Homeland Command: Military's Detention Role on U.S. Soil

Admittedly off-topic note: Consider what 10 years of fear-mongering have done to the U.S. Senate, an astonishingly bipartisan majority of which is bent on authorizing the indefinite jailing for interrogation by the military of American citizens, seized without charges on American soil on suspicion of terrorist conspiracy, with no access to the courts or even a lawyer. Latest twist; Demand a Veto

Well, not entirely off-topic, as it turns out.  The ACLU’s D.C. lobbying office reports: “The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill . . . The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.”

 

 

Public Forum Law Headline Roundup

OPEN COURTS
A federal judge refuses to order a California superior court to stop delaying access to case records

PUBLIC INFORMATION
L.A.’s Sheriff Baca can’t block suit for his records about cooperation with immigration authorities
Newspapers’ suit for records of Legislature’s budgeting and spending headed for trial this Friday
The Federal Reserve and the big banks just lost the fight to hide details of their enormous bailout

OPEN GOVERNMENT
New Yee bill would end default policy of secrecy for commission regulating state’s public utilities
Appeals court affirms injunction against conduct best avoided in demanding access to government

FREE SPEECH/ASSEMBLY
Scholars say Occupy protests are tamer than those in Europe—and maybe than any in our history

FREE SPEECH/PETITION
Court: Citizens’ failed court challenge to city publicity spending costs them $229K+ in SLAPP fees

OPEN MEETINGS
Newspaper editorial says the “U.C. Regents’ phone-it-in meeting” was “a logistical embarrassment”

 

Court: Brown Act Has No Cure for "Suspended" Practices

In an unpublished ruling, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District has decided that a court has no power to declare that a local public board or council’s past meeting practice, no matter how often repeated, violated the Brown Act so long as the body now says the practice has been “suspended.” The decision, while not representing case law precedent, represents a particularly keen frustration for the plaintiffs, but could lead to a quick legislative correction. Continue reading