American Concentration Camps: Rounding up people based on their identity rather than their crimes

 Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes:

When it comes to the topic of concentration camps, Andrea Pitzer wrote the book — literally. The Washington, D.C.-area writer’s own personal curiosity about the origins and history of this inhumane practice — and her sense that many people view the subject too narrowly through the lens of Nazi Germany or Joseph Stalin’s USSR — sparked her 2017 book, One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps.

Although her book traces the long arc of cruel and often disease-ridden detention camps beginning in 1890s’ Cuba on the eve of the Spanish-American War, one question loomed largest, especially when it was published in the first year of Donald Trump’s first term and a crackdown on immigrants at the southern border.

Could it happen here?

Eight years later, Pitzer has no doubt: The push for a network of American concentration camps — rounding up people based on their identity rather than their crimes, holding them indefinitely without due process, in crowded, squalid conditions — isn’t just underway. It’s happening faster than the veteran author could have imagined, especially when compared with the growth of Germany’s camps between when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933 and the start of World War II six years later.

“I’m particularly concerned about where we are now, because we’re well into that five-year period in terms of we’re already doing sweeps, right?” Pitzer said. “We’ve already got masked guys. We’re already disappearing hundreds of people to … foreign countries, or to the Everglades, or now to Fort Bliss” — the El Paso, Texas, military base, which the Trump regime just awarded a $1.2 billion contract for a large new camp.

When I connected with Pitzer this week, she was trying to finish an unrelated project, but kept getting interrupted by pesky journalists like me wanting to talk about One Long Night and the rapid push to erect a U.S. gulag archipelago of camps like the large one hastily thrown up by Florida officials in the fetid swamps of the Everglades.

Anyone clinging to their belief that a democracy like the United States could never go down the trail of large-scale inhumanity blazed by 1930s’ Germany or Russia should have had that faith shattered by the $600 million-a-year, constructed-in-days immigrant detention camp that opened on July 1 in the swampland west of Miami.

Just the quasi-official name bestowed on the new camp by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and others — “Alligator Alcatraz,” reinforced by government tweets of fierce reptiles wearing “ICE” caps and Trump’s jokes about immigrants running from the Everglades’ man-eaters — is the cruelty-is-the-point exclamation mark. Pitzer and other critics of the regime’s mass deportation agenda refuse to call it by the sadistic name, but the alligator branding is hardly the only clue to intentional inhumanity.

“It’s like a dog cage,” a detained Cuban immigrant, Rafael Collado, said by phone to reporters in Miami, describing a wetlands facility that floods frequently, where detainees lack showers, the food is rancid, the overhead light is continuous, and the mosquitoes are voracious.

For Pitzer, the mosquito plague at the Everglades camp is a revelation of its common bond with the worst camps of the last 130 years. “Mosquitoes have likewise long had a starring role in concentration camps around the world, starting with the first reconcentrados in Cuba in the 1890s,” she posted recently on Bluesky. Malaria was endemic at early camps there and with America’s early 20th-century detainees in the Philippines, but later the USSR and China would intentionally torture their prisoners with exposure to the biting and disease-bearing insects.

One of Pitzer’s goals in writing One Long Night and her follow-up works has been to define what exactly a concentration camp is.

She called it “the mass detention of civilians without any real trial. So if there’s a trial, it’s a show trial.” Detainees are held “on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or some aspect of identity instead of as a consequence of a specific crime that they’ve done and been convicted of. And it was almost always done for political gain. And what I saw all over, but also in the U.S., was the way, particularly after 9/11 in ‘the war on terror,’ that it was used to sort of consolidate political power.”

The most famous case study, in Nazi Germany, is also the source of many current misconceptions, since the “final solution” death camps, such as Auschwitz in Poland, where some of the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust died in gas chambers, have often been what people think of. But the first well-known German concentration camp, Dachau, opened less than two months after Hitler took power in early 1933, and was used to detain — not slaughter — the Nazis’ political opponents.

“It was used in a kind of social engineering way,” Pitzer said of Hitler’s early camps. “There were a lot of homeless people, there were a lot of career criminals that they put in the camps to kind of dilute the percentage of political prisoners. So it would be more of a PR thing. People would support it more. You saw detention, particularly, of gay men.”

For Pitzer, the controversial but ultimately unpunished methods America used on Muslim detainees after the 2001 terror attack, including torture tactics such as waterboarding detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba or CIA “black sites” around the world, established a baseline of depravity the Trump regime is now building on.

It’s clear the unsanitary Florida detention camp isn’t a one-off, but rather a model for what the 47th president and his immigration guru, Stephen Miller, hope to accomplish over the next three-and-a-half years.

