Colin Powell Tells GLBT Activists Not to Press Congress on DADT

Colin Powell warns GLBT activists not to press Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Even though President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates oppose the ban, Powell says that he wants the "study" of this issue to continue. He also opposes litigation challenging the ban. Unless Congress repeals the statute before Republicans take over the House, the discriminatory measure will likely remain in place for a long period of time, absent a judicial ruling enjoining its enforcement.

Ironically, Powell himself has embraced changing course on this issue in extremely measured comments. Powell, however, played a great role in crafting DADT. President Clinton promised to lift the ban, but military leaders -- including Powell -- opposed the decision. When Democrats cheered Powell's endorsement of President Obama, I questioned this stance, given his role in President Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq and his support for DADT. Powell's current stance would virtually ensure that the ban remain in place.

Pentagon Instructs Military Recruiters to Accept Gay and Lesbian Applicants

In response to a federal court order enjoining the enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Pentagon has instructed military recruiters to accept gay and lesbian applicants. DADT is a federal statute that bars participation in the military by gays and lesbians. Although the policy suggests that the military will not inquire about a servicemember's sexual orientation, numerous individuals have faced termination without "telling" the military about their sexual identity.

Last week, federal judge Victory Phillips in California issued an injunction that bars enforcement of DADT. The injunction applies to the military as a whole.

Although the government argued that the injunction should only apply to plaintiffs in the litigation, this conservative approach is not warranted by legal precedent. Nevertheless, appellate courts and especially the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse the injunction for failing to accommodate the military's belief (albeit a weak position) that inclusion of out gays and lesbians will harm troop morale.

Furthermore, as I have previously argued on this blog, the court's conclusion that DADT violates the Constitution is vulnerable to reversal for several reasons. The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court -- including Justice Kennedy -- could punch holes in the ruling by applying precedent that takes a more moderate approach to gay rights.

Nevertheless, at a hearing today, Judge Phillips indicated that she will not likely stay the injunction pending appeal. Accordingly, Pentagon officials have told recruiters to stop enforcing the policy with respect to applicants. It is unclear from early news reports whether the Pentagon has discontinued enforcing the policy against current members of the military, as the court order requires it to do.

Federal Judge Enjoins DADT, But Ruling Not Flawless

A federal judge in California has declared Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the anti-gay policy. The judge held that the policy violates the Due Process and First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. Both the opinion and the injunction are available online.

I have read the injunction and the 86-page opinion. Although I agree that DADT is unconstitutional (and homophobic), the judge's ruling is not without weaknesses. There are three elements to the decision that could result in a reversal.

First, the court does not substantially discuss "deference" to the military. Although military deference has often resulted in unjust rulings, it is still a doctrine that the Supreme Court applies in cases challenging both military practices and federal statutes regulating the military. I would like to have seen more discussion of this subject in the opinion.

Second, the court applied "heightened scrutiny" to determine whether the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Heightened scrutiny refers to a more rigorous judicial test that usually applies when important rights are at stake or when the government is engaging in certain impermissible forms of discrimination.

The court reasoned that the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and Ninth Circuit caselaw mandate the application of heightened scrutiny. It is unclear, however, whether Lawrence requires the application of heightened scrutiny. At least one federal appeals court has ruled that it does not, and many progressive legal scholars have, in fact, condemned the case for not being as serious about anti-gay discrimination as many commentators believe it is. Furthermore, the specific Ninth Circuit test is not widely applied in constitutional cases, and this could present problems if the litigation reaches the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment ruling also raises questions. Several other courts have denied that DADT raises First Amendment questions. These courts reason that admissions of sexual orientation simply inform the military that the individual fits within a prohibited class of service members. I do not believe that the issue is this simple, and neither does the federal judge in California. Nonetheless, I suspect that the government will contest this portion of the ruling as well.

There is one additional issue that I do not believe will lead to a winning argument for the government. The court's injunction permanently enjoins the military from enforcing DADT. The government argued that the court should have issued a more discrete injunction and enjoin enforcement of the policy only against members of The Log Cabin Club (the conservative gay organization that brought the litigation). Although some conservative caselaw calls for limited injunctive relief, precedent supports generalized injunctions in these circumstances.

In sum, I agree with the outcome of the case of much of the court's reasoning. I have only highlighted these weaknesses to inform readers who abhor the policy that the fight against it is not over.

Appeals Court Grants Stay in Prop 8 Case

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered a stay of a federal court ruling that invalidated Proposition 8 -- a California constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. The court also established a briefing schedule and set oral arguments for December 6. Accordingly, the stay will likely remain in effect until late this year or even early 2011.

