BLS ACLU Debaters: Adam Bird, Brian Zapert
Debate Co-Chairs: David Goldberg, Ryan Merola

What a difference a decade makes.

The widely talked about, delayed and protested execution of Georgia prisoner Troy Davis occurred on September 21st, 2011, despite serious and legitimate doubts about his guilt, and widespread support for clemency.  Davis was on death row for almost two decades, and his scheduled execution was delayed multiple times.  Davis’ final appeal to the Supreme Court on the day before his execution received nothing more than this response:

“Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied.”

Manuel Valle sat on death row for 33 years before being executed September 28, 2011.  And despite there being less doubt about his guilt and much less public support for a stay of execution, Justice Breyer felt prompted to write a strongly worded dissent to the Supreme Court’s denial of Valle’s petition.  In his multiple-page dissent citing studies on inmate suicide rates and the “barbaric” conditions of prisons, Breyer questions the deterrent value or moral satisfaction that a community may gain from executing a man already on death row for three decades (A WSJ Law Blog article on Valle’s execution, with a link to the full opinion, can be found here).

So why the disparity?  Troy Davis’ execution was highly publicized and rigorously protested.  Yet when everyone was listening, the Supreme Court said nothing as to why his petition was not granted.  Do legitimate questions and deep concerns over guilt or innocence  get secondary treatment when they arise after conviction?  What about over a half million petitioners and many world leaders supporting a stay of execution for Davis?  Do concerns over prison conditions demand more of the Court’s attention than guilt in petitions to stay executions? Perhaps if Troy Davis had been imprisoned one more decade, or had one more 11th hour delay in execution, some member of the Supreme Court might have stood up to explain the decision and said, well, anything.

Co-Chair: Elizabeth Komar
Co-Chair: Ava Page
Secretary: Flo Mao
Social Chair: Benjamin Tracy
Treasurer: Amy Millican
Debate Co-Chair: Ryan Merola
Debate Co-Chair: David Goldberg
Street Law Coalition Coordinator: Nathan Everhart

Welcome aboard all!

Please bear with us as we update the blog, but here’s our upcoming list of events:

1. Monday 9/12: First General Body Meeting. Please come out to vote and share any ideas for the year! 1Ls are welcome (and encouraged) to run for positions. At the moment, it looks like we’ll need a secretary, a treasurer, a co-chair, and two debate co-chairs! 1 PM in room 603. I’ll send out a more detailed description of those positions closer to the meeting. Project or speaker proposals are welcome here, or you can  email such to aclu.bls@gmail.com at any time. (Free food)

2. Friday 9/16: Religious Freedom Under Attack: The NYPD and Anti-Mosque Activities. 1 PM in the Student Lounge (Free Halal food). We are thrilled to welcome Udi Ofer, NYCLU Advocacy Director, and Cyrus McGoldrick of the Council on American-Islamic Relations – New York to speak. This event is co-sponsored by the Muslim Law Students Association.

Mr. Ofer recently published a report on this topic:
http://www.nyclu.org/publications/report-religious-freedom-under-attack-rise-of-anti-mosque-activities-new-york-state-201  And if you’ve followed the press coverage of this story, you’ve seen him quoted on CNN. Here’s the original AP article that broke this story:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiwl_LiP3l8NwLPoSRUULZWhDPTg?docId=68e74ec21cb6481ebff3a063dc4ca2ba

Cyrus McGoldrick also raps as “the Raskol Khan” and his music has been covered in the media for its focus on tolerance. Check out his music here: http://www.myspace.com/cyruskhan

3. Monday 9/19 1PM Room 503: First Know Your Rights Street Law Pro-bono Training. Old members will recall that last year we did a few “Know Your Rights” trainings, but only referred to the military recruitment training as our pro-bono. That program has just been restructured this year. Our pro-bono will include a series of “know your rights” trainings on a variety of topics and we’ll do street education after all of them. This first training will be on students’ rights with military recruiters, as part of this NYCLU project: http://www.nyclu.org/issues/youth-and-student-rights/military-recruitment. We’ll be working closely with NLG and LALSA whenever possible to combine trainings and open outreach opportunities to all students in English and Spanish. 1Ls welcome.

