Category: Politics

4

For Transparency Sake?

Recall after President Obama’s first inauguration the fuss made about his administration’s commitment to transparent government.  The January 2009 Open Government memorandum seemed a fresh start for openness in the post-9/11 era.  Now, four years later, drastic change in government secrecy has not materialized.  Let’s take DOJ’s release to two Congressional intelligence committees the OLC memo authorizing the use of drone strikes to kill American civilians abroad considered terrorists.  According to the New York Times, the administration had until now refused to even officially acknowledge the existence of the documents, which had been reported about in the media.  This recent revelation is just one example of what we say–a commitment to transparency–is not what we do.  Consider that in a 2010 memo, the DOJ endorsed “the presumption that [OLC] should make significant opinions fully and promptly available to the public.”  Despite this stated goal and the stated goals of the Open Government memorandum, the Sunlight Foundation reports that DOJ is “withholding from online publication 39% (or 201) of its 509 Office of Legal Counsel opinions promulgated between 1998 and 2012.”  That is not to say that we have made no progress.  As the Sunlight Foundation explains, the Obama administration published a slightly higher percentage of its OLC opinions online when compared to its predecessor. From inauguration until March 28, 2012, the Obama administration published 63% (40 of 63) of its OLC opinions online whereas Bush administration’s published 55% (54 of 98) of its second term opinions online, and published 11% (20 of 187) of its first term OLC opinions online by January 20, 2005.

Shane on Noel Canning

The recent DC Circuit opinion invalidating the President’s recess appointments to the NLRB may alter the balance of power between the branches as much as INS v. Chadha did. Peter Shane (no great fan of executive power grabs) makes the case:

[In Chadha, the Supreme Court said that the Constitution] gives Congress only one way to legislate: Majorities in both the House and the Senate must agree on a text to enact, and the president must sign it, or two-thirds of each House must vote to override the presidential veto. Neither the House, nor the Senate is entitled to make law all by itself. In a January 25 ruling, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit pretty much assured the Senate exactly that power. Even worse, it afforded that power not to a majority of senators, but to a minority. . . .

Read More

6

Schneier Calls Out Papers on How Terroristist Groups End

Bruce Schneier noted some research by Rand about How Terrorist Groups End. The abstract

Abstract: How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa’ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

likely rings true to many who question the use of drones etc. (The comments on Bruce’s page get into some of this point).

To me the fact that RAND put the paper out is interesting. I can never tell whether RAND or what RAND is about. It would seem that claims that RAND is only going to support the government’s goals might be challenged here. Also Bruce calls out the work of Max Abrahms who in 2008 and 2011 addressed these ideas as well. I urge you read the 2008 post and here is the 2011 abstract

The basic narrative of bargaining theory predicts that, all else equal, anarchy favors concessions to challengers who demonstrate the will and ability to escalate against defenders. For this reason, post-9/11 political science research explained terrorism as rational strategic behavior for non-state challengers to induce government compliance given their constraints. Over the past decade, however, empirical research has consistently found that neither escalating to terrorism nor with terrorism helps non-state actors to achieve their demands. In fact, escalating to terrorism or with terrorism increases the odds that target countries will dig in their political heels, depriving the nonstate challengers of their given preferences. These empirical findings across disciplines, methodologies, as well as salient global events raise important research questions, with implications for counterterrorism strategy.

Bruce was cool enough to include a link to the paper.

12

A Grouchy Post About the Election

I’m on record as basically hating blogging by law professors about politics, never more so than when the election is near. Obviously, given the state of commentary on the more popular law professor blogs of late, too few agree with me about how unenlightening most political blogging by professors is.   Well, it takes all kinds!  And there’s always Orin Kerr, writing about actual cases, to read.

But here’s something we can all agree on, I would hope. Law professors have no business telling students who to vote for.  I wonder what percentage of the academy already has, or will, violate this simple rule in the next two days?  My bet: over 25%, and the age distribution would be illuminating. Some additional percentage have probably told their students that as lawyers-in-training they have an extra obligation to participate in the “civic duty” of voting. This, in my mind, is nearly as bad, since it is usually motivated by some implicit sense that the targets of the message are going to vote the way you want them to.

