Saturday, July 07, 2007

Justice Dropping Warrantless Eavesdropping Warrant

Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, by a 2-1 decision, vacated last August's Order from District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor which enjoined the Bush administration from eavesdropping without warrants. Judge Taylor had found that the President's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program violates both the Constitution as well as federal law (FISA).

Yesterday's ruling (.pdf) had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case -- i.e., whether the NSA program is illegal or not -- but instead rested only on the narrow, technical (though important) issue of whether the particular plaintiffs in this case are entitled to sue over the warrantless eavesdropping program (two of the three judges concluded that they are not).

While the two judges in the majority did not rule on the legality of the program, the third judge -- Judge Gilman -- agreed with Judge Taylor's finding that the President's program violated FISA. He thus wrote that he "would affirm its judgment," and he rejected the administration's standard two defenses for that behavior (i.e., (1) that AUMF implicitly authorized FISA violations and (2) the President has "inherent authority" under Article II to eavesdrop with no warrants). In fact, just as was true for Judge Taylor, Judge Gilman found that while the "standing" issue was a close one, the actual merits -- i.e., whether the President broke the law -- was not close:

The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier . . . . [The administration's] AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and statutory construction.
The two judges in the majority did not dispute any of this. Instead, they ruled, roughly speaking, that because the program was conducted in secret, the plaintiffs cannot prove that they were subjected to warrantless eavesdropping and thus lack "standing" to contest the legality of the NSA program.

Several observations about the decision:

(1) Any journalist or Bush follower claiming that this decision constitutes vindication for warrantless eavesdropping -- or that it constitutes a repudiation of Judge Taylor's finding that the President broke the law and violated the Constitution -- is deeply confused and/or engaged in a campaign of deceit. Even worse than that, anyone celebrating this result is essentially celebrating a situation where our government leaders are able to act in secret -- even when the law makes it illegal to do so -- and as a result of this secrecy, block courts from ruling on whether they broke the law.

Why would anyone -- including those who think the NSA program is legal -- want to empower our government officials to act free of judicial review of whether they acted illegally? If those who claim to believe that the President acted legally are telling the truth, wouldn't they desire a judicial ruling on these questions?

As noted, the majority opinion here did not make a single comment suggesting they believe Judge Taylor's ruling on the merits was wrong, nor did they suggest that warrantless eavesdropping is legal. To the extent they commented on those issues at all, the majority opinion observed that the appeal "presents a number of serious issues," while the other Judge in the majority (Gibbons) described in the first paragraph of her concurring opinion the "complexity" of the "merits issues." Not a word in either of those two opinions constitutes a repudiation of the finding by Judge Taylor that the President broke the law and violated the Constitution.

(2) Unlike the two judges in the majority, the dissenting judge (Gilman) did issue findings regarding the illegality of the NSA program once he found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. And he decided conclusively that the NSA program violates FISA and that the administration's two legal excuses are invalid. That means that the only two federal judges ever to rule on the legality of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program -- Judge Taylor and now Judge Gilman -- have both decisively concluded that the President's warrantless eavesdropping is illegal.

Moreover, the rejection by both Judge Taylor and Judge Gilman of the administration's Article II and AUMF "defenses" are completely consistent with the rejection of those same defenses by the Supreme Court in its Hamdan ruling last June, when the Court found illegal the President's Guantanamo military commissions. The two prongs of the Cheney/Addington/Yoo Vision of Presidential Omnipotence used to justify a whole array of presidential lawbreaking -- Article II "inherent authority" and AUMF's "implicit" authorization -- have suffered one legal defeat after the next. If anything, yesterday's decision bolsters that trend, not undermines it.

(3) This is one of those types of legal outcomes which -- understandably so -- can drive laypersons, along with conscientious lawyers, crazy. The result, on its face, is grotesquely unfair, outrageously so.

After all, the whole point of FISA is to make it illegal for the government to spy on us in secret. And yet spying on us in secret is exactly what the Bush administration did; that is the crux of the lawbreaking here. But precisely because it spied on Americans in secret rather than with judicial oversight, nobody knows whose conversations they surveilled and we cannot find out.

