Category: News Feeds

A shibboleth of right-wing American politics is a steadfast commitment to the death penalty as a moral good unto itself. Innocent or guilty, all that matters is the machine of Judge Dredd-level violence roll on. Government officials aren’t even above making illegal transactions with shady overseas drug dealers to keep it going. And now, courtesy of a decision from the UK Supreme Court, Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo and the rest of the Trump crew appear to have botched the prosecution of a pair of notorious terrorists rather than just give up on the death penalty.

Way to go, guys.

El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey are allegedly a pair of ISIS executioners that the U.S. has successfully captured. They were UK citizens until the Brits stripped them of their citizenship, but the UK doesn’t want to attempt prosecuting them out of concern that they might fail to secure a conviction. However, the United States has a lower bar to clear on that score, making it convenient to just let the Americans go ahead with the case since they already have them in custody anyway.

But, of course, the UK has banned the death penalty and requires its government to receive assurances that other countries won’t seek the death penalty before handing over investigative material that could be used in a trial.

After talking to Trump’s team, the Tory government realized they weren’t going to get that and decided to go ahead and illegally hand over the material anyway. The UK Supreme Court is… not pleased with this.

According to documents, Jeff Sessions complained to the former UK Home Secretary that “the U.S. should not be left to assume responsibility for ‘other nations’ terrorist fighters,’” an uncharacteristic departure from American Exceptionalism — these people murdered Americans, Americans have them in custody, America should be ready to prosecute them. Whether or not that’s the proper international norm, that’s absolutely the norm the Republican base wants to see.

And the cognitive dissonance probably stems from this all being a bluff to force the UK to turn over the extensive evidence it had gathered on the pair. At the very hint that this transfer might be conditioned upon a death penalty waiver, the former UK ambassador to Washington wrote:

“Their reaction is likely to be something close to outrage,” Darroch warned, adding that it might “wind up” President Donald Trump.

“They already feel that we are dumping on them a problem for which we should take responsibility. They have been signaling to us for weeks now that we are in no position to attach any conditions to this,” he wrote.

Thus, in spite of its legal obligations, the UK government wrote Sessions explaining that they had no problem with the death penalty and handed over the material. Unsurprisingly, this seems to have ended the administration’s outrage over prosecuting two former British nationals.

The UK Supreme Court, delivering a video opinion because of coronavirus, was appropriately flabbergasted:

In his judgment, Lord Robert Carnwath concluded that the information in question was transferred “without any safeguards at all.”

He said the decision was based on “political expediency, rather than consideration of strict necessity under the statutory criteria.”

The court criticized the British government for abandoning a “principled approach” to the death penalty because it was “coming under, and might become susceptible to, political pressure from the U.S.”

The justices said there were suggestions that “pragmatic considerations, at the expense of a principled approach, might begin to influence the UK’s reaction to the demand that it should cease its lobbying in relation to the death penalty assurances.”

Make no mistake here, Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump team have undermined — perhaps, but not necessarily, fatally — the prosecution of American-killing terrorists because they couldn’t let go of the death penalty. Is this really a higher principle than getting justice? The risk that their collective manhood would be wounded by holding these folks in prison for life was so dire that they risked the possibility of convicting them at all. Get your priorities straight, people!

Now, robbed of this evidence, the U.S. will have to be content renditioning these people to some black site and hold them forever without oversight. The good news for the administration is that unlike the Brits, the U.S. Supreme Court has little to no stomach for telling its political branches “no.”

U.K. broke law by sending evidence on ISIS ‘Beatles’ to U.S., court rules [NBC News]

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Remember when, two weeks and about a million years ago, the Department of Justice told the immigration courts to take down CDC handwashing posters, in direct violation of good public health practices? At the time, ATL editor Kathryn Rubino wrote “Whether it was nefarious or just a petty office politics squabble, it is not a good look.” Well, while you were busy dealing with the collapse of our society, the evidence has been increasingly pointing to “nefarious.”

Let’s start with the immigration courts, which somehow are not entirely closed. In fact, none of them were closed until March 18, three days after all the professionals who work in the courts (including ICE prosecutors) called for it, and one day after an immigration judge in Denver came down with suspected COVID-19. (More positive tests came from the Boston court March 19 and New York City’s Varick Street March 23.) As of March 25, the courts are still hearing cases of detained immigrants, but lawyers and judges are calling for a complete shutdown.

Why the sluggish response? It might be relevant that immigrants who don’t show up to their court hearings are automatically put into deportation, even if they’re medically required to stay home. In addition, the Miami Herald has discovered that the DOJ “and ultimately the White House” are deciding whether and when to close individual courts, a fact that carries a distinct odor of politics. We will assume without evidence that “the White House” means Trump advisor and noted fan of white supremacist literature Stephen Miller, who also came up with the family separation policy.

