User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ready/Joshua L. Dratel

__NOINDEX__

Joshua L. Dratel (b. March 2, 1957) is an American attorney. He is the co-editor of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib and The Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and the War on Terror.

Education
Dratel graduated from Columbia University, with a Bachelor of Arts in 1978. Dratel got his law degree from Harvard University in 1981. He was admitted to the New York Bar in 1982.

Legal career
Dratel's practice focuses on Criminal law, Litigation, and Estate planning.

Dratel has been elected to serve as an official in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In 2002 Dratel filed a brief opposing the US Patriot Act, on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Dratel defended Wadih El-Hage
Dratel defended Wadih El-Hage against charges he played a role in US embassy bombings.

On September 20, 2009, Dratel and a colleague Sam A. Schmidt filed a ten page letter that the New York Times described as alleging prosecutorial misconduct during his Grand Jury -- "employing a pattern of coercion and intimidation" against witnesses. The New York Times reported that the letter was sent to Justice Barrington D. Parker Jr. on September 13, 2000. The letter and its contents were supposed to be withheld from the public record, but the New York Times reported someone other than El-Hage's lawyers had leaked a copy to them.

Dratel defended Lynne Stewart
Lynne Stewart, another New York City, had served as an attorney for "blind sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted of a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The Sheikh was alleged to have made statements that were the inspiration for the 1993 and other attacks. In 2003 Stewart was charged with smuggling out messages to the Sheikh followers. The New York Times quoted Dratel's reaction to a dispute between the Dean of the law school at the City University of New York. The students wanted to choose Stewart as the receipient of an annual award. Their Dean had stepped in, and said he had the authority to over-rule their choice. Dratel told the New York Times:

By 2005, when Stewart's case came to court Dratel had agreed to represent her. After her conviction, and before her sentencing, a prospective candidate for juror, and one of the individuals chosen as a juror, approached Dratel and Jill Shellow-Lavine, another of Stewart's lawyers, with accounts of irregularities. When Dratel and another lawyer informed John G. Koetl of these accounts of irregularities Prosecutor Anthony Barkow reminded the judge that the juror's identities were supposed to be protected, even from the Defense. Koetl described Dratel's contact with the jurors as "misconduct". Dratel and Shellow-Lavine acknowledged that their post-trial contact with the jurors was a "regrettable error".

According to the New York Times Dratel had "...filed motions to compel the government to disclose whether the National Security Agency recorded her or her lawyers by wiretapping without warrants."

When Stewart was convicted she lost her liscense to practice law, and was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment. Dratel noted that if her conviction were reversed her liscense to practice law would be re-instated. Dratel continued to serve as Stewart's attorney, in 2008, when Prosecutor Anthony Barkow appealed the sentence imposed by the initial judge John Koetl as too lenient. Citing Brandenburg v. Ohio Dratel argued that Stewart's speech was protected by the first amendment right to free speech.

Lawyer for Guantanamo captive David Hicks
March 26 2007 was going to be the first day of Hicks Guantanamo military commission. There was a dispute over whether Hicks would be allowed the assistance of his civilian lawyers. The Commissions President refused to allow Hicks the assistance of Dratel and another lawyer.

Major Michael Mori, Hick's remaining lawyer, asked for a recess. When the Commission reconvened Hicks pled guilty.

On April 12, 2007 Dratel published an article in The Jurist explaining why he was denied permission to attend Hicks Commission. In order to appear before the Commission Dratel was supposed to sign a "Notice of Appearance". The Notice of Appearance stated that he would comply with all the Commissions rules. However, the problem Dratel had with signing the Notice was that the rules he would have been signing that he would comply with had not been completed.

Dratel said that the Military Commissions Act specified that it was the responsibility of the Secretaty of Defense to prepare both the rules under which the Commissions would operate, and the Notice of Appearance form. Dratel wrote that the Secretary of Defense had not prepared either the rules, or the Notice of Appearance form.

According to Dratel the Notice of Appearance form he was being asked to sign was an ad hoc form, prepared by the hearings President — something he lacked the authority to do.

Dratel explained that he was not being pedantic in his refusal. He had been asked to sign a different Notice of Appearance. That Notice of Appearance form was later to The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers issued an ethics opinion that the earlier Notice of Appearance contained provisions that were unacceptable, including:
 * Defense counsel were to agree to monitoring of all their conversations with their clients.
 * Defense counsel were to agree not to request any adjournments.
 * Defense counsel were to agree that they could only prepare their defense at Guantanamo.

Quoted in the Press
Several newspapers have chosen to quote Dratel's comments on the appointment of officials, or on high-profile cases he was unconnected to, in his fields of expertise.

In January and August 2005 the Los Angeles Times chose to quote Dratel's opinion of the appointment of Michael Chertoff as Director of the Department of Homeland Security. In January they described Dratel as "a New York defense lawyer who has represented a number of people targeted by the administration in terrorism cases." In January Dratel commenting on Fitzgerald, said: "Among the potential choices, I think he is better than a politician, better than someone without experience in law enforcement, and better than a police officer. He has a broad range of experience, and he is capable of an intellectual approach to problems."

In August 2005 the Los Angeles Times chose to quote Dratel's opinion of Patrick Fitzgerald, who he knew from defending Walid El-Hage in 2001, when Fitzgerald prosecuted him. He called Fitzgerald: "an aggressive prosecutor," who, when "he feels someone is lying to him, he takes it personally."

In October 2005 when Time magazine chose to quote Dratel about the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame/Wilson affair they noted that "he had defended a man prosecuted by Fitzgerald in a 2001 terrorism case." According to Time Dratel said Fitzgerald: "comes off as sincere because he is. He very much believes in what he is doing."

In June 2003 Linda Greenhouse, writing in the New York Times, chose to quote Dratel's reaction to a Supreme Court ruling on whether suspects can be forced to consume sedatives and other psychoactive drugs during their trials. Greenhouse's article directly quoted Dratel, saying: "It is widely underappreciated that the defendant has a right to be functional at his trial." According to Greenhouse's paraphrase, Dratel said: that medications that interfere with alertness or that cause headaches, rashes, or other distracting problems can compromise the ability of defendants, even those who are technically competent to stand trial, to help their lawyers and to make a favorable impression before the jury.

In December 2003 the San Francisco Chronicle chose to quote Dratel on new relaxed FBI rules on warrants and witetaps The San Francisco Chronicle described Dratel as ''"a New York lawyer who has filed legal briefs opposing government anti-terrorism policies."

In February 20, 2009, Newsday quoted his opinion on "honest services fraud", characterizing him as a ''"Seasoned New York City attorney". According to Newsday Dratel called charges of "honest services fraud" as: "part of an overcriminalization arsenal that federal prosecutors have."