Earlier this month, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) informed Col. Morris Davis he would be dismissed from his position as assistant director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. His job ends on December 21, at the end of a one-year probationary period. CRS won’t comment publicly on the matter, by it has been widely reported (here, here, and here) that he was fired for criticizing the Obama Administration’s decision to try some detainees in federal court and others in military commissions in a WSJ op-ed and [criticizing former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a] letter to the editor in the Washington Post. Both items mentioned he was the former chief prosecutor for military commissions, and neither mentioned his position at CRS. Nonetheless, CRS maintained in a letter to Co. Davis’ attorneys that he was properly dismissed for his failure “to adhere to the CRS policy on Outside Speaking and Writing.” Apparently some at CRS believe Col. Davis’ public statements were potentially controversial and could undermine CRS’ reputation as an “objective and non-partisan research and analysis to Congress.” The ACLU is representing Col. Davis and is threatening to sue. From the Washington Post‘s account:
Davis said he was writing in his personal capacity, and neither the op-ed nor the letter identified him as an employee of the CRS, where he is an assistant director in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. Davis also said he had previously spoken at events on Guantanamo with permission and without incident.
“Military commissions are not my area of responsibility,” Davis said. “Library of Congress policy says people are encouraged to write, teach and speak on areas that are outside their official responsibilities. The ultimate irony is we are in the James Madison Building but the First Amendment doesn’t apply for those who work in the building named for the guy who wrote it.”
Roger the Shrubber says:
This can’t be true, because we know that the ACLU is a left-wing organization that hates liberty, other than the liberty to elect Stalin.
December 15, 2009, 9:20 amSnaphappy says:
Because if the First Amendment means anything, it means that you can say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever from anyone.
December 15, 2009, 9:25 amAnderson says:
he was fired for criticizing the Obama Administration’s decision to try some detainees in federal court and others in military commissions in a WSJ op-ed and letter to the editor in the Washington Post
Re: the Post letter, that’s nonsense; he criticized Mukasey’s criticism of Obama, and was thus indirectly *defending* the administration.
His WSJ editorial was indeed critical (not without reason).
[I've amended the OP accordingly. JHA]
December 15, 2009, 9:32 amJay says:
“Because if the First Amendment means anything, it means that you can say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever from anyone.”
Well, the “whatsoever” here is getting fired from your job, and the “anyone” is the federal government, so you’d have to admit that does actually cut things a bit close, at least as we usually think about such matters.
December 15, 2009, 9:40 amYankev says:
On a quasi related matter, when is the ABA, that stalwart guardian of the integrity of the justice system, going to criticise — or at least report — the firing of Gerald Walpin?
December 15, 2009, 9:49 amPatrick216 says:
Criticism of our Dear Leader is not acceptable.
The MSM still will not criticize Dear Leader in any meaningful way, except very mild statements of concern over when the jobs are going to come back. (They’ve started carping at Congressional Democrats a bit, but mostly because Dingy Harry can’t get 60 votes to nationalize health care…) The one lady at NPR who is willing to go on Fox was “pressured” by her Government-backed employer to stop doing so because Fox didn’t toe the party line.
Why would you expect actual government employees to be able to criticize our Dear Leader?
[Now for my actual, serious point--I think CRS has the right to enact a work rule that limits its employees' public speaking rights. The relevant question to me is whether the work rule is being applied to discriminate on the basis of employees' viewpoint. If CRS folks were allowed to bash Bush without reprisal, yet this guy gets fired for criticizing Dear Leader, that's a much more serious problem.]
December 15, 2009, 10:07 amArthurKirkland says:
It appears the ACLU — in line with its tradition as a leader of the libertarian-liberal alliance (emphasis on “libertarian”) — is attempting to promote liberty in this case.
I believe Mr. Davis is entitled to speak (write), even if his argument that “Guantanamo equals justice” is laughably weak (a point that does not necessarily invalidate his objection to a “having it both ways” approach) and his “endless war” reasoning is just as bad.
Plus, I wouldn’t brag about having been chief prosecutor at a location whose “justice system” didn’t work, in large part because those calling the shots didn’t want it to work.
December 15, 2009, 10:18 amAnderson says:
I’m puzzled. The Right hates Obama, the Left is disappointed with Obama (or “betrayed,” as Garry Wills put it), the mainstream media still repeats stenographically the GOP spin on everything …
Who are the followers of “Dear Leader”? Do y’all trouble yourselves to speak with reference to any external reality, or is that irrelevant?
December 15, 2009, 10:19 amPatrick216 says:
The MSM doesn’t “stenographically” repeat anything the GOP says. The GOP is irrelevant these days. Hell, in a recent public opinion poll, the GOP finished third in a three-way generic ballot race with the Democrats and the “tea party”…
To the extent the MSM even dares to criticize our Dear Leader, it does so from the left–not the right. In fact, about the only time I ever saw anyone in the MSM challenge Obama is when Obama banned Fox News. Even that criticism was fairly tepid and low-key.