Right now, the surge in raids on unauthorized immigrants by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has already created an all-time high number of detainees at more than 56,000, which is far more than the federal government can handle. That’s led to horrendous makeshift situations like an ICE office in Manhattan, where leaked videos show detainees held in what’s supposed to be an office, as a man shouts that “they’re treating us like dogs in here.”

The Florida concentration camp model will expand, now that Congress has approved a massive $45 billion appropriation for new immigration detention sites, with another $29 billion to hire more masked agents to arrest people and fill them.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has unveiled a plan for a new network of sites in military bases across the country, including one at New Jersey’s Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst that a critic has already dubbed “the Garden State Gulag.” A 5,000-bed camp planned for Fort Bliss, near the border with Mexico, has already raised red flags after the contract went to an inexperienced firm, but Pitzer noted this isn’t the only problem with using military sites.

“It’s not like it’s a secret prison, but it is a closed space,” she said. “And it’s going to be harder to know what’s happening and to keep track of it.” The author shares my concern that as the concentration camps gain momentum, the purpose of them will shift — maybe to incarcerate protesters or political prisoners, or Americans stripped of their citizenship.

Pitzer said her research has shown these camps “almost always transcend whatever were the original goals of even the very bad actors that imposed the camps in the first place. And so what we are looking at potentially happening here is not just sort of Stephen Miller’s visions being fulfilled. We could be looking at something much worse over time that we aren’t even imagining yet.”

With Pitzer, I share a fascination with the history of concentration camps and a sense of horror watching this story unfold on U.S. soil, in my own lifetime. We do need to be honest about American history: This has happened before, not just overseas, but here during World War II, when approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans were moved into camps. Still, the growing prevalence of Holocaust education with its rallying cry of “Never Again,” and a U.S. apology over that Japanese internment made me hope — even believe — that I’d never have to write a column like this.

I was wrong.

Pitzer told me that while she is worried about the speed with which concentration camps are being implemented, and about the weakness of institutions like Congress or the media that could play a role in stopping this, she also feels some hope in sinking public support for Trump’s immigration agenda and the protests that have occurred.

“What they don’t have in place yet is that there’s actually still a tremendous amount of personal liberty and ability to dissent among most of the American population,” she said. Yet, if we don’t raise our voices immediately, that ability could disappear quickly. The moment to scream “Never Again” is right now, not during your grandchild’s history class.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS complicit in executive branches assault on democracy

On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a brief order condemning eight migrants to banishment in South Sudan, where they face the very real possibility of torture and death. None of the eight men had ever set foot in the war-torn African nation, and they had all been expelled from the United States without due process in direct violation of a lower court order, reported Slate. But SCOTUS didn’t care. What mattered to the majority was that Donald Trump’s administration wanted to dump them in South Sudan immediately. And nothing—no federal law or treaty or constitutional guarantee—was going to stop it. Not under the watch of this Supreme Court.

Thursday’s brutal order neatly encapsulates the SCOTUS term that drew to a close less than one week earlier. Aside from a few sporadic attempts to rein in Trump’s most lawless excesses, the court has largely given up policing the president’s power grabs. More frequently, in fact, the conservative supermajority facilitates his abuses of power by expanding executive authority to new heights, sapping strength from Congress and the lower courts in the process. And on the rare occasions when SCOTUS does draw a line, it seems more concerned with preserving its own supremacy than placing meaningful limits on Trump’s authoritarian impulses.

Less than six months into the second Trump administration, the Supreme Court has settled on a posture of complicity toward the executive branch’s assault on civil liberties and democracy itself. The 47th president seeks to restructure the government around his own whims, blasting through any barrier that restrains him as he embarks on a project to illegally freeze spending, end birthright citizenship, and disappear noncitizens to black sites, among other autocratic ambitions. And six Republican-appointed justices are falling over themselves to help him do it.

To read more CLICK HERE

Yale professor on the danger to democracy 'there is no such thing as a ship that can't sink'

Yale Professor Marci Shore, who has spent two decades writing about the history of authoritarianism, is leaving the U.S. because of what she sees as the sharp regression of American democracy, reported The New York Times. “We’re like people on the Titanic saying our ship can’t sink,” she said. “And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Bunch: 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia is the critical pawn in a game to end American democracy for good'

 Will Bunch writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is the critical pawn in a game to end American democracy for good.

And the regime knows its window for pulling this off is closing. The polls are showing Trump’s popularity with the American people is plummeting, and support for his immigration policies is also shrinking, after people see their rank cruelty. The conventional wisdom is that the president should pull back, but the conventional wisdom has been wrong ever since Trump descended a golden escalator on June 16, 2015. The White House is instead racing to impose dictatorship before opponents can get organized to stop it.