Finally, the court also requested briefing on the "standing" issue. Depending on how the court interprets existing caselaw, it could determine that the private organizations that oppose same-sex marriage lack standing to bring the appeal.

UPDATE: Several nonlawyer commentators have construed the court's request for argumentation on the standing issue as an indication that it is inclined to rule against the private organizations. I would not read that language so broadly. This is typically how courts ask for briefing on procedural matters that could preclude a ruling on the merits. It is not a glimpse into the court's thinking on the standing issue. In fact, I highly doubt that the panel has actually thought much about the issue.

A Conservative Blogger's Curious Satire: Ground Zero Gay Bar

Conservative blogger Greg Gutfeld says that he is planning to open a gay bar in lower Manhattan near the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." Gutfeld says that he is "serious," but his article seems satirical:

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

Many conservative blogs have reported this story as if represented a major rebuttal of liberal support for the mosque. Apparently, the notion of having a gay bar near the mosque will outrage its supporters, and their anger will allow them to see the perspective of the mosque's opponents -- or at least expose them as hypocrites.

There is one major wrinkle in this line of reasoning. The idea of a gay bar near or next to a mosque is not inherently offensive. The idea of a gay bar that is "friendly to men of Islamic faith" is also not inherently offensive. Gutfield's satire appears to rest on his belief that homophobia will paralyze supporters of the mosque. There is no reason to believe that it would.

If Gutfeld is truly serious about supporting Muslim glbt individuals, he should contact members of Al-Fatiha -- a US-based organization for Muslim glbt individuals. Of course, Gutfeld is not serious. His homophobic satire, however, is seriously offensive.

Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Argentina has legalized same-sex marriage. The Senate passed the measure early this morning. The House had already approved the bill, which President Cristina Fernandez supports.

Federal Court Invalidates Section 3 of DOMA. Is Reversal Likely?

In two separate opinions, a federal district judge in Massachusetts has ruled that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution. Section 3 of DOMA excludes same-sex married couples from over 1,100 federal benefits (including social security survivor benefits and a host of other programs).

In one case, the judge held that Section 3 violated the equal protection rights of same-sex married couples. The judge ruled that the discriminatory policy lacked a rational basis.

The court rejected the government's asserted reasons for discriminating against same-sex couples. The government argued that DOMA encourages responsible procreation and child-bearing, defends and nurtures the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, defends traditional notions of morality, and preserves scarce resources.

The court found these interests insufficient to warrant discrimination against same-sex married couples. The court also cited the lengthy record of overt homophobia among members of Congress who supported the legislation.

The second opinion held that Section 3 violated the 10th Amendment because it intrudes upon the ability of states to define marriage and because it conditions the receipt of federal benefits upon states depriving gays and lesbians of equal protection. The State of Massachusetts brought this lawsuit.

Final Take
Unless an appeals court reverses these rulings, they will benefit same-sex married couples. The decisions, however, do not provide relief for most gays and lesbians who cannot legally marry.

Also, it is quite possible that an appeals court might reverse one or both of the rulings. The 10th Amendment ruling, in particular, seems quite vulnerable to reversal in my professional opinion. It seems to rest on a more constrained view of federal power than current Supreme Court doctrine mandates. Professor Jack Balkin agrees (arguing that the court's 10th Amendment arguments "prove entirely too much").

Army Secretary to Ignore Don't Ask Don't Tell

Secretary of the Army John McHugh says he will simply ignore Don't Ask Don't Tell. McHugh says that it is "counterproductive" to pursue discharges of gays and lesbians, while he is simultaneously interviewing servicemembers about the anti-gay policy. Apparently, some gay or lesbian individuals have revealed their sexual orientation to McHugh during the course of his research.  McHugh says he does not want to penalize them for being open and honest. This sounds like a great approach.

McHugh's statement goes farther than the recent move by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates recently announced that the military would no longer discharge individuals whose gay or lesbian status was revealed by a third party. McHugh, however, will not enforce the policy against individuals who come out on their own.

Gates Supposedly Will Announce New Don't Ask, Don't Tell Rules

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is reportedly set to announce new rules that will relax enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the controversial policy that excludes known gays and lesbians from military service. It is unclear exactly what changes Gates will make. Nearly a year ago, he announced that the Department of Defense was studying ways, short of a repeal, to reduce the unfairness associated with the policy.

