-
sponsorship
CNN says the blogosphere is abuzz with news of the Obama passport story, so I feel somehow obliged to make it true. Trouble is, I'd always figured most lawyers should have way more questions than answers at such an early point in such a story. So what could we possibly have to contribute?
For what it's worth, here's what I got. According to the U.S. State Department website, the Passport Services division maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present. "These records normally consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship, and are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport book after it is issue[d]." On the law, violation of the relevant Privacy Act provisions (like willful disclosure of protected agency records) can subject the violator (provided he/she's an "officer or employee of an agency") to criminal fines up to $5,000, or a civil action by the individual. So assuming contractors count as agency employees within the meaning of the statute (and I wonder whether there's case law here), I could imagine finding statutory violations under these circumstances. And boy does it look bad.
The thing is, while I'm certainly pleased such personal records are protected from disclosure, and am appalled at the thought of politically motivated snooping, I don't get what could be of such great interest in a passport file to warrant the trouble? It seems hard to picture someone successfully using Obama's Social Security number in any kind of identity theft scheme. Does someone seriously think he might be lying about his citizenship? Or does "imprudent [read cat-killing] curiosity" by poorly trained contractors ring true?
Anyone care to buzz back?
-
sponsorship
For three decades now the U.S. Department of State each year has issued a report on the human rights practices of other countries throughout the world. It does so to comply with the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, §§ 116(d), 502B(b); that is, at the behest of Congress.
Last week State issued its
2007 Country Reports, assessing the promotion of human rights, or the lack thereof. The reports range from A to Z
—Afghanistan to
Zimbabwe, with 194 nation-states in between.
Far from complimentary, the
introduction's account of China's behavior
included mention of interference with religious freedom and the imprisonment of activists, writers, and lawyers. Still, China was not listed among the worst-of-the-worst, but rather immediately after reference to "authoritarian countries that are undergoing economic reform" and "have experienced rapid social change but have not undertaken democratic political reform and continue to deny their citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms."
if this decision 'signifiies that the State Department is paying less attention to chronic violations of human rights in China, yes, that is a problem.'
Also a problem: what some might surmise are the reasons for the differential treatment.
The worst-of-the-worst list includes those members of the international community with which the United States has its most tense relations. China has a different status. (See posts
here and
here and
here.) It's a huge trading partner and a potential hegemon in its own region and those as farflung as Africa.
Indeed, unlike the United States or Europe, for that matter, China's policy is
not to tie human-rights-compliance strings to the considerable foreign aid it hands out; what's more,
China lashes out at the United States every year that it's called on America's human-rights-compliance carpet. This year in particular, it's host to the Summer
Olympic Games, an Olympics that U.S. President George W.
Bush has pledged to attend.
A realist understands that U.S. officials might feel a tension between Congress' human rights command and China's unique status. And yet, with yesterday's
post from IntLawGrrl Naomi Norberg, and with headlines like this one in Sunday's
Times of London
—"
Fears of another 
Tienanmen as Tibet explodes in hatred"
—even a realist has cause to question the choice that the United States appears to have made.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?