In this life-and-death moment for our liberty, there are still a lot of key people who aren’t getting it, and not just television bloviators. One centrist Democratic member of Congress insisted anonymously to Axios that Trump’s immoral deportation machine is a political trap, and that Dems “shouldn’t take the bait for one hairdresser,” tacking a homophobic dog whistle onto a lack of concern over human rights.

Fortunately for democracy, the mass of decent everyday American people do get it. It’s why a throng of people gathered outside a federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Md., demanding our government obey the law. It’s why Philadelphia suburbanites driving on U.S. Route 202 in Chester County this week saw their neighbors at an overpass with a giant sign, “Free Abrego Garcia.” It’s why voters at a town hall in deeply conservative rural Iowa confronted GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley and cheered raucously when one asked, “Are you going to bring that guy back from El Salvador?”

They understand the most important fact in America right now: that if Abrego Garcia is not free, then none of us are free. The Trump regime understands this, too, but in a very different way. It sees this everyman Salvadoran laborer as the speed bump on its autobahn toward a strongman regime of unchecked corruption and naked retribution against anyone from powerful universities and law firms to college newspaper op-ed writers who dare oppose them. And they are spinning yet another Big Lie to make sure Abrego Garcia is crushed.

But we have seen, time and time again, that injustice to one simple man can change the arc of history. It was one oppressed Tunisian fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi who launched the massive Arab Spring protests, and it was the captured-on-video 2020 police murder of George Floyd that triggered the largest protest in American history. This time, we need to bend the arc a lot further toward justice, and we need to do so in the name of Abrego Garcia.

There will be yet another opportunity this Saturday, with a new round of Easter weekend protests in all 50 states and beyond — and it’s clear now that everything is on the line. Let the chants of liberation ring loudly from Maine to Hawaii: Free Kilmar Abrego Garcia!

To read more CLICK HERE

David Brooks' CALL TO ACTION: 'It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising'

 David Brooks of The New York Times:

In the beginning there was agony. Under the empires of old, the strong did what they willed and the weak suffered what they must.

But over the centuries, people built the sinews of civilization: Constitutions to restrain power, international alliances to promote peace, legal systems to peacefully settle disputes, scientific institutions to cure disease, news outlets to advance public understanding, charitable organizations to ease suffering, businesses to build wealth and spread prosperity, and universities to preserve, transmit and advance the glories of our way of life. These institutions make our lives sweet, loving and creative, rather than nasty, brutish and short.

Trumpism is threatening all of that. It is primarily about the acquisition of power — power for its own sake. It is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed. Trumpism is about ego, appetite and acquisitiveness and is driven by a primal aversion to the higher elements of the human spirit — learning, compassion, scientific wonder, the pursuit of justice.

So far, we have treated the various assaults of President Trump and the acolytes in his administration as a series of different attacks. In one lane they are going after law firms. In another they savaged U.S.A.I.D. In another they’re attacking our universities. On yet another front they’re undermining NATO and on another they’re upending global trade.

But that’s the wrong way to think about it. These are not separate battles. This is a single effort to undo the parts of the civilizational order that might restrain Trump’s acquisition of power. And it will take a concerted response to beat it back.

So far, each sector Trump has assaulted has responded independently — the law firms seek to protect themselves, the universities, separately, try to do the same. Yes, a group of firms banded together in support of the firm Perkins Coie, but in other cases it’s individual law firms trying to secure their separate peace with Trump. Yes, Harvard eventually drew a line in the sand, but Columbia cut a deal. This is a disastrous strategy that ensures that Trump will trample on one victim after another. He divides and conquers.

Slowly, many of us are realizing that we need to band together. But even these efforts are insular and fragmented. Several members of the Big Ten conference are working on forming an alliance to defend academic freedom. Good. But that would be 18 schools out of roughly 4,000 degree-granting American colleges and universities.

So far, the only real hint of something larger — a mass countermovement — has been the rallies led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But this, too, is an ineffective way to respond to Trump; those partisan rallies make this fight seem like a normal contest between Democrats and Republicans.

What is happening now is not normal politics. We’re seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to — Democrat, independent or Republican.

It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.

Peoples throughout history have done exactly this when confronted by an authoritarian assault. In their book, “Why Civil Resistance Works,” Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan looked at hundreds of nonviolent uprisings. These movements used many different tools at their disposal — lawsuits, mass rallies, strikes, work slowdowns, boycotts and other forms of noncooperation and resistance.