South Dakota Police Chief Says Cops Followed Rules By Outing Lesbian

Chief Steve Allender of the Rapid City, South Dakota police department says that his officers followed protocol when they outed Jene Newsome to Air Force authorities.  This decision subsequently led to her discharge.

My Take
I highly doubt that "protocol" requires officers to  peak through a kitchen window, read documents on a table, and report the existence of a lesbian marriage to military authorities.  Despite the suspicious facts of the case, Allender refuses to say that the officers acted with ill will. He says that it is difficult to know what motivates others. That is true, but homophobia is a pervasive social fact. The officers knew exactly what would happen if they reported the marriage. They likely did so to create those results. Allender should not try to deny the obviously spiteful and petty behavior of his staff. Instead, he should work to root out all forms of pernicious bias from the police department.

What Cruel Country Fires People For Getting Married: The United States

The Jene Newsome story is bringing new attention to the military's anti-gay policies. Newsome, who served in the Air Force for nine years, lost her career because she got married.

Newsome legally married another woman, and South Dakota police revealed that information to military officials. It appears that the cops were trying to locate Newsome's partner, but she did not assist them. So, they used her marriage as retaliation.

The fact that a marriage can be used as the basis for punishment underscores the nastiness of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and anti-gay discrimination generally. While the sluggish Obama Administration waits another year to "study" how to allow openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, professionals like Newsome will continue to lose their jobs -- which the wretched economy makes more traumatic. Shame on U.S.

Virginia Governor Reverses Himself and Attorney General on Anti-Gay Discrimination

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has reversed himself and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on anti-gay discrimination. Last week, Cuccinelli sent a letter to public colleges and universities in Virginia demanding that they rescind policies the prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This letter led to public outcry.

Today, Governor McDonnell signed an executive directive that prohibits state workers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in state agencies. The executive directive appears to reverse Cuccinelli's position.

Although McDonnell's two Democratic predecessors -- Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- issued executive orders that prohibited sexual orientation discrimination by state workers, McDonnell, a Republican, initially balked at the idea and refused to do so. McDonnell, however, has changed course amidst a chorus of protests responding to Cuccinelli's letter. Apparently, political activism can still effectuate change.

UPDATE: Governor McDonnell signed an "executive directive," not an "executive order." Rachel Maddow has stated that an executive directive has no legal force (unlike an executive order). I have not found any Virginia authority to support this claim, although now many liberal bloggers have run with it as an accurate statement of Virginia law.

UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports that an executive directive has legal force, but it may not empower individuals to seek relief in courts. It is unclear, however, whether an executive order could authorize lawsuits for sexual orientation discrimination. Typically, legislation -- not executive action -- empowers people to sue. The Virginia legislature has declined to add sexual orientation to existing civil rights legislation. Therefore, an exectuvie order that included sexual orientation might not create a cause of action for a civil suit. Accordingly, the distinction between an executive order and executive directive is possibly just a matter of semantics -- not law.

NYT Op-Ed Defends Sexism and Homphobia in the Military

The New York Times has published an op-ed written by Merrill McPeak, a former Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Although McPeak's essay has the appearance of reasoned debate, it cannot escape his narrowness and bigotry.

McPeak was a military chief when Congress passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." President Clinton vowed to lift the military's ban on "homosexuals" altogether, but a loud and homophobic reaction led to the DADT compromise. McPeak's essay simply reiterates the same unsubstantiated claim he made over a decade ago -- that "allowing open homosexuality in the ranks would probably damage the cohesiveness of our combat units."

Contrary to Peak's mischaracterization, lifting the ban would not allow "open homosexuality" in the ranks. Instead, it would permit out gays and lesbians to serve.

McPeak refuses to accept this issue as a civil rights question. Although he rightfully argues that legal standards often allow the military to utilize different standards than civilian society, this does not make DADT a rational or lawful policy. Even in civilian employment, persons can be excluded for traits that are validly linked to job performance. So, for example, a person who cannot walk probably could not legitimately argue that he or she should qualify as a firefighter or as a member of a SWAT team.

Homosexuality, by contrast, is not linked to performance, and McPeak's essay does not even try to make the connection. Therefore, his comparison of military and civilian standards is unpersuasive.

Instead of showing that individual gays and lesbians are unfit for military service, McPeak makes the tired assertion -- refuted by several studies -- that the mere presence of openly gay and lesbian servicemembers will undermine cohesion among the troops. In particular, he says it will degrade the military's "warrior culture":

Armies have to care about what succeeds in war. Sometimes they win or lose because of material factors, because one side has the greater numbers or better equipment. But armies are sure to lose if they pay no attention to the ideas that succeed in battle. Unit cohesion is one such idea. We know, or ought to, that warriors are inspired by male bonding, by comradeship, by the knowledge that they survive only through relying on each other. To undermine cohesion is to endanger everyone.