Whew. Glad I got that off my chest!

0

Stanford Law Review Online: The Hunt for Noncitizen Voters

Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online has just published an Essay by Fatma Marouf entitled The Hunt for Noncitizen Voters. Professor Marouf writes that recent efforts by several states to purge noncitizens from their voter rolls may prevent many more citizens than noncitizens from voting:

Over the past year, states have shown increasing angst about noncitizens registering to vote. Three states—Tennessee, Kansas, and Alabama—have passed new laws requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register. Arizona was the first state to pass such a requirement, but the Ninth Circuit struck it down in April 2012, finding it incompatible with the National Voter Registration Act. Two other states—Florida and Colorado—have waged aggressive campaigns in recent months to purge noncitizens from voter registration lists. These efforts to weed out noncitizen voters follow on the heels of legislation targeting undocumented immigrants in a number of states. Yet citizens may be more harmed by the new laws than noncitizens, especially since the number of noncitizens registering to vote has turned out to be quite small. Wrongfully targeting naturalized or minority citizens in the search for noncitizens could also have negative ramifications for society as a whole, reinforcing unconscious bias about who is a “real” American and creating subclasses of citizens who must overcome additional hurdles to exercise the right to vote.

She concludes:

Some of the laws require voters to show government-issued photo IDs, which 11% of U.S. citizens do not have. Some have placed new burdens on voter registration drives, through which African-American and Hispanic voters are twice as likely to register as Whites. Others restrict early voting, specifically eliminating Sunday voting, which African-Americans and Hispanics also utilize more often than Whites. In two states, new laws rolled back reforms that had restored voting rights to citizens with felony convictions, who are disproportionately African-American. Each of these laws is a stepping-stone on the path to subsidiary citizenship. Rather than creating new obstacles to democratic participation, we should focus our energy on ensuring that all eligible citizens are able to exercise the fundamental right to vote.

Read the full article, The Hunt for Noncitizen Voters at the Stanford Law Review Online.

0

In case you missed it, ISPs now have a 6 Strikes Plan, A Whiff of ICANN?

Ah yes the ever-vigilant Internet democracy must have been watching, or maybe it agreed to ISP policing for copyright sort of like Google’s decision to take down search results for copyright issues. Who knows? The Shadow? Anyway, ISPs are now going to monitor usage to police copyright scofflaws. According to Wired, it is a six strikes plan

backed by the Obama administration and pushed by Hollywood and the major record labels to disrupt and possibly terminate internet access for online copyright scofflaws. … The plan, now four years in the making, [will trigger with] four offenses, [participating] residential internet providers {including AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon] [will] initiate so-called “mitigation measures” (.pdf) that might include reducing internet speeds and redirecting a subscriber’s service to an “educational” landing page about infringement. The internet companies may eliminate service altogether for repeat file-sharing offenders, although the plan does not directly call for such drastic action.

The action reminds me a little of Stanford University policy on file sharing where three strikes means you are shut out of Internet access and must pay $1,000 to reactivate. As more and more of life is online, I wonder about such a broad stroke for copyright violators. Then again some countries take away driver’s licenses for drunk driving. The U.S.A. is more lax on that front, I think. I am surprised to see that the Center for Copyright Information has a mix of members including Gigi Sohn; as Tim Lee put it “The picks suggest that the architects of the “Copyright Alert” system may be making a serious effort to strike a balance between the interests of copyright holders and the rights of users.”

Tim explained, however, that the board “has little direct authority over the Copyright Alerts system. The real power lies in the hands of the CCI’s executive board, which is stocked with content companies and ISPs.” He has some faith that the advisory roles give the noisy exit power to “public interest advocates like Berman and Sohn some leverage” who “can always resign in protest, giving the CCI a black eye in the press.” I am not so sure that anyone will give a damn in a way that can change the system even if such an exit is needed.

I also wonder whther this is a whiff of ICANN. Tim explained (he is rather good isn’t he?) that “The Copyright Alerts system will provide users with an opportunity to appeal “alerts” to an independent entity. That independent review process will be overseen by the American Arbitration Association. The AAA will train independent reviewers who will, in turn, hear appeals by individual users.” Given the numbers needed and the way ICANN and the UDRP has operated, I am again a bit wary of how this will all play out.