These movements began small and built up. They developed clear messages that appealed to a variety of groups. They shifted the narrative so the authoritarians were no longer on permanent offense. Sometimes they used nonviolent means to provoke the regime into taking violent action, which shocks the nation, undercuts the regime’s authority and further strengthens the movement. (Think of the civil rights movement at Selma.) Right now, Trumpism is dividing civil society; if done right, the civic uprising can begin to divide the forces of Trumpism.

Chenoweth and Stephan emphasize that this takes coordination. There doesn’t always have to be one charismatic leader, but there does have to be one backbone organization, one coordinating body that does the work of coalition building.

In his book “Upheaval,” Jared Diamond looked at countries that endured crises and recovered. He points out that the nations that recover don’t catastrophize — they don’t say everything is screwed up and we need to burn it all down. They take a careful inventory of what is working well and what is working poorly. Leaders assume responsibility for their own share of society’s problems.

This struck me as essential advice for Americans today. We live in a country with catastrophically low levels of institutional trust. University presidents, big law firms, media organizations and corporate executives face a wall of skepticism and cynicism. If they are going to participate in a mass civic uprising against Trump, they have to show the rest of the country that they understand the establishment sins that gave rise to Trump in the first place. They have to show that they are democratically seeking to reform their institutions. This is not just defending the establishment; it’s moving somewhere new.

Let’s take the universities. I’ve been privileged to teach at American universities off and on for nearly 30 years and I get to visit a dozen or two others every year. These are the crown jewels of American life. They are hubs of scientific and entrepreneurial innovation. In a million ways, the scholars at universities help us understand ourselves and our world.

I have seen it over and over: A kid comes on campus as a freshman, inquisitive but unformed. By senior year, there is something impressive about her. She is awakened, cultured, a critical thinker. The universities have performed their magic once again.

People flock from all over the world to admire our universities.

But like all institutions, they have their flaws. Many have allowed themselves to become shrouded in a stifling progressivism that tells half the country: Your voices don’t matter. Through admissions policies that favor rich kids, the elite universities have contributed to a diploma divide. If the same affluent families come out on top generation after generation, then no one should be surprised if the losers flip over the table.

In other words, a civic uprising has to have a short-term vision and a long-term vision. Short term: Stop Trump. Foil his efforts. Pile on the lawsuits. Turn some of his followers against him. The second is a long-term vision of a fairer society that is not just hard on Trump, but hard on the causes of Trumpism — one that offers a positive vision. Whether it’s the universities, the immigration system or the global economy, we can’t go back to the status quo that prevailed when Trump first rode down the escalator.

I’m really not a movement guy. I don’t naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I’m not covering as a journalist. But this is what America needs right now. Trump is shackling the greatest institutions in American life. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Will President Trump and his administration defy court orders?

 Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkley Law School at the University of California, writes in The New York Times:

It is not hyperbole to say that the future of American constitutional democracy now rests on a single question: Will President Trump and his administration defy court orders?

Federal judges have issued more than a dozen temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against Trump administration actions. But it is unclear whether the government will comply, and in at least two cases, judges have said their orders were ignored.

The Trump administration is already facing at least 100 legal challenges. Two recent court orders no doubt will test Mr. Trump’s patience.

The Supreme Court this week upheld the authority of a Federal District Court judge in Washington to lift a Trump freeze on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The government had missed a deadline set by the judge to send out the money, which Mr. Trump had blocked on his first day in office. And on Thursday, another federal judge, in Rhode Island, extended an order forcing the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in congressionally approved funds for nearly two dozen states and the District of Columbia. The judge said the White House had “put itself above Congress” in blocking the money.

But the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings — it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders. If a president decides to ignore a judicial ruling, the courts are likely rendered impotent.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Perhaps the threat of flouting court orders, suggested by Mr. Trump, and his vice president, JD Vance, and some of his nominees, is a way to put pressure on courts to treat the Trump administration favorably. Trump allies have also been pressing for the impeachment of judges who rule against his administration’s policies. Elon Musk wrote recently on his platform X that “the only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges” and “we must impeach to save democracy.” Mike Lee of Utah, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on social media that “corrupt judges should be impeached and removed” and that rulings against the administration gave the impression of a “judicial coup.”

Removing federal judges because of disagreement with their rulings would be unprecedented. The Constitution allows for impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” There is no plausible basis for claiming that standard has been met. And it is risible to see conservatives, who repeatedly went to court to enjoin Biden and Obama administration policies, now saying that the judiciary should not review executive branch actions. All of this is about an administration that does not want to be constrained by the Constitution, laws or courts.

