Google Scholar - Law: One small step that changed the world

With little fanfare, Google today took a big swing at the legal establishment, by giving the world free access to its own database of case law.  This is very big news.  In fact, it is so massively big I'm not sure we can quite appreciate it just yet, but I will certainly try. 

Yesterday, there were three major methods of reading a case.  You could look at a printed court reporter at a law library, or search through the online database of rivals Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.  As you might imagine, using the online databases is significantly easier, but they came with a price.  As a current law student, I am paying for unlimited access to Westlaw and Lexis as a part of my tuition, but it is very expensive for lawyers or the common citizen (Lexis rates; Westlaw's lack of advertised rates).  This means that even if a common citizen had the knowledge to interpret the law, he could not afford timely access to it.  These factors together made it unlikely that a common citizen could represent himself in court in any reasonable manner.  That changed today.  The current stories are focusing on this, as it was the general gist of Google's press release.

But this change is just as significant, if not more significant, for lawyers and their clients.  Because together Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have a monopoly, they could charge lawyers exorbitant amounts to access these databases.  These charges were passed onto the clients, increasing the cost of legal counsel.  This also means that pro-bono (public interest; no charge to client) legal work suffered.  The only way for a lawyer or a law firm to conduct pro-bono work was to pay Westlaw or Lexis out of pocket, or to go to the library and use books - an unappetizing prospect for any busy lawyer.  Because of these two reasons, pro-bono work has been limited in the past.  That changed today as well.

But without comparative analysis, this is all just speculation.  As an example, I was recently assigned to research a false imprisonment case in New York.  (example used with permission).  The case hinged upon whether the detention was done in a "reasonable manner" or a "reasonable time." If you do a search in New York jurisdiction for - "false imprisonment" "reasonable manner" and "reasonable time" - you get 15 results, all cases that I had previously read in Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw as a part of my research.  However, at present there are at least three ways in which Google Scholar - Law is currently inferior to Westlaw and Lexis.  It does not currently contain state or federal statutes, it does not contain summaries of the cases, and it does not say if the case has been overruled (although it does give links to all the cases that cited it so that you could do the work yourself).  I imagine that these oversights will be amended by the time that it is removed from "beta" status, hopefully by the time I join the job market as a lawyer. 

Today Google changed the way that Americans will practice law.  Even if Google Scholar - Law is currently somewhat inferior to its rivals, its low price will mean that it will be swiftly adopted, which will likely force Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to push down their own prices, or become obsolete.  Today is a good day for the public, for lawyers and for our democracy.  And on a more personal note, I am very happy to say that my summer pro-bono work just got much easier.

Primetime Torture

I recently attended a human rights luncheon about the efficacy of torture. Among the many issues that were discussed, I still find myself thinking about one in particular, the role of torture in the media. For the past several years, the prevalence of torture in the media has been nagging at me. I was working at the FSU movie theater when the movie Saw came out, and I could barely stand to be in the same room as the preview. But Saw became a franchise, and spawned knockoffs such as the Hostel series. Critical movie critics soon dubbed it a new genre, a bit beyond your classic horror movie. For my part, I complained to anyone who would listen thesemovies had no reason being just Rated R, and certainly had no business being advertised on television.

But let's be honest, it wasn't just movies that were embracing torture as a new genre. Television jumped on the torture bandwagon as well. With Primetime Torture by HumanRightsFirst.org, I am happy to say that I now have a source which confirms my suspicions, that the amount of torture in the media greatly increased after 9/11. In addition, they make a very good point:

It used to be that only villains on television tortured. Today, “good guy” and heroic American characters torture — and this torture is depicted as necessary, effective and even patriotic.  Primetime Torture.

It doesn't matter if this increase in torture in the media was a cause or an effect of a shift in public opinion toward the use of torture, it legitimizes and furthers the acceptance of torture. I won't go so far as to say that this is a deliberate propaganda technique, but you've got to admit that it is subtly reminiscent of the "Two Minutes Hate" in George Orwell's 1984.

Wake up America, we're better than that.

An end to the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

I've discussed the Eastern Europe Missile shield once or twice in the past, and I'm happy to see it go as a part of our continued relationship building with Russia.

--

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - NYTimes.com: "President Obama on Thursday announced a reconfigured system that won’t be based in Poland or the Czech Republic, and will be aimed at intercepting Iranian missiles."

A New Era - A New IRWatch

Well a lot has happened since my last post.  To make a long story short, I'm now a law student at one of America's top law schools for international law The American University - Washington College of Law in Washington, DC.  Because of this, I'm going to open IRWatch to issues of domestic law and politics.  I'm even considering slightly modifying the title - though I want to keep the abbreviation IRWatch and the irwatch.blogspot domain because I like brevity.  Any ideas?

Swine Flu - An Alternate Narrative

You would have to be living under a rock not to have heard about the H1N1-A or "Swine Flu," it's been heavily covered on every news outlet since it emerged. This latest flu is the latest example of how sensational American news has become, especially on international issues. But before I get to the Swine Flu, I’d like to mention a slightly older story that I find is a relevant back-story to the current debate.

Starting around 2006, a new national debate began on illegal immigration began, and throughout it all a few radical themes emerged. These themes were based on much older racial stereotypes, but in this case they were coated in a loose venire based on legal status. One of these themes emerged which is quite relevant to today’s topic - that Mexican illegal aliens are spreading disease into the United States.

