• With the conclusion of Barack Obama’s two-term presidency, many are asking what will be next for the former U.S. President.
• Some speculate Obama will lead a quiet post oval office life as have many presidents before him.
• Others feel Obama, a former constitutional law professor will once again be bitten by the professorial bug.
• Find out through this article why we believe it will be the latter and not the former.

Now that the 2016 Presidential Election is over, we the people of the United States are asking the big question—what will Barack Obama do now? After an eventful 8 years in office, the former president has settled nicely into his new life outside of the White House. Even though the Obamas are not in office, Barack and Michelle still keep busy between attending conferences, giving keynote speeches, and performing jury duty in Chicago. They even had time to tour Harvard as they dropped off their daughter at college.

So what’s next? Some speculate that Obama may join the Democratic National Convention to help fundraise for future campaigns or advocate for the United States in International Conferences. The biggest guess is that Obama will return as a professor to teach law at Columbia University.

For those who are unaware, Barack worked as a lecturer for 12 years at the University of Chicago and was well liked by students across campus. His classes were engaging and challenging; leaving students even more excited to come to the next class. Years of giving lectures improved his public speaking skills until he became the well-spoken orator we know today. With his skill set and background in education, will he return to his old job or does he have something new in his sights?

What Is Obama Doing Today?

The ex-president has been busy this year. Here is a small timeline with a few of the things he has been up to since leaving the oval office:

• May 3 – Unveiled new plans to open a future presidential center in Chicago (his old neighborhood where his legal career began), which is to be a center for youth and community programs.
• May 7 – Gave an acceptance speech after receiving the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his work with the Affordable Care Act.
• June – Family Vacation! The entire Obama family took an exotic trip to Bali. The area holds special significance for Barack as he lived there previously as a child, before returning to his birthplace in Hawaii.
• August – The Obamas were spotted on the Harvard campus escorting their daughter Malia to her dorm. She is set to begin classes as a freshman this fall.
• September 20 – Barack Obama presented the keynote address at an event held by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
• September 25 – President Obama participated with his former vice president, Joe Biden in a fundraiser for the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children.

Since leaving the White House, the former president has delivered more than 9 paid speeches across the world, netting about $400,000 per speech. The Obamas use the $2 million earned from these talks to support job programs for low-income people in Chicago.

His heart will always belong to Chicago, but the former president has a home somewhere else as well, Columbia University. As a young man, Barack took classes at Occidental College in Los Angeles before transferring to Columbia to finish his degree. He then went to on to attend Harvard University.

Obama’s Early Days at Harvard:

Obama first began class at Harvard University in 1988. Within his first year at the college, he was selected to be an editor for the Harvard Law Review, based on his academic achievement and an impressive writing submission. The very next year, he made headlines as the first black president of the publication. His close peers at the time stated that he won the election because he was able to convince a crucial group of conservatives that if they voted for him, he would protect their interests. And these same communication skills would later be used to build up trust with communities in the South Side of Chicago.

As the first black president, the event was highly publicized and Obama received a lot of attention in the media. It was this attention that led him to land a job out of college.

Barack proudly ended his Harvard schooling with a J.D. magna cum laude, when he moved to live in Chicago.

Obama’s Teaching Experience:

One reason folks are convinced he may go back to lecturing is that he already possesses extensive classroom experience. He was hired to teach at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. In 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate. The president has referenced this period of his life before in speeches and debates.

In fact, on the campaign trail, Obama referred to himself as a “constitutional law professor” and proclaimed that he knew more about the constitution than your average presidential candidate. This comment stirred up quite a bit of controversy as Hillary Clinton pointed out that he never held that title. The controversy grew so large that the university officially released a statement on the matter:

“The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

Despite the initial contention surrounding his statements, the main fact remains true. Obama did teach several courses involving constitutional law and race theory at the University of Chicago and was labeled a senior lecturer.

What Is It Like to Take His Class?

You might wonder what it would be like to be taught by Barack himself? Let’s remember, Obama is known to for his sensational speaking skills. Even the Washington Post has cited his Selma 50^th Anniversary speech as one that “every child should read in school.” It was here during his teaching years that he honed this ability.

Overall, students seemed to like him as a professor and repeatedly left him good reviews. According to an article titled What It Was Like To Take A Class Taught By Barack Obama, students recalled “a thoughtful, passionate, challenging, and socially conscious mentor who pushed liberals and conservatives alike to challenge their assumptions.”

