News Round-up: Religion, Spy Satellites, Death Penalty, National Security
Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money takes issue with the "idea that Congress should be bound by the "original intent" of past laws."
ABC News reported "Plans by a Christian group to send an evangelical video game to U.S. troops in Iraq were abruptly halted yesterday by the Department of Defense after ABC News inquired about the program." (H/T Religion Clause) From RC:
The Department of Defense has stopped plans by a Christian evangelical group to send soldiers in Iraq a video game in which Christian believers fight the Antichrist in the Battle of Armageddon.
Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reports the "domestic use of spy satellites to widen."
The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.
A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance. . . .
A statement issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security said that officials envision "more robust access" not only to imagery but also to "the collection, analysis and production skills and capabilities of the intelligence community. . . ."
Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times calling on "California [to] reject the U.S. attorney general's effort to bend death penalty rules." (H/T How Appealing)
Gonzales, it has been widely reported, is about to certify California and other states as being in compliance with the 1996 law, in essence just giving them the six-month statute of limitations. But these states have done nothing that this law requires. Everywhere but Arizona, death row inmates still have to pay for their attorneys (unlikely), get pro bono representation (difficult) or represent themselves (unwise). Any "certification" is a lie.Those who favor the shorter statute of limitations are frustrated by the long delays before executions are carried out. But Gonzales' move is not about preventing delays; at most, it speeds things up by six months. It is about preventing some inmates from having a habeas corpus petition heard at all.
Judge Marsha S. Berzon Receives ABA’s Margaret Brent Award. The award is "for her professional accomplishments and efforts to assure fair and equitable treatment of women in the workplace."
Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports on a hearing before the Ninth Circuit regarding claims that a suit challenging NSA surveillance programs should be dismissed because of national security concerns.
“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?” Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer. His tone was one of incredulity and frustration.
Gregory G. Garre, a deputy solicitor general representing the administration, replied that the courts had a role, though a limited one, in assessing the government’s assertion of the so-called state secrets privilege, which can require the dismissal of suits that could endanger national security. Judges, he said, must give executive branch determinations “utmost deference. . . .”
The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of suits against the government and telecommunications companies over N.S.A. surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the federal trial court here, Vaughn R. Walker.The appeals concern two related questions that must be answered before the merits of the challenges can be considered: whether the plaintiffs can clearly establish that they have been injured by the programs, giving them standing to sue; and whether the state secrets privilege requires dismissal of the suits on national security grounds.
Though the questions are preliminary, the impact of the appeals court’s ruling may be quite broad. Should it rule for the government on either ground, the legality of the N.S.A. programs may never be adjudicated.