It is unsettling even to be asking whether the president would defy a court order. Throughout American history, presidents have complied with mandates from the courts, even when they disagree. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many of the New Deal programs of Franklin Roosevelt. He was angry and proposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court to uphold his initiatives, but never went as far as defying the rulings. When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Harry Truman’s order to seize steel mills during the Korean War, a major blow to his presidency, Truman, too, was angry, but he complied with the decision.

Similarly, when the court ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the White House tapes, he did so even though it meant the end of his presidency. More recently, when courts blocked Biden administration policies — from student loan relief to vaccine mandates — the White House complied.

At times, there have been disputes between courts and agencies over compliance with judicial orders. In a 2018 Harvard Law Review article, the Yale law professor Nicholas Parrillo wrote that “the federal government’s compliance with court orders is imperfect and fraught, especially with orders compelling the government to act affirmatively.” In part, this has been because agencies may lack the money, personnel or information they need to comply.

But there are no definitive instances of presidents disobeying court orders. The line attributed to Andrew Jackson about the chief justice, that “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” is likely apocryphal. Purportedly about a Supreme Court ruling that Georgia could not enforce its laws against whites on Cherokee land, the quotation did not appear in print until long after Jackson’s death. And, in fact, the court order was directed at Georgia, not Jackson or the federal government. In addition, modern scholarship has undermined the story that Abraham Lincoln defied an order from the chief justice invalidating a suspension of habeas corpus during the early days of the Civil War.

Thus far, the Trump administration has given conflicting signals as to whether it will defy court orders. On Feb. 11, Mr. Trump said, “I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it.” And that same month, the acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, wrote in a footnote in a brief to the Supreme Court: “The executive branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts.”

But just one day prior, Mr. Trump posted on social media, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” A week earlier, Vice President JD Vance posted, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” implying that the president decides what is “legitimate.” This follows a history of assertions by Mr. Vance suggesting that the president need not comply with adverse court rulings. And while this did not involve a court order, in January, in one of his first acts in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to delay enforcing a federal ban on TikTok, even though that ban had just been upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.

The reality — and Mr. Trump and those around him know it — is that he could get away with defying court orders should he, ultimately, choose to do so. Because of Supreme Court decisions, Mr. Trump cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for any official acts he takes to carry out his constitutional powers.

Those in the Trump administration who carry out his policies and violate court orders could be held in contempt. But if it is criminal contempt, Mr. Trump can issue them pardons. Although civil contempt can involve being jailed until the person complies with the court order, that is enforced by the United States marshals, who are part of the Department of Justice and thus under the president’s control.

Defiance of court orders could be the basis for impeachment and removal. But with his party in control of Congress, Mr. Trump knows that is highly unlikely to happen.

If the Trump administration chooses to defy court orders, we will have a constitutional crisis not seen before. Perhaps public opinion will turn against the president and he will back down and comply. Or perhaps, after 238 years, we will see the end of government under the rule of law.

 To read more CLICK HERE

Is the U.S. in the midst of a bloodless coup?

 From Heather Cox Richardson:

The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical.

Just Security: The Real Reason Trump’s Purge of Career DOJ Officials Should Alarm You

Since taking office last week, the Trump administration has fired, demoted, and reassigned career investigators and prosecutors across the Department of Justice, moving rapidly to politicize an institution over which the president has reportedly said he has an “absolute right” to total control, reported Just Security. Much has been said in recent days about the impact of these unprecedented personnel moves on the Department’s independence and continued ability to address urgent national security and public safety threats, not to mention the morale of its workforce. But the ouster of career Department officials creates another, more insidious potential threat: that Trump and his allies will use the Department to hold onto power in future election cycles, as they tried and failed to do in 2020.

As a former Senate investigator, I led the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies, including then-Acting Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, to conscript the Department into helping overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Our investigation laid the groundwork for the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack’s (“January 6 Select Committee”) examination of the same misconduct, and was the first congressional inquiry to expose Trump’s repeated calls to Department leaders about the investigations he wanted them to conduct.

We also exposed Clark’s scheme to supplant then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and insert the Department in the appointment of swing state electors, along with other efforts by Trump and his allies to use the Department to overturn the election. By now, the ending of this chapter in the January 6 story is familiar: after Department leaders threatened mass resignations in a dramatic Oval Office meeting, Trump backed down from installing Clark as Acting Attorney General. As then-committee chair Dick Durbin said when we released our investigative findings, it was only because of “a number of upstanding Americans in the Department of Justice [that] Donald Trump was unable to bend the Department to his will.”