Professor Obama taught three courses:

1. Due Process and the Equal Protection Areas of the Constitution
2. Voting Rights
3. Racism and Law

Unfortunately, Barack did not feel welcome among his new cohorts. The Chicago staff had a reputation for leaning more towards the right politically and Obama said that he often felt like he was an outsider. And while liberal students tended to flock to his courses, they didn’t necessarily find an easy lecturer or a space devoid of debate. Barack openly criticized ineffective liberal policies and failures, citing unsuccessful legal attempts to fix problems.

But that wasn’t all. Obama played devil’s advocate in an effort to encourage students to arrive at their own conclusions organically. A former student turned law professor, D. Daniel Sokol remembers his experience as a student in Obama’s lectures, “For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn’t that kind of class.” When he wasn’t stirring up classroom debate, he stayed on the fence about most issues; not wanting to push his views on students.

That was one key component to his lessons. He tended to stay neutral or stick to a middle ground when lecturing. Not only was this looked down upon but some staff openly disagreed with Barack on the practice, stating that his “politically neutral” attitude alienated him because his peers never knew where he stood on the issues.

In especially heated debates, he would draw out uncomfortable topics, forcing students to confront tough questions. In one class about race, he “imitated the way clueless white people talked. ‘Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?’ he asked in a mock-innocent voice.” While some might find this blunt approach off-putting, a steady fan base was growing around his classes.

As word of his classes spread, more students began enrolling in his courses. In addition, his reviews and evaluation scores skyrocketed. Some students went as far as to call themselves his groupies.

For Barack, putting schooling into practice was a big part of his philosophy and you could often find him actively contributing in the areas of which he taught. For example, while teaching a class on districting and campaign financing, Obama helped to create a leading casebook in the field. He also improvised his own textbook for his political seminar on racism and law.

While his classes were extremely popular, the lecturer faced other troubles with fellow teachers. Some felt that he wasn’t involved in the school very much. Because he was working as a teacher and a politician at the time, he felt that he didn’t have much time to focus on smaller school issues. While staff debated over citation rules for next year’s students, Barack wanted to focus on something else.

Although he was offered tenure positions several times, he always turned them down and instead focused on his political career. He hasn’t taught a class since 2002.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Obama was the first sitting president to publish an academic paper?

Why Columbia University?

A source told Pagesix.com, “There has been talk of him teaching at Columbia Law School, but nothing has been confirmed.” Amid speculation, we can make a guess at why the ex-president would choose to teach at Columbia. In addition to its shining reputation as a top-tier law school, Columbia is also Obama’s alma mater. He attended Columbia from 1981 to 1983 in pursuit of his Bachelor’s degree in Political Science with a specialty in International Relations.

Columbia has also offered to house the presidential library in what is rumored to be a race between Columbia and Chicago University. Columbia has already donated land in New York to the cause if it is selected. If they do win the bid, it would be convenient for Barack to watch over the library while in the area.

A current running joke is the idea that Obama can meet up with another Columbia staff member, Amal Clooney, who is teaching civil rights on campus. Obama has long been a friend of actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal, even visiting them in Italy earlier this year. At least he can sit with someone at lunch on his first day of class!

Final Thoughts

At this point, it seems clear that a position in higher education could very well be in the future for the former president of the United States. With a successful teaching career from Chicago University and his experience in office, many are certain Barack Obama will have much to teach to the newest class of future legal professionals.

If the president does choose to return to education, let us hope he brings back his passion for bi-partisanship and lively debate. Even the most boring of lectures can be brightened with a professor who knows how to ask the right questions. Many are certain that if his old “groupies” were asked, they would gladly take another class from the former president in a heartbeat.

Obama enjoyed this period of his life so much that he authored a book about it titled The Audacity of Hope, in which he wrote:

“I loved the law school classroom: the stripped-down nature of it, the high-wire act of standing in front of a room at the beginning of each class with just blackboard and chalk, the students taking measure of me, some intent or apprehensive, others demonstrative in their boredom, the tension broken by my first question — “What’s this case about?” — and the hands tentatively rising, the initial responses and me pushing back against whatever arguments surfaced.”