It is because of this illegal behavior that the plaintiffs are unable to show that they were subjected to this surveillance. To dismiss the case on the ground that the plaintiffs are unable to make this showing, then, is to reward the Bush administration with the ultimate prize (immunity from judicial review) for having broken the law.

Worse still, it means that if the Government breaks the law in secret, it can be immune from being held accountable in a court because no one individual can ever prove that they were directly and uniquely harmed by the illegal conduct, and thus would lack standing to sue. That result is as destructive as it is Kafka-esque, and it is what happened yesterday.

But the fact that the decision's result is so unfair does not mean, unfortunately, that it was wrongly decided. The role of the judge is to apply the law as it exists, and a judge is not free -- nor should we want them to be free -- to disregard binding legal doctrine whenever the judge decides that doing so is necessary to avoid unfair results. In a society that exists under the rule of law, the solution to bad laws and bad legal doctrines is to change those laws democratically, not to empower judges unilaterally to disregard the law in order to produce (what the individual judge perceives to be) better results.

As technical-seeming as it is, "standing" is a critically important constitutional limitation on the power of the judiciary. Independently, whether one believes in the merits of this doctrine or not, it is a requirement that must be fulfilled before the Constitution permits a court to rule on any matter. And there is good reason for that.

Courts are not omnipotent, free-floating bodies that exist in order to resolve all disputes. If courts had the power to resolve every abstract political and legal dispute, courts themselves would be omnipotent, or at least supreme. The Constitution thus limits the power of courts by narrowing the circumstances in which courts are empowered to act ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . . [and] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"). Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court over the years has interpreted that provision to require (roughly speaking) direct and unique injury by the party who is suing, and the Sixth Circuit judges were required to apply that doctrine.

The role of a federal court is thus confined to resolving actual, specific disputes between specific parties where, in essence, one party has harmed the other. If such an injury is lacking, it means that the plaintiffs in a case are basically asking the court to simply issue abstract rulings -- i.e., "is the Government's warrantless eavesdropping program legal"? -- rather than resolving an actual, specific dispute ("I was harmed by the defendant and am entitled to be compensated or otherwise have that wrongful conduct remedied").

Independent of the question of whether the standing issue was correctly resolved here -- and all of the judges appeared to believe that it was a close and difficult question -- the standing doctrine is an important limitation on the power of courts. And that is true even when it produces atrocious outcomes (such as yesterday's finding that our Government can break the law in how its spies on us but remain immune from judicial review as long as it keeps its lawbreaking a secret).

(4) The most important point here is, as usual, the one most overlooked by journalists and Bush followers alike. From the beginning of the NSA scandal, Bush followers have proudly boasted about how confident they were that their warrantless eavesdropping behavior was legal. And yet, the only thing they have done is desperately block one attempt after the next to obtain a legal ruling on whether they broke the law.

There have been countless proposals and other means available to have a court rule on whether the government broke the law and violated the Constitution by spying without warrants, and the administration has resisted every such effort. Yesterday's ruling was but the latest of the obstruction efforts.

Indeed, as Judge Gilman noted -- and as so-called "legal experts" commenting on this case have completely failed to understand -- the Bush administration in this case refused to defend its conduct on the merits. The only argument they made before Judge Taylor was that she had no right to rule on these matters, and they therefore, in effect, conceded the substantive claims that they broke the law. As Judge Gilman wrote:

This is an amazingly simple point that law professors and others who strutted around criticizing Judge Taylor's opinion -- including Orin Kerr and Ann Althouse in her tour de force of ignorance in a New York Times Op-Ed -- have failed to digest.

Judge Taylor did not "fail to address" arguments made by the Bush administration regarding the legality of their behavior because they did not make any such arguments. They refused to do so, because -- as always -- their only objective is to block judicial rulings on the legality of their behavior, not to defend what they have done.

