Difference between revisions of "US/DOJ"

From Wikispooks
< US
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(type)
(Add about Clapper v. Amnesty International USA)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
[[Sundus Shaker Saleh]], an Iraqi single mother and refugee living in Jordan filed a complaint in March 2013 against [[George W. Bush]], [[Richard Cheney]], [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Colin Powell]], [[Condoleezza Rice]] and [[Paul Wolfowitz]], arguing that they lied to the US public to deceitfully initiate a war of agression against [[Iraq]]. The United States Department of Justice brought 2 motions to dismiss the suit, claiming that since the defendants were acting within their scope of employment when planning and waging the Iraq War, they can not be held individually accountable for the harm caused. The case is currently in an unexplained legal limbo, since the hearing was cancelled ''sine die'' without explanation.<ref>http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/18/18752775.php</ref>
 
[[Sundus Shaker Saleh]], an Iraqi single mother and refugee living in Jordan filed a complaint in March 2013 against [[George W. Bush]], [[Richard Cheney]], [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Colin Powell]], [[Condoleezza Rice]] and [[Paul Wolfowitz]], arguing that they lied to the US public to deceitfully initiate a war of agression against [[Iraq]]. The United States Department of Justice brought 2 motions to dismiss the suit, claiming that since the defendants were acting within their scope of employment when planning and waging the Iraq War, they can not be held individually accountable for the harm caused. The case is currently in an unexplained legal limbo, since the hearing was cancelled ''sine die'' without explanation.<ref>http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/18/18752775.php</ref>
  
<!--
+
 
 
==Clapper v. Amnesty International USA==
 
==Clapper v. Amnesty International USA==
 
{{FA|Clapper v. Amnesty International USA}}
 
{{FA|Clapper v. Amnesty International USA}}
-->
+
The [[US Supreme Court]] ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" because the [[ACLU]] couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, including journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance. The court relied on two claims by the Justice Department
 +
# That the [[NSA]] would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance,
 +
# That the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the [[Fisa Amendments Act]]
 +
Both of these points are manifestly untrue after leaks by [[Edward Snowden]] prove that [[mass surveillance]] is targeting almost everyone, and no one is being notified of the fact. These manifest untruths notwithstanding, the ruling remains, more or less establishing a ''de facto'' precedent that anything done in secret is lawful.<ref>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court</ref>
  
 
==Hedges v. Obama==
 
==Hedges v. Obama==
 
[[Chris Hedges]] and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States".  
 
[[Chris Hedges]] and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States".  
On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing [[Clapper v. Amnesty International USA]], ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the law<ref name="Bloomberg20130717">{{cite news|last=Dolmetsch|first=Chris|title=Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/ruling-that-struck-down-military-detention-power-rejected.html|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="Reuters20130717">{{cite news|last=Vaughan|first=Bernard|title=U.S. appeals court tosses injunction limiting indefinite detention|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Reuters|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="THP20130717">{{cite news|last=Sledge|first=Matt|title=NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.htmlS|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=The Huffington Post|date=17 July 2013}}</ref> because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”<ref name="Bloomberg20130717" /> The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case.  
+
On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing [[Clapper v. Amnesty International USA]], ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law<ref name="Bloomberg20130717">{{cite news|last=Dolmetsch|first=Chris|title=Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/ruling-that-struck-down-military-detention-power-rejected.html|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="Reuters20130717">{{cite news|last=Vaughan|first=Bernard|title=U.S. appeals court tosses injunction limiting indefinite detention|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Reuters|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="THP20130717">{{cite news|last=Sledge|first=Matt|title=NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.htmlS|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=The Huffington Post|date=17 July 2013}}</ref> because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”<ref name="Bloomberg20130717" /> The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case.  
 
 
 
 
  
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 09:06, 26 May 2014

Group.png US/DOJ  Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png 3
US-DeptOfJustice-Seal.svg
MottoQui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur
FormationJuly 1, 1870
HeadquartersRobert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
Typelegal
Interest ofTy Clevenger
SubpageUS/DOJ/Corruption

Mark Gorton includes the "criminalization of the Justice Department" in the summarised history of the cabal. Some recent court decisions may elusidate to what he was referring:[1]

Saleh v. Bush

Full article: War crime

Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee living in Jordan filed a complaint in March 2013 against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, arguing that they lied to the US public to deceitfully initiate a war of agression against Iraq. The United States Department of Justice brought 2 motions to dismiss the suit, claiming that since the defendants were acting within their scope of employment when planning and waging the Iraq War, they can not be held individually accountable for the harm caused. The case is currently in an unexplained legal limbo, since the hearing was cancelled sine die without explanation.[2]


Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Full article: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

The US Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" because the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, including journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance. The court relied on two claims by the Justice Department

  1. That the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance,
  2. That the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act

Both of these points are manifestly untrue after leaks by Edward Snowden prove that mass surveillance is targeting almost everyone, and no one is being notified of the fact. These manifest untruths notwithstanding, the ruling remains, more or less establishing a de facto precedent that anything done in secret is lawful.[3]

Hedges v. Obama

Chris Hedges and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law[4][5][6] because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”[4] The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case.


 

An event carried out

EventDescription
Palmer RaidsA series of raids in 1919-1920 to capture and arrest foreign-born leftists and deport them from the United States. Breakthrough for J. Edgar Hoover.

 

A Document by US/DOJ

TitleDocument typePublication dateSubject(s)Description
File:USDOJ - Eyewitness Evidence - A Guide For Law Enforcement.pdfguidebookOctober 1999Witness
Evidence
Standard opatering procedure
DOJ Guidelines on Eye Witness testimony


Rating

3star.png 30 November 2018 Robin  This article points to a lot of material that expose the USDOJ for what it is.
Although it barely scratches the surface, this article gives a useful set of pointers to information to help the reader understand what the modern US DOJ is.
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


References