See the following articles for more information:

• The Life and Legal Career of President Barack Obama
• Number of Lawyer-Politicians on the Rise
• Who Will Be America’s Next Top Lawyer?
• Postcards from Hawaii

Guest post by: Brittany Peacock

The post Barack Obama: From President to Law School Professor? first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: President Donald Trump has given the impression that he has recorded conversations between him and former FBI Director James Comey.

Are there secret “tapes” of the conversations between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey? Trump’s latest tweet seems to imply that there are: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” So would the tapes be a legal issue for the President?

Comey was fired in what the media has labeled a controversial way recently. Comey leaking to the press is a major concern for the administration but Trump may have the upper hand if the tapes do exist. Federal and Washington D.C. law allow for “one-party consent” recording, otherwise recordings made with only person aware of it.

Georgetown Law Professor Laura Donohue said in an interview with Fox News, “The idea is that, even inside your own home, when you divulge information to other individuals, you lose privacy. And it’s not a violation of your privacy. So that information, for instance, could be used in court.”

And the court is where the tapes could end up if Trump presents them as real. Lawmakers would jump at the opportunity to subpoena the tapes. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said on Fox News Sunday, “If, in fact, there are such recordings, I think those recordings will be subpoenaed and I think they will probably have to turn them over. You know, we know that there have been instances in the past in which other presidents have made recordings of conversations that have taken place the White House. And as was made clear…it doesn’t always turn out well. It’s not necessarily the best idea.”

Other presidents have recorded conversations, such as Richard Nixon. He taped thousands of hours of phone calls and conversations which were used in the Watergate hearings. At the end of the hearing, the special prosecutor was able to show how the recordings ruined his presidency by showing Nixon conspired to obstruct justice.

Could Trump face the same fate? Perhaps that is why White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer avoided the subject in a recent press conference stating, “The president has nothing further to add on that.” Trump also placed the word “tapes” in quotations, which is a known argument between him and his staff about the use of quotations and different meanings. Trump likes to use quotes to give words a different meaning that its literal connotation. For example, Trump claimed in a tweet that former President Barack Obama “wiretapped” his home. Spicer had to explain that what Trump meant was that he was under surveillance, “The President used the word ‘wiretaps’ in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.”

Do you think there are tapes or is Trump bluffing? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

To learn more about Trump’s battles with the courts, read these articles:

• Donald Trump Wants Immunity from Apprentice Contestant’s Defamation Lawsuit
• Trump University Lawsuits Settle on $25 Million
• Trump’s Travel Ban Heads to a Federal Appeals Court

Photo: flickr.com

The post Trump Hints at Secret Tapes of Conversations with Comey first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Former U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag is returning to her previous law firm, Orrick.

The top law enforcement official in San Francisco is stepping down to go back to law.

Former U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag supervised high-profile prosecutions, ranging from the Barry Bonds steroid case to the indictment of PG&E for its involvement in the San Bruno pipeline burst. She also sparked controversy from marijuana enthusiasts who protested her anti-dispensary tactics.

The Mercury News reports Haag resigned to head the law firm powerhouse, Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe.

Orrick has a global litigation unit that has more than 400 lawyers. Haag was a partner at the firm before President Barack Obama appointed her in 2010 as San Francisco U.S. Attorney. According to JD Journal, she was the first woman to serve in that position since Annette Williams, who served from 1918 to 1920.

Haag’s top assistant Brian Stretch was promoted to acting U.S. Attorney. He will remain in his post until the November election. The next president will determine who will permanently take that role.

Haag specialized in white collar cases at Orrick, which was named one of the top law firms for women. She will return to the firm on March 1.

“I am thrilled to return home to Orrick,” Haag said in a press release.  “It was an extraordinary honor to serve as United States Attorney, but I was able to leave after five years knowing that the public’s interests are in the hands of an extraordinary team of lawyers who are handling some of the most important and cutting-edge cases on the DOJ’s docket.”

Haag obtained her B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, San Diego in 1983 and her J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1987.

Source: Mercury News

Source: Orrick

The post Former U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag Joins Orrick first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: President Barack Obama offers emotional speech amid executive orders to improve gun control.

President Barack Obama’s heartfelt declamation of gun violence may have had a stronger emotional effect than legal effect, critics are claiming. While streaming tears and choking up over 2012’s Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he said, “First graders….Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.”

His compassion for gun violence victims coupled his executive orders to increase regulation of gun sales.

“In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain.”