But once myths like this take hold, especially when they are spouted by so-called "experts," they are impossible to eradicate, and hence, we find this on the front page of The New York Times today in an article by Adam Liptak:

Judge Taylor's ruling, which was stayed during the appeal, had attracted criticism from across the political spectrum. Legal experts said it overlooked important precedents, failed to engage some of the government's arguments and relied on novel constitutional arguments where more straightforward ones were available.
Except on the standing issue, yesterday's ruling did not repudiate any of Judge Taylor's findings. The one judge who ruled on them at all said he would have affirmed them, and on the issue of the program's legality, ruled as she did. Moreover, the claim that she "failed to engage some of the government's arguments" is based on the complete falsehood that the government advanced arguments to defend its behavior. It did not. It expressly refused to do so. And that is the key point here, and has been from the beginning.

Since the NSA scandal emerged, there has never been a remotely meritorious -- or even non-frivolous -- defense to the President's lawbreaking. And the administration knows that, which is why they have desperately sought to block judicial review of their behavior and have refused to defend their behavior in court. Rather than simplistically focus on the binary win/loss analysis in discussing this outcome, perhaps journalists could highlight the real scandal here -- having been caught red-handed violating the law in eavesdropping on our conversations, the Bush administration has done everything possible to prevent a judicial ruling on the legality and constitutionality of its actions.

(5) The plaintiffs here will, of course, appeal, though they have no automatic right to have their appeal heard. Either the full Sixth Circuit panel or the Supreme Court must agree to hear their appeal if there is to be a further decision in this case. There are court cases (against AT&T and other telecommunication companies) challenging the legality of the NSA program pending in the Ninth Circuit, where the District Judge has refused to dismiss those lawsuits based on the "state secrets" doctrine and an appellate ruling on that question is expected soon.

There are ways for Congress to act here in order to enable or even compel a court to rule on the legality of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. Regardless of one's views on the legality of this program, obtaining a judicial ruling is urgently necessary. It should require little mental energy to contemplate the dangers of allowing our government leaders to spy on us (or take other actions against us) in secret and then simultaneously block any and all processes to determine whether they have broken the law.

-- Glenn Greenwald


Monday, July 02, 2007

Impunity: Bush Commutes Scooter

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence
by David Corn

It is appropriate.

The president who led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq by peddling false statements and misrepresentations has come to the rescue of a White House aide convicted of lying by commuting his sentence. Before the ink was dry on today's court order denying Scooter Libby's latest appeal -- a motion to allow him to stay out of jail while he was challenging his conviction -- George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will no longer have to serve the 30-month prison sentence ordered by federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. He will, though, have to pay the $250,000 fine that was part of the sentence.

The commutation -- which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction -- is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability. Bush has been rather stingy in the use of his pardon power. And regulations issued by his Justice Department note that recipients of pardons should serve their sentences and demonstrate contrition before obtaining presidential absolution. (Libby had expressed no remorse and was not scheduled to report to jail for several weeks.) Yet with this commutation, Bush ducked those requirements, and he is allowing Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was found guilty of lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, to go unpunished. The fine will be no problem for Libby. His neoconservative friends and admirers will kick in to cover that tab. (Perhaps even Cheney will send a check.)

Libby had become a symbol of the Bush White House's problem with the truth. After all, his lies had been designed to block FBI agents and federal prosecutors from learning the full truth of a White House effort to discredit a critic who had accused the Bush administration of twisting the prewar intelligence. And now the final act in the long-running CIA leak scandal -- Bush's commutation -- stands as another symbol of this grand theme: Lying doesn't really bother this crowd. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush claimed he would bring responsibility to the White House and, as a PR stunt, he dubbed his campaign jet Accountability One. Yet with this commutation, he takes the position that in his administration an aide who purposefully misleads government officials investigating a possible national security crime need not be held fully accountable.

This is no shocker. Early on in the CIA leak affair, the White House announced that anyone involved in the 2003 leak that disclosed the CIA employment of Valerie Wilson, an undercover Agency officer, would be booted out of the administration. But Karl Rove, who had disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters and who apparently lied about his actions to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, was not pink-slipped. Bush has never acknowledged this broken promise. (Libby left the White House only after he was indicted in the fall of 2005.)

