9.05.2007

a quiet rebellion

When Donald Rumsfeld resigned, I found little reason to join the celebration ricocheting through the blogosphere. Sure, we hated the man's snide arrogance, but is his absence anything more than window-dressing? As long as the US occupation of Iraq continues, does it matter who is the titular head of the operation? (And is Rumsfeld even out of the picture?)

In a similar way, I had trouble greeting Alberto Gonzales's resignation with great cheer. People are still locked up in the Guantánamo concentration camp without any semblance of due process, the so-called Patriot Act is permanent, habeas corpus has not been restored - and so forth.

But because I have a close friend who works for the Department of Justice [sic], I know that the US lawyers are not a monolithic bloc of fascists, and that many vehemently oppose the direction their "firm," so to speak, has taken.

Allan sent me this story about conscientious objectors within the US Department of Justice.
The government's legal arguments justifying the detention of hundreds of people at the Guantánamo Bay naval base have been repudiated three times by the U.S. Supreme Court. But it's not just outsiders who take issue with the U.S. Justice Department strategy: Up to one fourth of the department's own civil appellate staff has recently opted out of handling the government's cases against detainee appeals, two sources familiar with the matter tell U.S. News.

These conscientious objectors — their exact number is not known — have decided not to take part in the government's litigation against the detainees because of disagreements with the legal approach, these sources say. They would not elaborate on the specific reasons for the objections, but critics have long objected to the government's failure to formally charge detainees and have pushed for closing Guantánamo because of allegations of torture and inhumane conditions. Defense lawyers also contend that the government has stymied their cases by withholding documents and curbing client access.

The quiet rebellion has emerged in recent months among the approximately 56 attorneys in the appellate section of the Justice Department's civil division following a court ruling in February that placed the defense of the approximately 130 remaining Guantánamo cases under the responsibility of the appellate lawyers. More than 300 men captured shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 are still being held at Guantánamo over alleged ties to terrorists, although all but a handful have never been formally charged with crimes.

Though the objectors have created some tension among the appellate staff, it's unclear that their opposition has hampered the government's efforts—especially because the court ruling will be reviewed by the Supreme Court this term. But the staff attorneys' objections highlight how dissension has grown even within the department's own ranks.

Justice Department spokesperson Charles Miller declined comment.

The Justice Department has no formal policy allowing attorneys to opt out of certain cases, unlike some law firms that make clear they won't penalize associates who, for instance, choose not to defend tobacco companies. But, informally, attorneys have rejected certain types of cases.
[More here.]

I asked Friend at the DOJ for some comment. (Friend has asked to remain anonymous, so if you know who this is, please respect his or her privacy online.) FADOJ is a good person, and a liberal. FADOJ took an enormous cut in pay and lost millions in potential future earnings - you have no idea - both for the unique experience, and because the DOJ also does important work. FADOJ is now using Gonzales's resignation letter to the Department as a dart board - after having fixed the grammatical error, that is.

Here's an excerpt from Friend's email.
Yes, there's definitely been a "quiet rebellion," and in some cases not so quiet, amongst DOJ attorneys, in DC as well as "out in the field" like where I am. Leaving in droves and voicing their protests on exit, refusing to do certain cases, writing diatribe e-mails about the DOJ and sending them to the entire DOJ list, including [assistant US attorneys], agents, etc... (the most well-written diatribes you ever want to read, by the way!) And generally saying, in so many words, "fuck you -- fire me. You assholes."

But it still feels like helpless flailing to me. I wish the rebellion had started earlier so there would have been more effective resistance. Too many lawyers think too hard, and too many prosecutors are too busy "fighting crime" with overloaded caseloads, and too many government lawyers, good people as they may be, are too anxious about keeping their jobs. And of course then there are the political hacks and the apologists and the Germans-during-the Nazi-regime denial champs.

But the only light at the end of the tunnel is that it will hopefully be over soon (at least the "bosses" will be changed) and some drastic changes in policy will occur. That does happen pretty quickly when there's an administration change, at least.

As you know, I'm not as optimistic about regime change as FADOJ is, whether it be from another stolen election or some "national emergency" used as an excuse to suspend elections altogether. But I was heartened to know there is resistance from the inside. Their voices need to get a lot louder, and to get organized.

No comments: