Michael Chertoff’s (nominee for Homeland Security) prosecution of John Walker Lindh was one of his biggest triumphs. The case resurfaced later when Chertoff was up for confirmation to the federal bench. There were concerns the government had violated the law when questioning Lindh, under the direction of Chertoff. Chertoff denied that he was involved in this illegal government activity – but was contradicted by a whistleblower. The whistleblower, Jesselyn Radack, raised concerns and revealed government misconduct. For this, she was pushed out of her job, fired from her next job and put under criminal investigation. She is currently also on the no-fly list.
As an attorney with the Justice Department whose job was to answer prosecutors'
ethics questions, she weighed in on the controversy over whether Lindh, the "American
Taliban" captured during fighting in Afghanistan, could be interrogated
without an attorney, even though Justice officials knew Lindh's father had
hired one. When they ignored her advice and the FBI interrogated him -- and
then did not pass her warnings on to a judge looking into the matter -- she
became a whistleblower, which ultimately cost her her job and has left her
under a cloud of suspicion as a criminal investigation drags on.
rcfp.org (Leslie)
If you wonder why so few speak up, perhaps this a reason why. It is easier
for most to simply keep quiet, rather than lose your job, lose your career,
get branded a criminal and threat to national security and have your life sidetracked.
And since it seems like all of this is done with impunity, perhaps most figure
it's far better to risk so much when they believe nothing will happen anyways.
We owe it to people like Radack to make it so that her name and her case is
on the lips of every progressive American. Her sacrifices can not go in vain.
She is an American hero - and we, all Americans, are failing her.
DN interviews Radack on today’s show. DN is an independent, professional
source for non-corporate news. Streaming video and audio available at democrcaynow.org.
Excerpts from today's DN:
Michael Chertoff, President Bush's Homeland Security Chief
nominee, was praised by Senate Democrats and state lawyers this week as being
a tough but fair prosecutor
who would serve well as Tom Ridge's replacement.
But as his record comes under fresh scrutiny, questions are being raised about
his handling of the case of John Walker Lindh - the so-called American Taliban.
As head of the criminal division of the Justice Department, the 2002 prosecution
of Lindh was one of Chertoff"s biggest triumphs.
...Radack was pushed out of her job at the Justice Department, fired
from her next job, put under criminal investigation and put on the no-fly list.
She joins us on the phone today from Washington DC.
Other sources on this story:
Newly disclosed documents in
the John Walker Lindh case appear to conflict with assertions made to Congress
by Michael Chertoff, nominated this week as
homeland
security secretary, about the Justice Department's handling of ethics concerns
in the high-profile prosecution. NYT (Lichtblau)
Does this mean that the story has some traction? It is important to notice
how Lichtblau has changed his coverage since yesterday's story.
The
32-year-old former U.S. Department of Justice ethics adviser says she thought
she'd be a career government lawyer. But that was before she decided to
object to the government's tactics in the John Walker Lindh case last year.
Since then
she's lost two jobs -- pushed out of her Justice post and then fired from the
firm that had taken her in -- and now finds herself unemployed and
in limbo. Her personal challenges are daunting: under criminal investigation,
ailing
from multiple sclerosis, and expecting a third child in January. But far from
singing the victim's song, Radack appears composed and stalwart, telling her
story with short, chopping hand strokes and near-encyclopedic recall. The
American Lawyer (McCollam)
Mayer's New Yorker story is the most cited, and is the story that Sen. Kennedy
brought up during Chertoff's judicial confirmation hearings.
There was one lawyer in the Justice Department,
Jesselyn Radack, who expressed concerns about the way in which the F.B.I.
questioned Lindh, and then, after
objecting, received what she characterized as a "blistering" performance
review that cast doubt on her legal judgment. Can you talk a little bit about
her concerns, and about how it was that she agreed to speak with you?
I discovered
Jesselyn Radack while researching this piece when her name came up as the author
of several e-mails that were published by Newsweek last spring.
By the time I went looking for Radack, she was no longer at the Justice Department.
She had no listed phone number, either. I was finally able to get her address
from the Brown University alumni notes, and I just drove over to her house,
which is in the Washington area, to see if she might let me interview her.
She wasn't
home, but I left a long letter of explanation with her babysitter. By the time
I got back to my desk, she had called, and she agreed to be interviewed if
a lawyer she had retained thought it a safe thing for her to do. I think she
spoke
up because she feels very passionately that the Justice Department did not
live up to its ethical obligations in its prosecution of Lindh. New
Yorker (Mayer)
Here is Senator Kennedy citing the above New Yorker story:
According to the New Yorker article published on March 10, 2003, two
weeks after the Justice Department filed charges against Lindh, Ms. Radack,
a highly
qualified
employee who received a merit bonus the previous year, received a "blistering" performance
evaluation which severely questioned her legal judgment, and she was advised
to get a new job. Mr. Chertoff has told me that has no knowledge of the facts
surrounding Ms. Radack's employment, performance, or departure from the Department,
and I take him at his word. Nevertheless, I remain very concerned about Ms.
Radack's situation. According to press reports -- and the Department has
never issued
any statement disputing them -- Ms. Radack was in effect fired for providing
legal advice on a matter involving ethical duties and civil liberties that
higher-level officials at the Department disagreed with. Furthermore, after
Ms. Radack notified
Justice Department officials that they had failed to turn over several e-mails
requested by the federal court, Department officials notified the managing
partners at Ms. Radack's new law firm that she was the target of a criminal
investigation.
I submitted questions to Attorney General Ashcroft regarding this matter
in March, and I await his response. Senator Kennedy on www.rcfp.org May 22, 2003
Mother Jones has more on the costs of dissent.
Radack's home detention
of sorts began in November 2002, when she was effectively fired from Hawkins,
Delafield & Wood, the Washington law firm where she'd
been practicing housing law for just seven months after being forced out of
the Justice Department's ethics unit in April 2002. An agent from DOJ's Inspector
General's Office had spent the summer poking around her new office, informing
Radack's co-workers that she was a "criminal," suspected of leaking
to Newsweek emails she'd written while with the government that were critical
of the FBI's interrogation of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.
Mother
Jones (Abraham)