Bush shielded Rove, and now -- better late than never -- he's doing the same for Libby. Ever since Libby's conviction in March, neoconservative and conservative Libby partisans have been urging -- or demanding -- that Bush pardon Libby. They have cried that his indictment, his conviction, and his sentence were travesties of justice. They blasted Bush for declining to intervene in the proceedings, branding the president (their pal!) a coward. They acted as if Bush's refusal to pardon Libby was a personal betrayal of each and every one of them. They showed more concern for Libby than any of the civilians who have perished in Iraq in the years since they, Libby. and their allies engineered the invasion of Iraq. Libby was their cause; he was one of them.

Once again, Bush, being nudged by the neocons, has sent a clear message: Telling the truth doesn't matter. Bush has refused to acknowledge that he, Cheney, and other administration officials -- to be polite about it -- stretched the truth about Iraq and the threat it posed before the war. Today, he says that if you lie to protect the White House (especially the vice president), you can escape retribution. But if Bush, Cheney and the others could get away with big untruths about war, why shouldn't Libby get away with small lies about a cover-up? Fair's fair, right?

The foundation of a democratic judicial system is that the sentence fits the crime. In this instance, the commutation fits the administration.

David Corn is the Washington editor for The Nation magazine.

Copyright © 2007 The Nation

New York TImes Take on Palestine Heist

Gaza public servants to get Israeli funds
Steven Erlanger in Jerusalem
July 3, 2007

THE Israeli Government has agreed to restore full financial ties with the Palestinian Authority now that its President, Mahmoud Abbas, has decreed an emergency government with no Hamas members. Israel will resume transfers of taxes to the Authority and return - in instalments - about $US600 million ($707 million) withheld from the Palestinians since early last year.

On Sunday Israel transferred about $US120 million, the equivalent of a month's payroll for the entire authority.

The decision ends an Israeli policy of fiscal isolation of the Palestinians that began with the installation of a Hamas-run government in March last year, after Hamas won a legislative majority, beating the rival Fatah faction. The policy, together with a Western ban on aid to the Hamas government, was designed to undermine that government and bring it down, officials conceded at the time.

Now with Hamas having taken over the Gaza Strip, Mr Abbas, of Fatah, has sacked a Hamas-dominated "unity" government and installed an emergency cabinet led by Salam Fayyad, an independent economist close to Fatah.

Israel and the US are trying to bolster Mr Abbas, who favours a peaceful negotiated solution with Israel, and help him create a functional society in the West Bank. Israel views Mr Abbas as weak and indecisive, but officials see that by sacking the old government, he is finally standing up to Hamas.

Mr Fayyad, educated in Texas and a former economist with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, is prime minister, finance minister and foreign minister.

As finance minister he will be receiving direct transfers from the Israeli treasury and from the West. It remains to be seen whether the European Union, which has been paying part of the salaries of up to 80,000 Palestinians through direct transfers to their bank accounts, will now revert to putting its aid - $US900 million last year - solely through Mr Fayyad.

Mr Fayyad has said he plans, as prime minister of the new government, also to pay Palestinian public servants in Gaza. Many Palestinian Authority employees in Gaza work in health and education, and it would be politically impossible for Mr Fayyad to spend all Palestinian income solely in the West Bank. But how he will pay Palestinian security forces in Gaza without financing Hamas, at least indirectly, is unclear.

"Whether he pays Gaza salaries is not our business," said Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. "This is a Palestinian government that has already outlawed all armed groups outside the official security services, and we want to co-operate."

The New York Times

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Appeal: John Graham Loses Extradition Defense Bid

JOEY ONLY OUTLAW BAND supports and stands beside our brother John Graham, a long time indigenous and anti-nuclear activist...we have supported Johnboy since day 1 of his arrest years ago! We wish we weren't on tour when the decision came down so we could have been in court with him.
1.Article on our friend John Graham's extradition appeal
2.Send Johnboy a letter in prison
3.Send a letter on John's behalf

1.John Graham Loses Extradition Appeal Submitted by blackandred on Sun, 2007-07-01 03:51. British Columbia |Turtle Island | Imperialism | Indigenous | Race | Rights | Security apparatus

Former AIM Member Loses Extradition Appeal

by ROD MICKLEBURGH; Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 5:15 AM EDT - Globe and Mail

[How very sad! The FBI's 'COINTELPRO' program is still happening as another Indigenous Warrior is railroaded by the combined powers of the settler colonies of 'Canada' and the 'United States' - b&r]

VANCOUVER - Echoes from the turbulent and often violent conflicts that consumed the militant American Indian Movement in the 1970s continue to resound in the courtrooms of British Columbia.

