Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights

There are three sources we’ve reviewed wherein Martha has taken positions on civil rights; HOMELAND SECURITY POST-SEPTEMBER 11TH (PDF), the ACLU Questionnaire and the GreylockNews.com Q&A. Please read up and provide your own questions below.  

#1 Questions to Martha about her positions on civil and Constitutional rights, specifically issues arising out of actual events in our nation over the last nine years relating to the suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, surveillance of American citizens without warrant or FISA court authorization, national security letters, sneak and peak provision, using Patriot Act authorities to investigate domestic crime like drug dealing and possessing child pornography, the obligations of the Justice Department to follow the evidence where it leads in the torture of US prisoners in military, CIA and contractor custody.  Who wants to help? – NeilSagan

#2 I was appalled at the abuses of the Bush administration and the continuation of many of them by our current president. One of my concerns about Ms. Coakley has been her apparent lax oversight over the rights of the accused. I say apparent, I’m willing to entertain an opposing reasoned opinion about that.

Discussion of the issues you listed is especially important in the light of Ms. Coakley’s stated wish to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Asking her about these issues would draw needed attention to them. The public does not seem to understand how the abuses you mention actually make us less safe. – MizJones

#3 If Martha believes the president can detain an American citizen indefinitely without the rights of judicial process or the writ of habeas corpus simply because they’ve been classified as an enemy combatant, she will not get my vote. -NeilSagan

#4 The {Coakley Homeland Security} position paper is thin on the topic of civil liberties. It makes many references to work Coakley did as AG to provide funding and training to law enforcement organizations and how she would provide same as a senator. Proper funding and training for law enforcement, balanced against other needs of the country, is fine with me.

It makes only passing, unspecific references to civil liberties. For example, on p. 6 in a discussion of cyber security:

We can defend our valuable information and infrastructure, while also protecting the privacy rights and civil liberties of our fellow citizens.

Which privacy rights and civil liberties does she consider important? What does she think of the government conducting searches without a warrant? I can’t tell from reading this.

About the Patriot Act and its effect on civil liberties, she says:

I will work to ensure that any proposed security legislation or Patriot Act reauthorization has a meaningful impact on our national security and minimal infringement on the privacy and freedom of our citizens.

Again, what does this mean? Does she support the Patriot Act as it now stands? Which provisions, if any, would she change?

The following {important} topics are not mentioned:

1. habeus corpus
2. detention (indefinite or otherwise)
3. search warrant (FISA or otherwise)
4. national security letter
5. investigation of torture of US prisoners
6. political influence over the Dept of Justice

I am left to wonder if Coakley thinks there are any civil liberties that need to be restored.

I am not trying to endorse Scott Brown. We need to be demand more of our officials than just their party affiliation. We can be loyal Democrats and still expect meaningful answers to our questions.

-MizJones

#5 Coakley indicates in the {ACLU} Questionnaire that she will “support efforts to end indefinite detention of individuals who have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government without charge or the chance of a trial on the basis of perceived future danger.”   She supports  a Congressional investigation of “unlawful activities by government officials in the post-9/11 era,” as well as for similar investigations by an appointed body or special prosecutor.  She supports  ” repeal of the Military Commissions Act and the trial of detainees in US federal courts.” – theloquaciousliberal

#6 If I’m not mistaken, you {David} too were taken aback by her answer to the question about how she handled the Gerald Amirault sentence commutation and what she had to say about it last month.  To me, that’s a case of her exercising her authority and judgment and not a question of civil or Constitutional rights. While I’d like to know her true motives in denying Gerald a commuted sentence, I don’t pretend I could ever get a different answer.  

Here’s another Fells Acre related issue, a ten year gag order on a parolee? I’d like to ask her to answer a question about denying Cheryl her 1st amendment rights for ten years as a condition of not receiving a new trial, which she won on appeal. {Even if it’s Constitutional to require a person who was convicted of child molestation but whose verdict was vacated on Constitutional grounds in order to give them another trial, who does it serve to deny her the right to speak about her case?} – NeilSagan

#7 This somewhat helpful {The ACLU Questionnaire}

It puts Coakley on the record in a broad sense about the issues listed.

I would like to have seen more supporting statements from her rather than simple Y/N answers. The wording of the questions is such that a Y answer does not require a strong commitment. Most of them ask “Will you support X?”.

The answers without statements leave open the question about how hard she will fight in those areas. A Y might simply mean “I won’t work actively to block this and will vote for it if it comes up”. In this Republican-lite-controlled Congress, it’s safe to say that many of the issues addressed won’t be brought up.

Have no fear that I would vote for Brown.

I see the questions as a way to get some public commitments from Coakley regarding what she will do if (probably when) she takes office. Her ACLU answers, while quite acceptable, don’t commit her to much.

– MizJones

#8 re: the Graylock Q&A

I finally got around to reading.

It provides a useful clarification about Coakley’s position on the Patriot Act. Here I learned that she opposes it as it now stands, resolving an apparent contradiction. It would be good to know how she would like it changed.

Should this discussion be moved to its own diary? I jumped into this because of my interest in the topic of civil liberties, especially those violated by the Bush admin.

If people closer to the Coakley campaign can provide answers on some of the specifics, that would be great. – MizJones

#9 I suggest an additional topic

..of what Congress could and should do about political influence and corruption in the Justice Department. Some the US Attourneys who were not fired by Bush engaged in what were very likely politically motivated activities.

An outstanding example of these activities is the selective prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman for alleged campaign finance irregularities. The charges were thin, the sentence harsh, and whistleblowers have cited irregularities and signs of political motivation in the trial. Ninety one former Attourneys General, including Scott Harshbarger and Robert Quinn of MA, signed a document sent to the US Supreme Court in support of Siegelman.

You can learn more about Siegelman’s case he
re: http://www.donsiegelman.org/

and read the document sent by the former Attorneys General here: http://www.donsiegelman.org/fi…

As in many other areas, the Obama administration has dropped the ball by deliberately continuing the policies of Bush. MizJones

#10 this goes to the heart of it for me – 4th amendment

But I’m rather more interested in {Google CEO Eric} Schmidt’s focus on the PATRIOT Act:

we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities

This is the CEO of Google-a company that, four years ago, fought to avoid letting Alberto Gonzales get its searches in the name of preventing pornography-telling you that everything you do on Google “could be made available” to the authorities. Which I presume means it is being made available… link  -NeilSagan

#11 accountability for torture – rule of law and the executive branchACLU: “No Prohibition against Monstrous Conduct” without Adjudication of Torture

The ACLU just finished up a conference call on the status of accountability for torture. Jameel Jaffer talked about accountability generally, Ben Wizner gave an update on the Jeppesen lawsuit (which he will argue next Tuesday, Alex Abdo gave an update on the torture FOIA, and Christopher Anders gave an update on the long-awaited OPR report.

While there were a range of questions, most of the answers converged on one theme best summed up by an answer explaining the cost to our judicial system in holding up the legal judgments on torture. Until we have a binding decision on these cases, Ben Wizner argued, there is “no prohibition against monstrous conduct.”

[…]

Obama talked a lot about consequences today. But he fails to demand any for his own government. And until he does, that means torture will still be used. link -NeilSagan

#12 {a little off topic} I’d like to hear her do a 180 on her position on a second stimulus. Waiting and studying the issue is close to the worst thing we could do right now. If you don’t believe me, try this Nobel Prize winner: LINK -Danno11