Today's actions by Eric Holder are a good first step to ending the unjust enforcement of this program once and for all. But now Congress needs to pass legislation to make this change permanent.
As Jews, we particularly understand what it means to be targeted because of our religion. But, too many of us living in America have allowed the glaring disparities of income, education, health care, and the administration of justice to fester.
Obama's Justice Department has brought more than twice as many prosecutions for the crime of leaking confidential information to journalists as the combined total of all presidents back to Woodrow Wilson. Whether you agree with Obama's track record of such prosecutions, you'd have to admit that treating Petraeus differently would be indefensible hypocrisy and elitism.
All were willing to step up to make a difference, to lead when it could be dangerous, and to let their lives be shining examples for others. We should remember them when we face stormy and cloudy weather in our national life and become bright rainbows of hope like them.
I honor the enthusiasm, the tenacity, vigilance of all who have marched, took rubber bulletts, made financial sacrifices, and found strength to go on anyhow. But as you assess where you are, and you find that this work is in your purpose, grab hold to your lane and stay in it with consistency and persistency.
Since the Marijuana Policy Project was founded 20 years ago, I've oftentimes written a list of the top 10 victories at the end of each year. 2014 was either the best or second-best year in 20 years, depending on how you weigh the legalization victories in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Col. Davis is someone who will to continue to fight for what is right along with the ACLU. I wish him and them the best, and for justice to prevail.
I first met Eric Holder during the Clinton years when he was serving as Deputy Attorney General. Back then, my community was deeply troubled by FBI harassment, the government's use of "secret evidence" to detain individuals and profiling of Muslim or Arab-looking individuals at airports around the country.
If US officials tortured people, and we know torture is, was and always has been illegal, why isn't the government prosecuting them? Maybe there's some complicated legal reason that isn't obvious to most of us why the evidence wouldn't hold up in court. If so, it's in the government's interest to explain what that is.
On the eve of Thanksgiving, the Congressional Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Task Force conducted a briefing on Islamic State in Iraq and ...
President Obama's recent speech fits a historic and racist framework through which we can describe the exclusion and banishment of people with felonies who are detained and deported. Even while some parents of citizens will be eligible for relief, parents with felonies and their families will remain vulnerable.
On March 22, 1991, a visibly shaken and angered President George H.W. Bush said he was "sickened and outraged" by what he saw on television. That was the beating of black motorist Rodney King by a swarm of LAPD cops.
While President Obama should be applauded for reaching past the partisan gridlock in Congress that has made it impossible to improve the lives of millions of families torn apart because of strict immigration laws, his emphasis on families over felons seems outdated and a rhetorical step backward, not forward.
President Obama on Thursday made it clear that, if a gridlocked Congress won't do its job on immigration reform, he will do that job himself. Now we should hope that he can also turn attention to an immigration challenge that falls under his own branch of government: immigration courts.
Using "Dirtboxes" that act like fake cellphone towers, the Marshals are flying planes around areas that cover "most of the US population." These boxes trick our phones into reporting in - essentially telling the box who we are and where we are. And they've been doing this since 2007. Whoa.
There are two ironclad requisites for a federal prosecution of a police officer for the criminal use of deadly force. One is that there has to be solid proof that the officer acted either with racial animus or with reckless intent to cause malice to an individual. The other requisite is there has to be a compelling interest.