Yesterday, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the extradition of former AIM member John Graham to stand trial in South Dakota in the chilling murder more than 30 years ago of Canadian Mi'kmaq Anna Mae Aquash.

After the decision, to the evident distress of his two adult daughters sitting in the courtroom, Mr. Graham was taken into custody to await transport to the United States, pending a possible final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

According to U.S. authorities, Mr. Graham executed Ms. Aquash as she wept and prayed for her life on a desolate corner of the Pine Ridge Reservation on a wintry South Dakota night in 1975.

Her death was allegedly ordered by AIM leaders who believed that the 30-year-old mother was an informer for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

A U.S. federal jury convicted Arlo Looking Cloud of murder three years ago for his role in the killing. He has told authorities that he looked on while Mr. Graham shot Ms. Aquash in the back of the head.

Mr. Graham and his many supporters argue, however, that he is being framed by the FBI, as they believe well-known native activist Leonard Peltier was.

Mr. Peltier, currently serving a life sentence for the murder of two FBI agents killed during a 1975 shootout with AIM at Pine Ridge, also fought a long, unsuccessful battle to avoid extradition from B.C.

In a case that continues to arouse emotions today, the main evidence used to extradite Mr. Peltier was a sworn affidavit by native Myrtle Poorbear that later proved to be false. Many, including Amnesty International, have called for Mr. Peltier's release.

AIM was the focus of worldwide attention in those days after rifle-toting natives seized Wounded Knee reservation in 1971, keeping federal agents at bay for 71 days.

Over time, however, the militant movement bogged down in bitter divisions. Some of the statements used against Mr. Graham came from former members and leaders of AIM. They said that Mr. Looking Cloud told them Mr. Graham was involved in the murder of Ms. Aquash.

Court of Appeal Judge Ian Donald referred to the statements in upholding Mr. Graham's extradition to stand trial.

"In my opinion, a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict on the evidence that [Mr. Graham]...carried out [Ms. Aquash's] execution with the assistance of Looking Cloud," he concluded.

Mr. Graham's lawyer, Terry La Liberté, said he has little hope his client will receive a fair trial in the United States.

"He's going to be at the mercy of their justice system," Mr. La Liberté said. "It took them just four days to try and convict and sentence Arlo Looking Cloud. It's a railroad down there."

Apart from hearsay statements, the evidence against Mr. Graham is non-existent, he said. "There is not a tittle of forensic evidence. ... In Canada, this case wouldn't even get past the charge approval stage. It's terribly frustrating."

With a report from Canadian Press


2. Please write John a postcard - a postcard so that guards can read it - Write soon as John could be extradited at any time within the next 28 days

Attn: John Graham
North Fraser Pre Trial Center
1451 Kingsway Ave.,
Port Coquitlam,
BC V3C 1S2.

Here are some addresses I am asking people to write in the order given PLEASE send copies of your letters to whoever is appropriate. Never just send off one copy of a letter. It is sometimes in the threat of a copy going elsewhere that something gets done.

N.B ALSO please write Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice, House of Commons. Ottawa K1A 0A6 and ask him NOT to put his signature on John's extradition order

AMNESTY ADDRESSES - Write and ask that John Graham's case be looked into as a travesty of justice and ask to have John accepted as a political prisoner. (Links are given to articles giving John's story at the end.)

Write London and US and Germany (Bonn) and the other AI groups listed only as you can. It seems rather useless to write AI Canada in view of this head-in-the-sand answer they have sent us:

( Amnesty(Canada) has previously commented on the need for careful scrutiny of the evidence presented against John Graham, whether in an extradition hearing or in a trial.

