a defense when charged with a crime.
A great article on the Boston "Massacre" and John Adams's defense of the accused British Soldiers by John Tobin is available
here
Here are some key points from the article
After his retirement, John Adams's reflections on the case brought up an earlier part of American history, the prosecution of the Quakers and "witches"----Adams saw a wrong verdict would have been a further stain on the country.
The Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson, and future President John Adams both believed in the rule of law, seeking justice for those killed and injured, and the inherint right to an effective defense for the accused. THAT is what America was founded on, and this is what the GOP has used against Adegbile, the nominee for the Department of Justice Civil Rights division.
Source
Adams’ [sic] defense of these British soldiers was a reflection of his personal integrity and sense of justice, for by this time, he had certainly lost any sympathy or loyalty for a British government he believed was becoming increasingly tyrannical.
John Kennedy writing in
Profiles in Courage writes about John Adams's
selfless risks he had taken in defending the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre source
writing (pg 200)
To close our stories of American political courage, we would do well to recall an act of courage which preceded the founding of this nation, and which set a standard for all to follow. On the night of March 5, 1770, when an abusive and disorderly mob on State Street in Boston was rashly fired upon by British sentries, John Adams of Massachusetts was already a leader in the protests against British indifference to colonist grievances. He was, moreover, a lawyer of standing in the community and a candidate for the General Court at the next election. Thus, even had he not joined in the sense of shocked outrage with which all of Boston greeted the "Boston Massacre," he would nevertheless have profited by remaining silent.
continued
But this militant foe of the Crown was asked to serve as counsel for the accused soldiers, and did not even hesitate to accept. The case, he later noted in his autobiography, was one of the "most exhausting and fatiguing causes I ever tried, hazarding a popularity very hardly earned, and incurring popular suspicions and prejudices which are not yet worn out." Yet the man who would later be a bold President--not only remained as counsel, but acquited his clients of the murder charge, demonstrating to a packed courtroom that no evidence was at hand to show that the firing was malicious and without provocation:
quoting Adams
"Whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. The law will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imagination and wanton tempers of men...Gentlemen of the Jury--I am for the prisoners at the bar; and shall apologize for it only in the words of the Marquis Becaria: "If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, his blessings and tears shall be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of mankind!"
20th Century "John Adams" William Kunstler and Stanley Cohen
Wikipedia on William Kuntsler
From 1983 until Kunstler's death in 1995, he employed future radio personality Ron Kuby
as a junior partner. The two took on controversial civil rights and
criminal cases, including cases where they represented Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, head of the Egyptian-based terrorist group Gama'a al-Islamiyah, responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (emphasis added)
for more on Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman see
Mary Weaver's A Portrait of Egypt William Kuntsler is discussed on pages 78 and 224-225 and discussion of the Sheik takes up a large portion of the book, including Chapter 4
William Kuntsler from
Daily News
If "Disturbing the Universe" makes only one larger point with which his
critics might reluctantly agree, it's the idea the American system
cannot function as the Founding Fathers intended without a William
Kunstler. (emphasis mine)
Kuntsler
defended among others
El Sayyid Nosair, who was accused of assassinating the militant Jewish
leader Rabbi Meir Kahane, and the drug dealer Larry Davis. (Nosair and
Davis, who was charged with shooting six cops, were both acquitted.) In
1993, while defending a terror suspect charged in the first bombing of
the World Trade Center, Kunstler boasted to the Times, “I’m more loved and more hated than I ever was.”
In fact, page 290 of
Unequal Justice points out that
Kuntsler was berated in the American Bar Association Journal for declaring that he was "not a lawyer for hire" but would "only defend those I love."
continued
The ABA, suddenly discovering the virtue of competent counsel for all observed: "We know from long collective experience that many will go without legal defense or representation if they must depend on finding a lawyer who 'loves' them." Still, that experience had never much impressed the ABA until Kuntsler and other activist lawyers engaged in their own form of amorous selectivity.
Today, William's daughter Sarah Kuntsler is now a defense lawyer as well, recently representing Jeremy Hammond. Here is her statement in that trial
link and Jeremy Hammond's own statement
link as well as Alexa O'Brien's statement to the court
link
Finally there is
Stanley Cohen, currently representing Osama bin Laden's son-in-law in court in New York, charged with inciting violence against Americans after 9/11 by acting as Al Qaeda spokesman and propogandist.
Other cases
Kuntsler said he would only take defendants he "loves," but Cohen was chosen by Ghaith this time
link
The Trial of Suleiman Abu Ghaith
Abu Ghaith is charged with conspiring to kill Americans and providing
material support and resources to terrorists. He faces life in prison if
convicted. link
continued
Abu Ghaith’s lawyer, Stanley Cohen, warned jurors that the government
would try to overwhelm them with videos and questionable witnesses and
said there was no evidence against his client.
continued
Specifically, the government contends Abu Ghaith spent time in
Afghanistan with bin Laden soon after the attacks and recorded several
statements threatening further attacks against Americans, including one
that said "the storm of airplanes will not stop."
the GOP attacks again
Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican, spoke for many in his
party when he criticised the Obama administration's decision to try Abu
Ghaith in New York. "A foreign member of al-Qaeda should never be
treated like a common criminal and should never hear the words, 'You
have the right to remain silent,'" Graham said. link
Cohen says the government's case is weak,
saying
What you’re going to hear at the end of this is after 13 years, it
comes down to words and association, and words and association,” Mr.
Cohen said.
This is America, could you imagine if we indicted Osama bin Laden himself and wanted to try him in New York after he had already attacked it? Oh wait....hypocrisy rises again folks.
1998 Osama bin Laden indictment in New York
As noted in recent months with Obama's escalation of drone strikes, including considering targeting another US citizen for death without due process or trial as shown above, many journalists have brought up the indictment of Osama bin Laden.
On Point
The White House debates a drone attack against a U.S. citizen and terror
suspect in Pakistan. We’ll look at Washington’s kill list and American
drone policy.
Jeremy Scahill
says
Obama has declared the world a battlefield and reserves the right to
drone bomb countries in pursuit of people against whom we have no direct
evidence or who we’re not seeking any indictment against.” (emphasis mine)