Meanwhile, tons of immigrant prisoners — excuse me, I mean “civil detainees who have not necessarily been convicted of any crime” — remain in ICE jails, waiting for COVID-19 to rip through their close quarters and substandard health facilities. Detention center employees in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Conroe, Texas, have already tested positive for the virus, as has an ICE detainee at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey. At least four lawsuits have been filed demanding the release of high-risk immigrants in New Jersey, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In response, DHS has not only failed to release anyone, but has required immigration attorneys who enter the facilities to bring their own protective surgical masks and gloves. Yes, even though medical professionals are already so desperate for masks that they’re asking volunteers to sew them some! Despite the widespread use of videoconferencing in the immigration courts, videoconferencing between detainees and their attorneys is not currently on the table. As a long list of advocacy groups pointed out in a March 23 letter to the immigration courts, this effectively denies immigrants their statutory right to meet with their attorneys.

That all of this puts native-born Americans — particularly the xenophobic older people who make up Trump’s voter base — at risk does not appear to have occurred to our leaders. Let’s hope it doesn’t take nursing homes full of dead grandparents to change their minds.

Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.

As South Africa goes into a 21-day lockdown Thursday midnight, as part of a raft of measures to contain the deadly Coronavirus (COVID-19), it goes without saying that Zimbabwe, which imports a variety of products from Africa’s most industrialised economy, will feel the pinch.

South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, on Monday said the country would go into a 21-day lockdown from midnight of 26 March to midnight of 16 April 2020 as part of the measures to deal with COVID-19.

The number of confirmed cases in South Africa leapt to 709 on Wednesday.

* The star of the hit Netflix docuseries The Tiger King has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was framed as part of a massive conspiracy. Now I really need to watch series… [TMZ]

* Lawyers are predicting that social isolation will lead to higher divorce rates in the months to come. [CNBC]

* It seems that along with divorce attorneys, wills and estates lawyers are in high demand because of COVID-19, and certain attorneys are preparing so many wills that some are being signed on the hood of a Porsche. [Bloomberg Law]

* The attorneys general from 33 states have sent a letter to Amazon, Walmart, and others asking them to crack down on price gouging related to COVID-19. [NPR]

* Federal officials are forcing attorneys to wear gloves, masks, and other protective gear to represent clients in certain immigration detention centers. However, some attorneys argue that this could be taking equipment away from healthcare workers. [Denver Post]

* A Native American tribe has sued a group of insurance companies seeking coverage for casino closures under a business interruption policy. Depending on the policy language, this could be a huge gamble… [Insurance Journal]

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

My name is Godfrey Tsenengamu. I am a young Zimbabwean politician and some of you could be knowing me from the past in so many different ways, good and bad.

After some critical reflections and introspection on my past political life and experiences, I have decided to come before you all to express myself in the best way possible.

It is my heartfelt desire that I open a new chapter marked by a new set of priorities, focus and direction dedicated to serving Zimbabwe and beyond.

Looking back at my past, I strongly believe that it is a reality that cannot be wished away hence the decision to take personal responsibility and ask for your forgiveness and find peace with my past.

Today, I humble and submit myself before you all my fellow countrymen, especially those Zimbabweans whose activities, views and opinions I would not appreciate, tolerate or accept and all the Zimbabweans in general, to say I AM SORRY for all the negative things I ever said, did or caused on you and your loved ones in any way that you may remember or have experienced.

It pains me to look back at my past and realise that so many a times I overlooked your happiness in an attempt to make myself happy, only to realize that my happiness lies in yours. I stand here to admit that a majority of times, I was selfish and self-centred and now feel ashamed of every negative thing I ever did, said or caused in my past. I haven’t got any excuses for whatever that I did, said or caused in the past. I take full responsibility for myself and my actions. I will not pawn this off on anybody. I am sorry it happened as I did hurt you directly or indirectly and in so many ways i.e. physically, emotionally or otherwise . Having taken this decision, I would like to reiterate that it is possible to turn from our selfish ways and refocus our energies to collectively building a Zimbabwe where our children are guaranteed of a prosperous future.

Personally, I have equally decided to take the conscious and deliberate decision to release my feelings of resentment, grudges, bitterness or vengeance towards those whom l felt offended me in any way in the past and I now feel relieved with my consciousness having been restored.
I have realised that if I continue to hold on to hurt, pain, bitterness, resentment and anger, it harms me more than it harms those whom I feel offended me. I therefore decided to forgive those who offended me as this effectively brings healing and comfort to many of us as such a decision prevents and saves us from corrosive anger and negative emotions that may have a negative effect of polluting and defining us in the present and future.

I have learnt from my past and realised that any man who desires to revenge by killing another person should dig two graves as he will also die from his green wounds of bitterness and a stressful life. I therefore choose to live in the present where solutions will arise as I take lessons from my past experiences and commit to work and live in harmony with all progressive and peace loving Zimbabweans.

Once again, I am sorry Zimbabwe and continue to beg for your pardon though l may not deserve it.
I know this might be a difficult proposition but I believe Zimbabwe stands to benefit more should we give chance and room to forgiveness, harmony, mutual tolerance, true love and mutual respect for each other.

I thank you.

Signed : Godfrey Tsenengamu

Post published in: Featured

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Blatchford and Secretary of State William Seward ran the venerable firm of Blatchford, Seward & Griswold, but the firm made a hire in 1899 that would ultimately push their names off the door. Which attorney’s name now adorns the firm?

Hint: This lawyer’s name was first added to the firm in 1901 and then worked his way up the letterhead.

See the answer on the next page.