However, while we respect efforts to mount an effective defense, we do not share the position that Graham should be shielded from prosecution on the basis of past miscarriages of justice in respect to other, much more prominent members of AIM.

The US justice system is capable of meeting international fair trial standards and should be expected to do in every instance.

The alternative would be to accept that no one could be prosecuted for the murder of Indigenous rights defender Anna Mae Aquash because similar concerns about political interference past investigations would come up in every instance.

I hope that this clarifies our position.
Craig Benjamin
Campaigner for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples)


International Secretariat, London

If you have concerns about human rights issues in any particular country, or wish to report instances of human rights abuse, you should contact the Amnesty International Secretariat which is our research and policy headquarters based in London.

Amnesty International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London UK

Tel +44 (0)20 7413 5500
Fax +44 (0)20 7956 1157

Amnesty International USA
5 Penn Plaza,
New York, NY
USA 10001
(212) 807-8400

Mid West Office
53 Jackson, Ste. 731, Chicago, IL
USA 60604

(312) 427-2060

Germany - amnesty international - Sektion der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
e. V.

E-mail +49 (0)228 / 9 83 73-0
+49 (0)228 / 63 00 36

amnesty international
Sektion der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V.
53108 Bonn

amnesty international
Sekretariat der deutschen Sektion
Büro Bonn
Heerstr. 178
53111 Bonn

amnesty international
Sekretariat der deutschen Sektion
Büro Berlin
Greifswalder Str. 4
10405 Berlin


Amnesty International Scotland
9 Haymarket Terrace
Edinburgh EH12 5EZ

Tel +44 (0) 844 800 9088
Fax +44 (0) 131 313 7000
Press and media enquiries should be directed to Naomi McAuliffe at the
above office.

Ireland Amnesty International Northern Ireland
397 Ormeau Road

Tel +44 (0) 28 9064 3000
Press and media enquiries should be directed to Fiona Smith at the above
Write to ask that John Graham's case be put into the Supreme Court for the
sake of all Canadians and our threatened sovereignty The Right Hon
Beverley McLachlin Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington St
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1

The Hon Irwin Cotler MP (former Minister of Justice who knows about John's case - as does Peter McKay and Andy Scott and Stephen Owen. I have spoken personally to all of them.)
491 West Block
Ottawa Ontario, K1A 0A6
-Any member can be written at House of Commons, Ottawa. K1A 0A6

Allmand was the solicitor general for Canada when Peltier was extradited)

Warren Allmand
4351 Oxford, Montréal, QC
H4A 2Y7
(514) 486-1811

International Action Center New York: (This was set up by Ramsay Clark who
was much in sympathy with Leonard Peltier)
5C - Solidarity Center
55 West 17th Street
New York, N.Y. 10011


Please write Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 and ask him NOT to put his signature on John's extradition order. Ron Basford regrettably gave his signature for the extradition of Leonard Peltier)

Also write
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association
360 Bloor St. W.
Suite 506
Here are addresses for Human Rights Watch. Let them know the story and even ask them re legal help in USA. Washington and San Francisco office have always replied to me.

350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299 USA
Tel: 1-(212) 290-4700, Fax: 1-(212) 736-1300

1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel:1-(202) 612-4321, Fax:1-(202) 612-4333

11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 441
Los Angeles, CA 90064 USA
Tel:1-(310) 477-5540, Fax: (310) 477-4622

Human Rights Watch
100 Bush Street, Suite 1812
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415.362.3250, Fax: 415.362.3255
Info & links:

"Who killed Anna Mae Aquash?"
by Rex Weyler
Vancouver Sun, January 8, 2005

Dr. Noam Chomsky on John Graham's threatened extradition from Vancouver

Bob Newbrook, attending officer at Leonard Peltier's arrest
Raises doubts about John Graham's arrest

Bruce Ellison, lawyer, 4 decades defending native activists in the US

An interview about John Graham:


THE CASE DOES NOT GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. Do you know any lawyers in the US?