The Importance of Norms in Protecting the Department’s Work from Politics

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation underscored a basic feature of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency: much of its work is guided by internal norms, not laws passed by Congress. These norms were put in place after Watergate to protect the Department’s independence from politics and ensure its decisions to investigate and prosecute are based only on the facts and the law. Oversight by Congress and independent Inspectors General can expose when the Department strays from its norms, but their implementation ultimately comes down to the principles of 115,000 individual Department employees.

One norm that is central to the Department’s independence is its longstanding policy restricting communications between Department officials and the White House about individual investigations, criminal prosecutions, and civil enforcement actions. This policy and a companion typically issued by the White House has been reaffirmed by Attorneys General and White House Counsels of both parties, and it’s designed to ensure that federal investigations and prosecutions are driven by facts, not politics. In 2020, these restrictions were flouted by high-ranking officials including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who repeatedly asked Department leaders to open criminal investigations of false election fraud claims.

The Department’s norms don’t just insulate law enforcement decisions from politics—they also insulate politics from inappropriate law enforcement. Federal prosecutors have a well-established, legitimate role in enforcing criminal laws passed by Congress, including laws that punish the corruption of government processes (think bribery and fraud) and electoral processes (think campaign finance violations and ballot fraud). Because of the sensitivity of these types of enforcement actions, Department policy typically requires agents and prosecutors to consult with the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section before initiating them. These consultation requirements help ensure the Department applies the same standards to similar cases, so a Republican politician is treated no differently than a Democratic politician who engaged in the same misconduct. More broadly, they help ensure the Department makes decisions to investigate and prosecute based on the facts and the law, not politics or other improper considerations.

Norms also play a critical role in ensuring the Department stays in its lane during elections. The Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch has explained in longstanding internal guidance that the Department’s role in election crime cases is limited, and that “the Department does not have a role in determining which candidate won a particular election, or whether another election should be held because of the impact of the alleged fraud on the election.” This guidance also recognizes that “the fact of a federal criminal investigation may itself become an issue in [an] election”—a reality that undoubtedly motivated Trump’s demand that Department leaders “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.” For these reasons, internal policy makes clear that “the Department should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.”

Department officials deviated from this longstanding norm in 2020 at the encouragement of then-Attorney General William Barr. Days after the 2020 election, when claims of a stolen election were in full swing, Barr issued a memo that loosened the Department’s longstanding restrictions on taking overt investigative steps in election fraud matters until the election is certified. The memo reportedly prompted objections by current and former Department prosecutors and led the longtime career head of the Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch to resign his position. Over the objection of career officials in the Public Integrity Section, Barr simultaneously directed federal prosecutors to investigate certain election fraud claims, including debunked allegations that Georgia election workers had secretly tabulated suitcases full of fake ballots. At the time Georgia’s elections had not yet concluded, with runoff elections scheduled a month later on January 5, 2021.

The extent of the Department’s deviation from longstanding norms during this period has never been fully examined, in part because the Department refused to divulge details of its work in response to bipartisan questioning by Senate staff, and in part because of the January 6 Select Committee’s understandable focus on Barr’s ultimate conclusion that there was no election fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of the election. Barr’s memo was withdrawn in early 2021, but the fact he issued it in the first place, and the way it enabled investigations beyond what the Department historically permitted, underscores how precarious even longstanding norms can be depending on who leads the Department.

The Purge of Career Officials

The ongoing purge of career officials should worry anyone who cares about keeping politics out of the Department and the Department out of the business of deciding elections. Since last Monday, the administration has fired, demoted, and reassigned career investigators and prosecutors across numerous Department offices and law enforcement components. Those impacted include senior leaders in the Department’s Criminal and National Security Divisions, at least a dozen career prosecutors previously assigned to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations, and senior career leaders of the Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, among others.

The mass firing of Special Counsel Smith’s team has gotten significant attention, and deservedly so, for the message it sends to any Department employee thinking of investigating or prosecuting misconduct involving the president. But Americans should be just as alarmed by the reassignment and demotion of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, whose obscure-outside-the-Beltway title and low profile belie his critical role in upholding the Department’s norms. Until this week, he served as the Department’s senior-most career official. For decades and across administrations of both parties, Mr. Weinsheimer and his predecessors in that role advised Department leaders on ethics and recusal requirements and the longstanding requirements that keep politics and other improper considerations out of the Department’s work.

Equally concerning is the reassignment and subsequent resignation of Corey Amundson, the longtime career head of the Department’s Public Integrity Section. That office’s apolitical career prosecutors play an indispensable role in ensuring politically sensitive cases are handled appropriately, and that the Department doesn’t overstep its role in election-related matters. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation revealed that in at least one instance, Mr. Amundson pushed to restrain the Department from inserting itself in a 2020 election-related investigation, warning that doing so “risks great damage to the Department’s reputation, including the possible appearance of being motivated by partisan concerns.”