I know some will see these ingredients of the military lifestyle as a sort of absurd, tough-guy game played by overgrown boys. But to prepare warriors for a life of hardship, the military must remain a kind of adventure, apart from the civilian world and full of strange customs. To be a fighter pilot or a paratrooper or a submariner is to join a self-contained, resolutely idealistic society, largely unnoticed and surprisingly uncorrupted by the world at large.

I do not see how permitting open homosexuality in these communities enhances their prospects of success in battle. Indeed, I believe repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will weaken the warrior culture at a time when we have a fight on our hands.

McPeak uses the exact same arguments that have justified the exclusion of people of color, women and gays and lesbians from the military. In fact, his view that "male bonding" is a key ingredient of a successful military would justify the exclusion of women -- even though their presence in "combat" situations today is greater than at any period in history.

I find it odd that McPeak apparently believes that so-called "warriors," whom the nation expects to defend the USA, invade other countries, put their lives and health at risk, and to abandon families and loved ones, would become blithering idiots around out gays and lesbians. Perhaps McPeak is simply projecting his own homophobia upon the nation's "warriors."

Military to "Review" How to Repeal DADT; Lieberman Proposes Repeal

Two important developments have happened regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the military's antigay policy.

Gates Orders "Review" of Best Way to Repeal DADT
First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has instructed a team of military leaders to "study" to best way to repeal DADT. This is the typical style of the Obama administration. The report is due on December 1, 2010. Gates issued a memo that provides some guidelines for exploration:

An integral element of this review shall be to assess and consider the impacts, if any, a change in the law would have on military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, and how to best manage such impacts during implementation.

Is it just me or does this sound unnecessarily dramatic and time-consuming? The memo almost has a Paul Revere feel to it: "the Gays are coming.....the Gays are coming....must prepare." Also, the military is taking a year (added to all of the previous years) to figure out the best way to deal with openly gay and lesbian servicemembers as opposed to the ones it forces in the closet. The results of this study could be less than desirable. Look at healthcare reform.

Senator Joe Lieberman Slated to Introduce Legislation Repealing DADT
Today, Senator Joe Lieberman will fulfill a promise and introduce a bill to repeal DADT. Lieberman's bill will repeal DADT and prevent discrimination by the military on the basis of sexual orientation -- something that sounds far more promising that Gates' review. Co-sponsors of the bill include Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed services Committee, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and Senator Roland Burris.

Source: Politico

2 Generals Horrified by Gays and Lesbians

The New York Times reports that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of the staff, and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, oppose the move to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DADT is a statute that excludes known gays and lesbians from military service. President Obama has promised to seek repeal of DADT. Recently, Senator Joe Lieberman has said that he will introduce a bill to repeal the legislation.

Casey, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that "I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years. . . We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness." Schwartz testified before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that “[t]his is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation. . . ." Studies, however, show that the presence of out gays and lesbians would not disrupt military service.

The Defense Department advanced similar arguments to support discrimination against gays and lesbians during the Bush administration. Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who also heads the department in the Obama administration, also advanced those claims. Gates, however, now supports lifting the ban.

My Take
I am always humored when military personnel argue that the mere presence of an openly gay or lesbian person could disrupt service or demoralize the troops. The nation expects members of the armed forces to abandon their families and loved ones, invade countries, slaughter opposing forces, and protect national security. But these same "warriors" are apparently so fragile that they will have a nervous breakdown if they have to serve alongside known gay or lesbian individuals. If this is the case, then perhaps they are not tough enough for military service in the first place.

Savvy Americans Love "Gay Men" and "Lesbians" More Than "Homosexuals"

Framing matters in public opinion polls, but a new CBS/New York Times survey related to Don't Ask, Don't Tell has some interesting results. Apparently, while the public favors ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the level of support for discarding the policy depends upon whether the military will admit "homosexuals" or "gay men" and "lesbians." The poll finds that:

[T]he wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military.

In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing "homosexuals" to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.

But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military. . .70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.

Also, when asked whether the groups should serve "openly," 44 percent (versus 42 percent) said yes for homosexuals, but 58 percent (versus just 28 percent) said yes for gay men and lesbians.