The executive orders he has resorted to have been called modest enough. Mostly they suggest “guidance” for federal agencies, and do not instantiate new regulations. They clarify existing laws.

“Each time this comes up,” Obama said, “we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”

The rhetorical effect is to admit that these executive orders are unrelated to the heart-wrenching massacres that have polarized the media over gun rights and gun control debates. Nevertheless, he presents it as some sort of response, that something, at least is being done.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tweeted, “President wiping tears. So am I. One of the most moving things I’ve ever seen.”

Even supporters of the new plan admit that it would affect only thousands of gun sales. As 21 million gun sales were processed through background check systems in 2014, with 40 percent more, perhaps, not being subjected to background checks through private transactions, executive orders effecting only a few thousand may amount more to a gesture than an action.

“The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts,” said National Rifle Association’s top lobbyist, Chris W. Cox.

Responses from republican candidates were likewise predictably dismissive, with Rep. Paul Ryan saying Obama’s “words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

The executive order, modest as it is, has been carefully vetted to avoid being taken apart by a Republican-controlled Congress.

“If Congress doesn’t allow legislation, I think he went as far as he could using the bully pulpit,” Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum in Washington, said.

Source: NYTimes

Photo credit: The White House YouTube Channel

The post Obama Offers Tears and Executive Orders for Gun Control first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

On Friday, the Justice Department informed Congress it won’t be prosecuting the IRS or its former official Lois Lerner.

For two years, the Justice Department investigated the IRS over allegations that it had improperly targeted members of the Tea Party and other right wing groups. The probe found “substantial evidence of mismanagement” that the IRS targeted people because of their politics, but Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik said, “Poor management is not a crime.”

USA Today reported that Lerner was a “central figure in the IRS’s decision to hold up — often for years — the applications of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.” The conservative group targeting began in 2010 during the emergence of the Tea Party. USA Today additionally reported that 80% of the groups held up for receiving tax exemption were conservative.

Kadzik added, “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”

Darrell Issa, R-California, was against the decision. He said in a statement published by CNN, “The Justice Department’s decision to close the IRS targeting investigation without a single charge or prosecution is a low point of accountability in an administration that is better known for punishing whistleblowers than the abuse and misconduct they expose.”

Issa continued, “After stating that their investigation confirms that the Tea Party and conservative groups were improperly targeted, they dismiss it merely as a byproduct of gross mismanagement and incompetence — ignoring volumes of evidence in the public record and efforts to obstruct legitimate inquiries.”

To recap, in 2013, Lerner answered a planted question at an American Bar Association event concerning the scrutiny of certain groups applying for a tax exemption. Her answer led to an IRS scandal, and within weeks, congressional hearings were held and Lerner, the interim leader of the IRS, was forced out of office. JDJournal reported that President Barack Obama condemned the IRS’ action in 2013 when news broke out.

Obama stated, “This is pretty straightforward. If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there’s no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party. But I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.”

The IRS’s broad duties include tax collection and the implementation of Obamacare. Since the conservative group allegations, the IRS has struggled to recover from the scandal, according to CNN.

The post Justice Department Will Not Prosecute IRS, Lois Lerner first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The Obama administration has relented in its efforts to gain access to user smartphones, but many think the debate isn’t over yet.

Those in favor of technology privacy are praising President Obama for the administration’s decision not to seek new legislation that guarantees government access to encrypted information on computers, mobile phones, and other such devices, even though many companies know that the government has not completely given up on obtaining such data.

According to Bloomberg, parties on both sides of the issue expect the dialogue to continue. U.S. officials have stated that they expect full cooperation from technology companies, who may be compelled to turn over certain data by court order. Many technology companies, including Apple, have argued they do not want to become an extension of the government, extracting and turning over customer data.

The New York Times explains that, with the access the U.S. government desired, messages, photos, and other data that is routinely encrypted on smartphones would have been accessible.

Last year, Google released end-to-end email encryption software.

Chris Wysopal, the co-founder of Veracode Inc., a security firm in Massachusetts, says, “This is a big win for tech companies.” He noted that history implies that “when the government presses for more access, tech firms counter and built in more and stronger encryption controls. I don’t expect this cycle to stop.”

FBI Director James Comey told senators on Thursday that the White House will not seek encryption-related legislation. Instead, it will maintain “increasingly productive” discussions with companies about reducing the risks to national security and law enforcement.