The ousters of Mr. Weinsheimer and Mr. Amundson aren’t surprising, but they should alarm anyone who cares about the Department’s adherence to norms that uphold the rule of law. Of course, the Department’s norms aren’t just the province of high-ranking career officials—every investigator and lawyer must follow them, and the Department is filled with principled career and non-career employees at all levels who do. But the ongoing purge of the very officials responsible for policing those norms signals to the Department’s entire workforce that their jobs are at risk if they, too, prioritize rules that keep politics out of law enforcement.

In 2020, Trump tried and failed to use the Department to hold onto power. Although some Department officials strayed from certain norms, enough principled individuals took a stand when it mattered. He is now ousting the apolitical career officials responsible for ensuring the Department upholds its norms and traditions of independence. In doing so, he is laying the groundwork not only to use the Department for his own personal, political goals throughout his administration, but also to succeed in doing in the next election what he failed to do in 2020.

To read more CLICK HERE

'Deeply disturbing spike' in threats against government workers

Federal law enforcement has recorded a “deeply disturbing spike” in threats against government workers and public servants in recent months, Attorney General Merrick Garland told the Washington Post.

This week alone, officials are investigating bomb threats that forced evacuations at several courthouses and state capitols across the country. The attorney general said federal officials also arrested and charged a man for threatening to kill a congressman and his children.

 “This is just a small snapshot of a larger trend that has included threats of violence against those who administer elections, ensure our safe travel, teach our children, report the news, represent their constituents and keep our communities safe,” Garland said. “These threats of violence are unacceptable. They threaten our fabric of democracy.”

Garland made the comments ahead of a private meeting with law enforcement officials at Justice Department headquarters to discuss violent crime. The attorney general said officials would be discussing how best to “double down” on efforts to fight the rise in threats against government workers.

While threats are increasing, Garland said, homicide numbers across the country have declined. From 2021 to 2022, homicides dropped 6 percent. The attorney general also cited numbers from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which reported a “double-digit decrease” in murders in 69 major cities between much of 2022 and 2023.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco told reporters that officials in Baltimore said homicides had dropped by more than 20 percent this past year. And Detroit recorded the fewest homicides last year since 1966 — along with double-digit reductions in shootings and carjackings, city officials said.

But the officials noted that not every jurisdiction has seen this decline in homicide rates. In D.C., for example, 2023 marked the city’s deadliest year in more than two decades. Garland said Friday’s meeting would cover which violent crime initiatives are working and which aren’t — and how best to apply the effective tactics in places such as D.C.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Are we numb to the threats to democracy?

Dahlia Lithwick writing for Slate:

It’s been just a clutch of days since former President Donald Trump and his allies made clear that if he wins reelection, he plans to gut the existing U.S. government and “install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists” to take over senior legal, judicial, defense, regulatory, and domestic policy jobs in the civil service. It’s been under a week since he announced in an interview on Univision that he’d cheerfully “weaponize” the power of the Justice Department to indict his rivals for no other reason than that they were “beating me very badly.” Also less than a week ago, he delivered his chilling Veterans Day promise to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, lie, steal, and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and the American dream.” The news of his plans to carry out mass deportations while rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants and interning them in sprawling detention camps, as well as his hope to cancel U.S. visas—for lawful green-card and student visa holders—who harbor “anti-American” views is also very recent. All of this is to be achieved by installing armies of lawyers, judges, and functionaries who will not erect roadblocks to such projects, as they did when he was president the first time, because they don’t believe in the rule of law as we understand it. As Trump openly described his rationale for his plans last week in the most spine-chilling language yet, undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” And yes, the week is only half done.

We further learned, just a week ago, that Ohio Republicans plan to try to block a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom by stripping state judges of the power to decide such cases. And we have learned in recent days of plans by allies of the new Republican House speaker to reinstate the brutally repressive Comstock Act so as to further limit sexual autonomy. And today we can’t seem to take our eyes off the now-violent physical altercations happening in the very same Capitol building that was stormed by violent extremists trying to overturn the 2020 election. The cogs and the wheels of democratic governance sound janky as hell right now.

The piece suggesting that all of the above represents an objective, verifiable, and historically predictive set of preconditions for authoritarianism, or fascism, or the end of free and fair elections has been said or written, succinctly and brilliantly, in recent days by Jamelle Bouie, Joyce Vance, Ruth Ben Ghiat, Rachel Maddow, John Cassidy, Seth Meyers, Jason Stanley, Zack Beauchamp, Chris Lehmann, Michael Tomasky, Scott Lehigh, and who knows how many others. And, perhaps paradoxically, the piece suggesting that the press has failed utterly to meet this perilous moment has been done, also brilliantly, by Margaret Sullivan, Brian Stelter, and Dan Froomkin, all of them echoing the call of New York University professor Jay Rosen, who continues to demand that the media cover the 2024 campaign by emphasizing “not the odds but the stakes.”