Here we are today with a disease which seems to have begun in Mexico, which has spread into America. As you would imagine the anti-immigrant radicals are, as a friend put it, frothing at the mouth. This is because this international crisis conforms to the previous narrative, that Mexicans are bringing disease into America. But extremists aside, a slightly milder version of this narrative is still prevalent across the media – the Mexican people made a dangerous new flu and gave it to us.

It is important to remember that it has not been proven that H1N1-A came from Mexico, just that the first confirmed case is from Mexico, and an unexpectedly high majority of the deaths have been in Mexico as well.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the flu, but I do watch international news very closely, and I am disturbed how one very important element of this story has escaped the attention of the vast majority of American mass media: since January, Mexico City has been under severe water shortages. For more than three months, Mexico City – the largest city in the world – has essentially been having rolling blackouts with its water supply.

“In some parts of the capital [Mexico City] washing hands has become a luxury. In recent months, some neighborhoods - all of them poor - have been without water service for two weeks at a time.” (NPR)

After quite a bit of searching online, I have been able to find no American news outlet other than NPR who has even related extreme water shortages in the world’s largest city to the outbreak of the new flu. Lack of water is a natural correlation, aren't you supposed to wash your hands and drink plenty of fluids? Regardless, now that the connection has been made, let me put forward an alternate narrative.

This flu season, a slightly new version of the flu virus emerges somewhere in the world. This flu has the exact same mortality rate as the standard seasonal flu, and so it doesn’t attract any attention . . . until people in Mexico City with the flu begin dying. Someone decides to do a genetic analysis of what what’s causing the illness and to his or her surprise, it turns out to be a new type of flu. Cautious governments around the world quickly react, fearing a 1918 style pandemic. The flu spreads like a pandemic around the world, but as it turns out this new version of flu is essentially exactly as dangerous as the normal flu. As world governments breathe a collective sigh of relief, the story begins to subside, all the while ignoring the true story. The Swine Flu panic began because the Mexican Government can’t provide for its citizens; the Mexican government - not the Mexican people - is at fault. While the Swine Flu crisis may have been resolved, the underlying problem remains – the Mexican people are dying because they don’t have access to clean water.

Why torture should not be a partisan debate

As I mentioned in my previous post comparing the foreign policies of Bush (43) to Truman and Obama to Nixon, the two parties don’t have as consistent a position on policies as the pundits would have you believe ... which is one of the main reasons why I'm an independent. Regardless, today's case in point – torture. Did you know that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the UN Convention Against Torture Treaty? (US State Department) That's the law that outlaws "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment". And yet all of the defenders of America’s policy of torture are of Reagan’s party - the party that still considers Ronald Reagan it's greatest hero.

Don't get me wrong, I’m not naïve; the reason that right-wing pundits are defending this torture is because September 11 and its aftermath happened during a Republican administration. Does anyone really believe that the same pundits would be defending the torture policy if it were done during a Democratic administration?

Herein lies my point. It makes perfect sense that the Republicans Richard Cheney, Jay Bybee and John Yoo are defending the policy of torture – they were the enablers of that torture. They are also members of a previous Administration whose “approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.” (Gallup - CBS News) But this does not mean that the debate needs to be a partisan one. During the 2008 Republican National Convention, there was quite a bit of buzz around how President Bush didn’t attend in person and how no one there would mention him by name. If it was alright for Republicans distancing themselves from an unpopular president, there is no reason why Republicans cannot distance themselves from an unethical policy of that president, which happened to also have been condemned by the great Republican hero Ronald Reagan.

If that argument doesn’t convince you, try looking at it this way. One of the criticisms of the originally released torture memos was that the conclusions could effect American citizens suspected of terrorism. Currently, there is a Democratic administration which says that it is against these methods. What if that wasn’t the case – and what if a right wing group threatened a terrorist attack or was merely suspected of links to terrorism?

Republicans – for whatever reason, do yourselves and the country a favor and do the right thing. Denounce the use of torture; it’s what Reagan would have done.

Never Again

A few years ago, I participated in the Florida State University Holocaust Institute for Educators. Of course there were the standard pictures and films of the atrocities, but the true treasure of the event was that we were able to listen to and meet with several holocaust survivors. I bring this up because each time I try to sit down and write about the current Debate on Torture, I can’t stop thinking about something that one of the holocaust survivors said. Someone asked what I thought was an innocuous question at the time, but I vividly remember her answer. She was asked why she kept coming to these lectures and she answered: “So that I can put a human face on it, and do my part to make sure it never happens again.”

It is time for the United States to come to grips with the fact that we tortured. We have to accept what this truly means – we can no longer claim to the white knight on the world stage. With waterboarding alone we have stooped to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, and the Gestapo. Just as with the Holocaust there will always be deniers, but in the end we need to expose the full horror of what was done in order to embarrass the population into understanding that torture is not acceptable and dissuade possible enablers in the future. Investigating, exposing and denouncing what happened can we begin to regain the trust of our allies, and in order to make sure this doesn't happen again.

There are quite a few things I would like to address on this topic; I will continue to write about this issue in the coming days. I invite everyone to join the discussion in the days and weeks to come.