Look forward to seeing you all!

Liz Komar

C0-Chair

The following positions will be elected in the fall semester:
Secretary
Debate co-chair
Webmaster
Social Chair

Thank you everyone for the fantastic year.  We would like to specially thank the student debaters, Amanda Melnick, Lillian Tan, Fanny Lam, and Rob McRae.  Both the torture accountability panel (with Prof. Herman moderating) and the marriage equality panel (with Prof. Tebbe moderating)  were a rousing success.  Prof. Herman gave a talk about President Obama’s record on civil liberties, and Profs. Gora and Zipkin spoke about the Citizens United case.  Many students attended the military recruitment training given by NYCLU, and we hope to continue this pro bono project in the coming year.  Race and the Law Conference, Student Day Against the Death Penalty, and the screening of American Violet were also fantastic events.

We hope that the next year will be even better.  If any ACLU chapter member has any ideas about what the chapter should be doing, please do not hesitate to reach out to the e-board.

-BLS-ACLU e-board

The panelists detailed the current state of marriage rights extended to gay and lesbian couples in New York state and the rest of the nation. The tone was optimistic, despite recent setbacks in New York, Maine, and elsewhere. The panelists conveyed that the overall trend was positive in light of the fact that there were almost no marriage or marriage-like rights given to same-sex couples 10 years ago. However, the panelists reinforced the notion that there was much ground to be covered before true marriage equality can be said to exist. Legislative and litigation strategies were discussed to achieve these ends. The current case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger [wikipedia][decision]  was discussed, including its potential treatment in the Supreme Court as well as alternate Constitutional Arguments (as outlined by Prof. Tebbe in his article).

[Pictures coming soon]

For those who are interested, I am attaching a link to a New York Review of Books article that is a thorough account of the torture accountability issue. Please take some time to read it, as it is both a good coda to our recent events, and an excellent summation if you were not able to attend.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23114

On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, approximately 40 good-looking BLS students with a thirst for knowledge, a desire for justice, and hunger for lunch attended the BLSACLU debate on Investigating Torture.  The debate pitted two pairs of passionate BLS students against each other to ask tough questions the Obama administration has yet to address:  “Who should be held accountable for the questionable and potentially illegal methods used to interrogate detainees?”  While the Department of Justice Special Prosecutor, John Durham, has been charged with investigating interrogators that exceeded the “enhanced methods” approved in the memos written by the Office of Legal Council, the BLS students debated whether other groups should be investigated, specifically:

1) the interrogators that followed the memos’ prescribed techniques;

2) the lawyers that wrote the memos; and,

3) the policymakers (like Vice President Cheney, C.I.A. Director George Tennant, and President Bush) that authorized the memos  and use of the interrogation techniques in them.

Amanda Melnick and Fanny Lam represented the pro-investigation side of the debate and led their argument with calls for justice, cries for protection of human rights, and appeals to existing law addressing torture.  Robert McRae and Lillian Tan represented the anti-investigation side and calmed the calls for investigation with the sobering realities of the post 9/11 world, the complexities of providing legal counsel to the president and the nation, and the number of other political priorities facing the nation.  A poll taken before and after the debate showed that these issues are complex and that the populous (as represented by 40 BLS students) is divided on whether to investigate the interrogators who followed the memos and the lawyers that authored them.  Unsurprisingly perhaps, BLS students were nearly unanimous in their support for investigations of top officials in the last administration.   Sahadi’s falafel and hummus rounded out the afternoon.

In light of Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the interrogation of prisoners held by the CIA, torture accountability is one of the most ethically contentious and politically controversial legal issues facing this country. A panel of expert speakers explored various facets of the debate and presented their opinions on what should be done in the future about holding the advocates of torture responsible. The BLS-ACLU was honored to host Katherine Gallagher (Center for Constitutional Rights), Joanne Mariner (Human Rights Watch), Ben Wizner (American Civil Liberties Union).  Prof. Susan Herman (President, ACLU) moderated the panel discussion.