Opponents and proponents of DADT could learn from these polling results. Proponents will likely continue to endorse including "gay men and lesbians" in the military. Opponents, however, will decry the horrors of "open homosexuals" serving in the military. If this does not work, perhaps opponents will argue that sexually deviant immoral pedophile terrorist rapist queers have no place in the armed forces. Stay tuned!

Via The Onion: "Gays Too Precious to Risk in Combat"

The Onion hit a homerun with this brilliant satire regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell!

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Get Back to Us in a Year!

During the State of the Union Address, President Obama repeated an often-repeated promise to work to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DADT is the name of the military policy, embodied in a federal statute, that discriminates against known gay, lesbian or bisexual members of the military.

Although Obama promised to get rid of the policy during his presidential campaign, many GLBT groups have complained that he has pushed this and other issues to the backburner. Accordingly, his recent statements promising yet again to end the policy have caused some observers to anticipate a shift in direction.

Today, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held a press conference during which he indicated that the repeal of the policy would not take place in the near future -- unless, of course, Congress acts more rapidly than the timeline of the Obama administration. In the typical Obama style of announcing long "studies" before actually changing policies, Gates (and Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen) asked for eleven months to study "how" to end the policy before taking any concrete action.

Some civil rights activists will likely complain that the Obama administration is foot-dragging. Republicans, however, are upset that the administration's study proceeds with the understanding that the policy will end -- rather than questioning whether the military should abandon it.

Bottom line: Today's press conference represents the first time in history that a sitting Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs Chair have endorse an end of the policy. Accordingly, the meeting was historic. Although the statements of Gates and Mullen are historic, the announcement regarding the study is not. Exactly one year ago, the Boston Globe published an article which stated that President Obama would direct military officials to study the implications of lifting the ban. Today, the military will begin studying the implications of lifting the ban for yet another year. I suspect that many pro-GLBT activists will construe the recent move as constituting more delay.

Update: Yes -- at least one GLBT activist has described the recent announcement as more delay. See: 'Don't Ask' on slow road to repeal?

Other DISSENTING JUSTICE articles related to DADT:

Obama Administration's "Measured" Approach to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Kinder, Gentler Discrimination: Obama Administration Trying to Make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" More "Humane"

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights

Legal Showdown Looming Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What Will the Obama Administration Do?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Heats Up in Courts and in Congress

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Today, the New York State Senate voted against human dignity and equality when it rejected a bill that would have extended marital rights to same-sex couples. The vote was highly -- but not strictly -- partisan. Although every Republican opposed the measure, some Democrats voted against it as well.

A New York Times article contains a touching story regarding Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson's decision to support the bill. Hassell-Thompson, a black Democrat, represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County. During the floor debate, she passionately discussed the strife that homophobia, bigotry, and heterosexism cause:

[Hassell-Thompson] spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. "I said, 'But your sister does.'"

Hassell-Thompson's intimate plea could not melt the icy bigotry that New York senators displayed. This decision is a vote against equality and human dignity. It is also a vote against the will of the public; a recent Marist poll shows that a majority of New York voters support same-sex marriage. Shame on the New York Senate.

Driving While Gay: Chicago Cop Files Bogus DUI Charges to Earn Extra Money

Chicago cop Richard Fiorito is under investigation by state officials for allegedly filing false DUI charges against drivers -- many of whom are gay and lesbian. Apparently, the bogus arrests were part of a scheme Fiorito devised to earn overtime income. Fiorito arrested innocent drivers for DUI and then earned overtime income when he appeared in court to testify against them.

Fiorito, however, is not the only Chicago cop who has falsely arrested drivers for DUI. Two other police officers have faced similar allegations, and Cook County prosecutors have already dropped 50 DUI cases and charged John Haleas, the arresting officer, with perjury. Although Fiorito faces numerous lawsuits for his behavior, prosecutors have not filed a criminal complaint against him.

Ironically, while Chicago cops are falsely arresting people, Anita Alvarez, the Cook County District Attorney, has pursued a campaign of harassment against Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project. Dissenting Justice has covered this issue extensively. See Shameful and Pathetic Tactics by Illinois Prosecutors: Attacking "Innocent" Students; Cook County Prosecutors Launch Full Smear Campaign Against Innocence Project; and Illinois Prosecutors, Take Notice: Innocent Man Released After 12 Years in Prison.

The Medill project investigates claims of innocence made by Illinois inmates. The diligence of Medill students has secured the release of eleven inmates during the project's ten-year history.

Alvarez, however, believes that students in the project are dishonest and could have received higher grades by convincing witnesses to support the inmates' claims of innocence. With Chicago cops arresting innocent drivers, Alvarez clearly has flawed priorities.