Many companies and organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, vehemently opposed the legislation, The Hill adds. Over the summer, the four proposals the White House made for access to encrypted data were all dismissed after so many opposed the idea.

For some companies, such as Google and Apple, allowing direct access to source code, encryption keys, or servers would be an encroachment on customers’ privacy, and could expose data to hackers.

Comey says, “We’re not looking for volunteers, not looking to sneak in anywhere.” It is important to make sure that companies “get to a place technologically, legally where we could get you to comply with court orders.”

The Obama administration is currently trying to work with companies to compromise on data access for law enforcement “without weakening our commitment to strong encryption,” National Security Council spokesman Ned Price says.

The Justice Department also wanted Apple’s iMessage chat logs.

According to Wysopal, the feds suggested similar measures two decades ago when they proposed adopting the Clipper chip, which was a microcircuit the National Security Agency developed as an encryption device. The chip also had backdoor capability to allow law enforcement access for security reasons. It was first introduced in 1993, but by 1996 it was considered defunct due to negative reception from both manufacturers and consumers.

Many cybersecurity experts and technology companies were against the proposed backdoors from the start. Many thought the changes would never amount to anything, due to the damage American exports could suffer.

Many technology companies in Silicon Valley have taken a different approach. In attempts to fight against allegations made by Edward Snowden that they helped NSA surveillance, many companies have jumped at the opportunity to demonstrate features that keep hackers away. For example, Apple stated that iPhones would automatically encrypt data, and that the company could not help the government obtain the stored information.

However, one gap in the argument is that the information most popularly sought by law enforcement, including photos, call logs, e-mails, and texts, is legally obtainable with court orders, no matter what level of encryption is present on a device.

Another issue is the underlying purpose of most of Silicon Valley’s data encryption practices. As a general rule, Silicon Valley is more concerned with protecting corporate intellectual property than protecting end users from surveillance.

User data is also extremely valuable. Many companies store data so they may later use it to improve their services, sell ads, and get to know their users. Once data is stored it may be obtainable by the government.

The U.S. Attorney General and the FBI have pressured technology makers to create encryption backdoors for some time now. There has also been much debate over how much information companies can mine and store for business purposes, and how much access the government and law enforcement agencies have to such information.

Last year, Microsoft was fighting the government in three different websites.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has stated on multiple occasions that the company is in the product business, not the data business. One insider claims that encrypting the iPhone was motivated by a desire to protect privacy and stop law enforcement from sending an increasing number of devices to Apple for help unlocking the phones.

Bruce Schneier, the chief technology officer at cybersecurity firm Resilient Systems, Inc., formerly known as CO3 Systems, predicts that the government will continue to quietly try to obtain access to devices and their information.

He explains, “It’s been an issue since the mid-1990s, and it’s not going away because some president somewhere got momentarily sensible. I don’t believe for a minute that the pressure, overt or covert, is going to lessen.”

Source: Bloomberg

Photo credit: govtechworks.com

The post Obama Lightens Up on Encrypted Data Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The torture report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday could lead to international legal action. 

It is possible that new legal cases will be brought against American officials who took part in the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation program following the release of a report on Tuesday, according to ThinkProgress.

The report, more than 500 pages long, was released by the Senate Intelligence Committee and it details the interrogations of 39 detainees. The report has led to calls for prosecution from human rights’ organizations, the United Nations and civil liberties organizations.

To read more about the CIA, click here.

In a statement, C.I.A. director John Brennan said the following:

“We made mistakes. Detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which the Department of Justice determined at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the Bush Administration.”

When President Barack Obama took office in January of 2009, the techniques were banned via executive order.

In an interview with NPR, former CIA head John McLaughlin, said, “We went to the Department of Justice at least four times to make sure that what we were doing was not torture in a legal sense and that it was consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

“And, on top of that John Durham, one of the toughest professional prosecutors in the Department of Justice, was asked by the Obama Administration to look at this program in detail, which he did,” McLaughlin said. “And he came back and said, ‘No prosecutable offenses.’”

In a statement from the United Nations’ special rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson, said the following:

“The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability.”

To read more about the United Nations, click here.

Emmerson also said that the United States is legally obligated to prosecute acts of torture as a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

In an email sent to the New York Times, Laura Pitter of Human Rights Watch, said, “We know absolutely that key witnesses [who were subjected to torture] that went beyond what was authorized in C.I.A custody, were not interviewed.”