December 15, 2009, 10:55 amgeokstr says:
Absolutely correct, a point I have made here in a number of different ways over the last year.
You must be fairly new here, otherwise you would know that there are actually people here who claim the New York Times and most of the MSM are really shills for the right. Apparently, the logic is that guys who wear suits and have a lot of money own them, rendering them ipso facto rightwing extremists, or because after 9/11 they momentarily were infected by patriotism and briefly were pro-Iraq War before they were violently against it.
It all does boil down to your perspective. If you’re looking from the ultra-far left, then the MSM’s merely far-left bias must look rightwing to them. From that far out, I guess it’s understandable (at least to them) that anyone with, you know, actual conservative views just has to be an evil racist troglydite.
December 15, 2009, 11:51 amThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
I do agree that the “no op-eds” policy at least facially appears to raise First Amendment concerns. But CRS, in my experience, truly is non-partisan. Surely there is some interest in keeping CRS above politics, just as there is in the military? Surely congressional staff ought to be able to read CRS reports without wondering whether the analyst has left out inconvenient facts?
December 15, 2009, 11:56 amKen Arromdee says:
The WSJ editorial is indeed criticizing Obama, but it’s doing so from the perspective that the administration is prosecuting prisoners unfairly. The idea that the prisoners are being prosecuted unfairly is one supported by the left, not by the right.
So it’s true that the ACLU is helping someone who criticized Obama–but criticizing him from a left-wing perspective is not inconsistent with the ACLU being left-wing.
December 15, 2009, 12:12 pmyet again says:
The same CRS director pushed out Lou Fisher during the Bush administration for his criticism of presidential war powers post-9/11. It was a bit of a black eye at the time, given Lou’s scholarly reputation. He’s now in the Library of Congress.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/02/more_turmoil_at_the_congressio.html
December 15, 2009, 1:56 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » May CRS Analysts Criticize the President’s Policies? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: May CRS Analysts Criticize the President’s Policies?: Earlier this month, the Congressional Research Service (C.. http://bit.ly/5gvvj2 [...]
December 15, 2009, 3:05 pmFloridan says:
“Dear Leader” Haw, haw! Very witty — I’ll have to pass this on to my son and his friends (they are in 9th grade).
December 15, 2009, 3:42 pmBob from Ohio says:
The ACLU is backing someone who quit as a prosecutor because we were being mean to terrorists. Its support here is not surprising.
December 15, 2009, 4:24 pmBen P says:
That’s a pretty impressive strawman there.
Well, I’ll back off that a little, it’s not entirely a strawman in that there are people out there who do make the argument that the “corporate” media promote a “conservative line.” They just aren’t here or are very rarely here. Every time there’s a media post here it’s flooded with “liberal media bias” and “Criticism of the dear leader” type posts.
On the other hand, there’s a different issue which is more or less undeniable. That’s that the majority of the large media organizations in this country follow the “X said, Y said in response” model of reporting. In this they do parrot the Republican party line, as well as the Democratic Party line. In the end this just gives everyone a confirmation bias. People who are inclined to accept what the liberal party line is see the conservative quote and are angry the paper quoted them without criticizing the statement in some fashion, and people who are inclined to believe the conservative quote see the newspaper pushing the liberal line by not criticizing it.
There’s also a separate issue of most media organizations being overly respectful of those in power. That’s not particularly liberal or conservative except when the party you like isn’t in power.
December 15, 2009, 5:02 pmBen P says:
It’s not surprising that they’d support two individuals on opposite sides of a political issue?
I suppose it’s not when you see the rational thread of free speech between the two cases, but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying.
December 15, 2009, 5:04 pmxon says:
The River Temoc, In Winter,
Dharmok and Jalad, at Tamagra. . .
December 15, 2009, 5:24 pmOren says:
I had a lengthy discussion on Wikipedia (regarding the LLoC report on Honduras) on what exactly the role of the CRS is. It suffices to say that it’s still not exactly clear to me.
December 15, 2009, 5:27 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, at Uruk.
December 15, 2009, 6:24 pmUrsus Maritimus says:
Gene Wolfe Already Did It, in “Citadel of the Autarch”.
December 15, 2009, 6:35 pmBob from Ohio says:
I am saying that the ACLU and Davis are on the same side so it is not surprising. He was attacking Bush’s AG and Obama’s AG from the left, on the basis of “what a terrible injustice to the poor misunderstood terrorists”, which is what the ACLU believes.
December 15, 2009, 9:57 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » NYT on CRS Dismissal of Col. Davis says:
[...] prior post on Col. Davis’ firing is here. Categories: Freedom of Speech, War on [...]
December 17, 2009, 9:38 amPer Son says:
Bob:
Once again, these are alleged terrorists. There has been no court or military finding of guilt.
December 17, 2009, 10:43 am