Turley On Aaron Swartz Case: Government Shouldn't Get To Keep Secrets So Their Perpetrators Won't Be Unpopular
Jonathan Turley blogs about the US Attorney Office's disgusting fight to keep secret the names of the prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz case:
The Justice Department was once all too eager to announce its prosecution of Aaron Swartz and issue press releases on how they piled on additional counts against him. However, after Swartz committed suicide in response to its unrelenting prosecution, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz and the Justice Department now want to keep the names of prosecutors in the case a secret so that they will not be held accountable for the abusive case. The Justice Department routinely holds press conferences in which prosecutors crowd stages to take credit for indictments. However, when a prosecution is denounced globally as excessive and cruel, the Justice Department wants to prevent the public from knowing the identities of the prosecutors responsible....Of course, despite the insistence by Holder that this prosecutor was a model of prosecutorial discretion and professionalism, they want to hide the names of those model prosecutors. Since they are pledging to continue such prosecutions, they will presumably hide the identities of prosecutors in future cases in the Administration's continued campaign against citizens.
U.S. Attorney's Office spokeswoman Christina Sterling stated that "Our argument against it is that not only does it have an effect on the people involved in the case, but there's also sometimes a residual effect." This is not an effort to redact personal information like telephone numbers and addresses, which is standard. It is an effort to remove the names of the prosecutors which are historically part of the public access to trials and court records. Such moves would further insulate the Justice Department from accountability for misconduct. It would also further a trend toward greater and greater secrecy in trials from the names of witnesses or alleged victims to types of evidence. Yet, Defendants are fully exposed to public review and scrutiny.
His source -- an Eric Smith Boston Herald story.
Such moves would further insulate the Justice Department from accountability for misconduct.
Key here is "further." They're already backpaddling, and heaven only knows how many cases have had similar results but have sailed under the radar but have escaped public notice because they haven't involved a fairly prominent public figure like Swartz.
I agree strongly with all three of the things pointed out in this Popehat post by Ken, which you may have linked before (I disremember), but I think his second point is worth emphasizing and re-emphasizing: this is the way the government treats everyone. If you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
Grey Ghost at April 4, 2013 6:32 AM
Sounds like they are trying to establish star chambers
Jim P. at April 4, 2013 6:33 AM
They can already hide evidence from the accused and their attorneys in certain cases, why shouldn't they be able to hide the identities of the prosecutors. In fact, why should they even have to announce the charges, or subject judges to public scrutiny by making them preside over trials? It would be a lot simpler and carry a much lower risk of embarrassment for the government if they could just arrest people and toss them in prison for however long someone in the US Attorney's office thought they should be in prison for without having to deal with all that messy due process stuff.
Jim at April 4, 2013 7:36 AM
This is the same brain trust that thought that walking guns out of Arizona into Mexico and into the hands of the Zetas was a fabulous idea.
And they thought prosecuting members of the New Black Party for voter intimidation was a bad idea.
And that it is perfectly OK for the President to put you on a list, and then fly a drone over your head, and if the President deems you an "imminent threat" he may then use that drone to send a nice, gift wrapped Hellfire missile to your location.
If the management of the DoJ hasn't pissed you off already, you haven't been paying attention.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 4, 2013 10:26 AM
And they thought prosecuting members of the New Black Party for voter intimidation was a bad idea.
IRA: And more importantly, in a case that they'd already won a conviction for the intimidation.
Unix-Jedi at April 4, 2013 2:42 PM
A justice system that is not transparent will not long feel obligated to deliver justice.
Robert at April 5, 2013 3:45 AM
Leave a comment