Given the folks involved, I hope my concerns do not pan out. But I would say keep an eye on this one before someone has to say “Help me Obi Wan, err Google? You’re my only hope.” They may not be up for the battle either.

0

On Information Justice

Like the other commenters on From Goods to a Good Life, I also enjoyed the book and applaud Professor Sunder’s initiative in engaging more explicitly in the values conversation than has been conventionally done in IP scholarship. I also agree with most of what the other commenters have said.  I want to offer plaudits, a few challenges, and some suggestions about future directions for this conversation.

Read More

3

Congressional Gridlock

My draft paper for the upcoming Notre Dame symposium on gridlock is here.  This is more tentative than what I normally post to SSRN, in part because I’m not convinced that I have a great answer about what (if anything) should be done about gridlock.

0

Stanford Law Review Online: Pulling the Plug on the Virtual Jury

Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online has just published a Note by Nicolas L. Martinez entitled Pulling the Plug on the Virtual Jury. Martinez takes issue with Judge William Young’s proposal that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried via videoconference from Guantanamo Bay by a jury sitting in New York:

Most people probably figured that the debate over where to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) had ended. Indeed, it has been well over a year since Congress forced Attorney General Eric Holder to reluctantly announce that KSM’s prosecution would be referred to the Department of Defense for trial before a Guantanamo military commission. But a provocative proposal put forth recently by Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts has revitalized one of the most contentious legal debates of the post-9/11 era. In a nutshell, Judge Young proposes that an Article III court try KSM at Guantanamo, but with one major twist: the jury would remain in New York City.

He concludes:

Perhaps unwilling to refight the battles of two years ago, Congress has shown no inclination to retreat from its apparent view that KSM may only be tried by a military commission at Guantanamo. As a result, following through on Judge Young’s plan, which could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the will of Congress, might lead some legislators to harden their stance on civilian trials for alleged terrorists and propose even more disagreeable legislation to that end. This is not to say that creative solutions aimed at fortifying the rule of law in a post-9/11 world should be held hostage to the proclivities of intransigent voting blocs in Congress. Quite the opposite, in fact. But the likely political ramifications of Judge Young’s proposal cannot be ignored, especially in an election year when few members of Congress may be willing to spend their political capital defending the need to hold KSM’s trial in federal court.

Even though Judge Young’s provocative suggestion should not be adopted in its current form, he has moved the conversation in the right direction. Continuing to think imaginatively about ways to preserve our rule of law tradition from external threats is immensely important, particularly in the context of national security crises. For it is when the rule of law can be so easily discarded that it must be most doggedly defended.

Read the full article, Pulling the Plug on the Virtual Jury at the Stanford Law Review Online.

0

Stanford Law Review Online: The Obama Justice Department’s Merger Enforcement Record

Stanford Law Review

Continuing our dialog on antitrust enforcement, the Stanford Law Review Online has just published an Essay by Daniel A. Crane entitled The Obama Justice Department’s Merger Enforcement Record. Professor Crane responds to Carl Shapiro and Jonathan Baker’s criticism of his response to his earlier Essay:

My recent Essay, Has the Obama Justice Department Reinvigorated Antitrust Enforcement?, examined the three major areas of antitrust enforcement—cartels, mergers, and civil non-merger—and argued that, contrary to some popular impressions, the Obama Justice Department has not “reinvigorated” antitrust enforcement. Jonathan Baker and Carl Shapiro have published a response, which focuses solely on merger enforcement. Baker and Shapiro’s argument that the Obama Justice Department actually did reinvigorate merger enforcement is unconvincing.

He concludes:

Jon Baker and Carl Shapiro are smart, effective economists for whom I have great respect. I have few quarrels with how they or the Obama Administration in general conduct antitrust enforcement. The point of my essay was that antitrust enforcement has become largely technocratic and independent of political ideology. I have heard nothing that dissuades me from that view.

Read the full article, The Obama Justice Department’s Merger Enforcement Record by Daniel A. Crane, at the Stanford Law Review Online.