Also from Human Rights Watch, Andrea Prasow said, “Other countries have all the information they need should they wish to exercise universal jurisdiction and prosecute these officials should they appear in their borders.”

The ACLU said that there are multiple U.S. laws that could be used to hold the people accused of torture responsible for their actions. One of those laws is that of the federal torture statute.

To read more about the ACLU, click here.

The ACLU said, “There is no statute of limitations under the torture statute when the abuse risked or resulted in serious physical injury or death.”

Will the participants in the torture incidents face legal action? Use our poll to share your thoughts.

Image credit: Associated Press

The post Participants in Torture Incidents Could Face International Legal Action first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The post 10 Incredibly Awkward Celebrity Kisses first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: With the outbreak of 3 Ebola patients in the U.S., and one sick nurse who flew on a commercial flight, the nation panics.

Ebola hysteria is spreading like a virus. When Thomas Eric Duncan flew from West Africa to Texas, after which he was diagnosed with Ebola, one of a handful of people who have been so outside of Africa, he infected at least two other people before he died. Those two people were among the nurses who tended for him while he was staying at Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas. One of the nurses, Amber Vinson, who was being monitored to discern if she had contracted the disease, decided to fly to Ohio on a commercial plane, sharing the flight with 132 other passengers. Many fear that such negligence in monitoring those infected with the virus could herald an outbreak equal to what we are seeing in West Africa, where 4,000 have so far died.

“She was being monitored here in Dallas,” said Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Tom Frieden, as reported by CNN. “And if she was being monitored correctly, I think she should have never gotten on that flight.”

What he is hinting at is a systems failure. Many are calling into question whether Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas adequately handled the Ebola situation. The CDC is learning its lesson and changing its guidelines.

“The CDC guidance in this setting outlines the need for what is called controlled movement. That can include a charter plane, a car, but it does not include public transport,” said Frieden. “We will from this moment forward ensure that no other individual who is being monitored for exposure undergoes travel in any way other than controlled movement.”

This is not to say the 132 passengers on Vinson’s plane need be worried. At the time of her flight, she had shown none of the symptoms of Ebola, and the disease only spreads when symptoms are present. Nevertheless, the CDC is reaching out to the fellow passengers requesting interviews.

The plane, meanwhile, has undergone decontamination before returning to services Wednesday.

“I don’t think we have a systematic institutional problem,” opined Dr. Daniel Varga, chief clinical officer of Texas Health Resources. They “may have done some things differently with the benefit of what we know today. No one wants to get this right more than our hospital.”

On the contrary, it could be President Barack Obama also wants to get this right. He cancelled his trips to New Jersey and Connecticut Wednesday to address the government’s role in facing the outbreak.

“We’re going to make sure that something like this is not repeated, and that we are monitoring, supervising, overseeing in a much more aggressive way exactly what’s taking place in Dallas … and making sure that the lessons learned are then transmitted to hospitals all across the country,” said the president.

Certainly something is being widely transmitted, but it’s not Ebola. The disease makes for a scary and exciting story, but with a mere three infections in the U.S., all fiercely monitored, with entire committees and the very President scrutinizing its every move, it seems clear that the news of the outbreak makes for a fascinating concern, if not a true threat.

The post Ebola Hysteria Hits Nation After Sick Nurse Flies Commercial first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that he will formally resign from the post on Thursday after becoming the first African American to hold it.

News broke on Thursday that the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr., will announce his resignation from the position. Holder is the first black U.S. attorney general in the country’s history, according to NPR.

Holder will leave the Justice Department when his successor is named, which might not happen until the end of 2014 or early in 2015. Unnamed sources have told NPR that Holder wants to leave the position soon because he fears that he could be stuck in the position for the remainder of President Barack Obama’s second term in the White House.

Holder is the fourth-longest tenured Attorney General in the history of the position and is among one of the longest-serving members of Obama’s Cabinet.

A leading candidate for the job is Solicitor General Don Verrilli. Verrilli is the top representative to the Supreme Court for the administration.

Those close to Holder say he has yet to decide what his next move will be in regards to his career, but he very well could return to Covington & Burling.

The former resignation announcement will be made later in the day on Thursday. Holder graduated from Columbia Law School and served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He also served time as an associate judge at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under President Ronald Reagan.

The post Attorney General Eric Holder to Resign from Post first appeared on JDJournal Blog.