What Would the Founding Fathers Say?

The United States has an interesting core values dilemma. We are a nation founded both on religious freedom and tolerance and yet we have locked up asylum-seekers and their children on our southern borders. As of today, the DOJ announced it needs more time to bring the children of asylum seekers and their parents back together despite being court ordered to do so by July 10th for children under 5 and by July 26th for older children. This despite compelling medication on several children in custody, forcing dozens of women to be paraded in front of the DHS head, keeping kids in detention centers that avoid state oversight, using DNA testing to ID children and their parents and keeping them in captivity for weeks. Many of these people are deeply religious and socially conservative by our standards.

While many churches are rightly vilifying our government for this inhumanity, the wheels of bureaucracy creak on.  This continued inhumanity is a black mark on our country and the indignities that these people face are reprehensible.

Contact your Senators and Representatives. You have a voice, use it.

DOJ: Promotes Separate and Unequal Internet

From the BBC
The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to "network neutrality", the idea that all data on the net is treated equally.

The comments put the agency at odds with companies such as Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to guarantee equal access to the net.

The agency submitted its comments to the Federal Communications Commission, which is investigating net access.

Several US internet service providers (ISPs), including AT&T and Verizon, have previously said that they want to charge some users more money for certain content.

This has particularly become an issue with the rise of TV and film download services.

The Justice Department said imposing net neutrality regulations could hinder development of the internet and prevent ISPs from upgrading networks.

Can you say "Conflict of Interest"?

The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department is investigating whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sought to improperly influence the testimony of a departing senior aide. How can officials working for Alberto Gonzales conduct such an investigation without prejudice or fear of reprisal?

according to the Post, the Justice Department officials, in a letter released yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, said their inquiry into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys includes an examination of a meeting Gonzales held in mid-March with his then-aide Monica M. Goodling, who testified last month that the attorney general's comments during the session made her feel "a little uncomfortable."

The topic of discussion at the meeting was what had happened in the months leading up to firings of the U.S. attorneys, and Gonzales recounted his recollection of events before asking for her reaction, according to Goodling's congressional testimony in May. She said Gonzales's comments discomfited her because both Congress and the Justice Department had already launched investigations of the dismissals.

Goodling's account attracted attention partly because Gonzales had told Congress that he could not remember numerous details about the prosecutors' dismissals because he had purposely avoided discussing the issue with other potential "fact witnesses."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse repeated yesterday a previous statement by Gonzales that the attorney general never sought to influence Goodling's testimony. A White House spokesman also reiterated that President Bush "fully supports the attorney general," who this week was the target of an unsuccessful no-confidence vote organized by Senate Democrats.
The announcement that Gonzales's conduct would be examined came from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel of the Office of Professional Responsibility. "This is to confirm that the scope of our investigation does include this matter," Fine and Jarrett said in a letter to Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Several legal experts said the federal laws that could apply to wrongdoing such as witness tampering, suborning perjury or obstruction of justice all require evidence of corrupt or improper motives on the part of a potential defendant. Gillers said Goodling's description of her meeting with Gonzales amounts to a "vague narrative" that would potentially pose difficulties for a prosecutor.

"It really depends on what the person's intent was, and you can infer intent from words and conduct and tone," said James A. Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University Law School and an expert on witness-tampering statutes.

"There is something fundamentally inappropriate about the attorney general of the United States recounting his recollection to a subordinate in this type of situation," Cohen said. "But it may not be subornation of perjury or witness tampering or obstruction of justice."