The stakes, we can probably agree, are in no way in doubt. As Bouie and others suggest, the Stephen Millers and Jeffrey Clarks and Steve Bannons are counting the minutes before “Flood the Zone With Shit” becomes the new “E Pluribus Unum.” Indeed, it almost seems as if “not the odds but the stakes” no longer captures a media failure alone; it actually also encapsulates the scope of a bitter political failure. We may actually have moved into the realm of journalism adequately covering the stakes, with the sad reality emerging that nobody seems to care much about the stakes at the present moment.

The horse race we are describing? The odds we are clocking? The contest we are all betting on? It’s now just fascism vs. democracy. These “stakes” we are, all of us, fretting about, this question of whether democracy survives the next 12 months, is the very thing everyone is watching like it’s the NCAA playoffs. I’m no longer completely convinced that voters don’t fully understand the stakes; not when you’re hearing Trump talking of executing his former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, not when you’re hearing of mass deportations without due process, and not when family separations at the border is a future promise, as opposed to a recent lawless tragedy.

What if the media is actually covering the spectacle precisely because the stakes—casual brutality, violence, callousness, lawlessness, and the descent into anarchy—are perfectly visible, legible, and clear? It’s hard to read any other way the current threats by sitting senators who promise to beat up committee witnesses, or former speakers of the House who elbow their political opponents, or congresspeople who say they will impeach everyone who makes them mad while dabbling in the recreational threat to shut down the government. What if the problem isn’t that consumers of media fail to understand the actual stakes of losing democracy? What if the problem is really that watching this MMA smackdown between fascism and representative democracy is, in fact, the 2023 version of good, clean fun? As Bouie puts it in his New York Times piece on the subject this week, “The mundane truth of American politics is that much of what we want to know is in plain view. You don’t have to search hard or seek it out; you just have to listen. And Donald Trump is telling us, loud and clear, that he wants to end American democracy as we know it.”

There is going to come a moment—and for many of the writers cited above, that moment has already arrived—in which the media appropriately reports on the enormity of the stakes and nobody flinches.

When you’ve been contending with such enormous stakes for as long as this country has—since at least that golden escalator ride eight years ago—it can be hard to keep flinching at the risks, even as they become ever more undeniable. Here’s hoping that our reflexes start to kick in over the next 12 months, lest we’re once again reminded of what happens when the stakes have been staring us in the face all along and we choose instead to roll the dice on democracy itself.

To read more CLICK HERE

Israel passes law limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn government decisions

The Israeli Parliament passed a law that limits the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn decisions made by government ministers, completing the first stage of a wider and deeply contentious effort to curb the influence of the judiciary.

The court is now barred from overruling the national government using the legal standard of “reasonableness,” a concept that judges previously used to block ministerial appointments and contest planning decisions, among other government measures.

The enactment of the law is the government’s first victory in a seven-month effort to reduce the court’s power. Previous plans that would have allowed Parliament to overrule the court’s decisions and give the government more sway over who gets to be a Supreme Court justice were suspended by the government in March, after an eruption of street protests, labor strikes and disquiet in the military.

Right-wing ministers and lawmakers took selfies in the parliamentary plenum rule to celebrate their victory. The vote was 64 in favor and zero against, after members of the opposition left the chamber, boycotting the vote they had no chance of winning.

The new law passed despite a similar level of opposition, as well as criticism from the Biden administration. Large parts of the country fear that the legislation undermines the quality of Israel’s democracy and will allow the government — the most ultranationalist and ultraconservative in Israeli history — to build a less pluralist society.

The government and its supporters say that the legislation will in fact improve democracy by giving elected lawmakers greater autonomy over unelected judges, allowing them to more easily carry out the policies that they were elected to enact. The court can still overrule the government using other legal measures.

This disagreement is part of a much wider and long-running social dispute about the nature and future of Israeli society. The ruling coalition and its base generally have a more religious and conservative vision, and see the court as an obstacle to that goal. The opposition tends to have a more secular and diverse vision, and consider the court as a standard-bearer for their cause.

Right-wing ministers and lawmakers took selfies in the parliamentary plenum rule to celebrate their victory. The vote was 64 in favor and zero against, after members of the opposition left the chamber, boycotting the vote they had no chance of winning.

To read more CLICK HERE