 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, August 2, 2006 |
 |
|


Bush administration defends military commissions plan before senators
Joe Shaulis on August 2, 2006 9:18 PM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] confirmed before a Senate panel Wednesday that the Bush administration is drafting legislation [JURIST report] authorizing military commissions [JURIST news archive] for terror detainees that will allow hearsay evidence and coerced testimony to be admitted against terrorism suspects, limit their rights against pretrial self-incrimination and withhold classified evidence from them. Those provisions would be key departures from the Uniform Code of Military Justice [text], which governs court-martial proceedings and which the administration is using as a basis for the military tribunal legislation. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee [hearing notice], Gonzales said [text]: ... [W]e believe it is important that the military commission process for unlawful terrorist combatants be separate from the court-martial process which is used to try our own service members, both because military necessity would not permit the strict application of all court-martial procedures, and because there are relevant differences between the procedures appropriate for trying our service members and those appropriate for trying the terrorists who seek to destroy us. Gonzales said the administration will propose adding military commission procedures to Title 10 of the US Code, immediately following the UCMJ. Reuters has more. AP has additional coverage.
Meanwhile the administration's plan encountered resistance in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which on Wednesday heard testimony [text] from Steven G. Bradbury [SourceWatch profile], acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel [official website]. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) [official website] promised to fight any proposal that allows the Secretary of Defense to determine what offenses could be tried by the tribunals, calling such a delegation of authority "risky at best" because it could be struck down by the Supreme Court. AP has more.
The Bush administration agreed to work with Congress [JURIST report] to authorize military commissions for terror detainees after the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [opinion text] that military commissions as initially constituted lacked proper legal authorization [JURIST report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Ninth Circuit directs FERC to consider more claims from California power crunch
Joshua Pantesco on August 2, 2006 3:21 PM ET

[JURIST] A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) [official website] to consider refund petitions filed by California state agencies and California businesses that claim refunds arising from the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 [PBS backgrounder] before the October 2, 2000 date set by the FERC. The refunds compensate the state for alleged energy price-fixing schemes, and involve several claims against subsidies of the now-bankrupt Enron [JURIST news archive] as well as other energy companies. October 2, 2000 was the date that the FERC notified energy providers that they could be liable for refunds, but in the opinion [PDF text; summary, PDF], a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the FERC to consider refund petitions dealing with potentially fraudulent price-fixing that may have occurred before the October 2, 2000 notice.
California is seeking $8 to $10 billion in refunds from energy companies, and as much as $2.8 billion of the total requested refund amount relates to activities occurring before October 2, 2000. The energy crisis resulted in the bankruptcy of California's largest utility company, and the FERC has ordered companies to pay $3 billion back to California to date. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US Marine sues congressman for Haditha war crimes comments
Joshua Pantesco on August 2, 2006 1:09 PM ET

[JURIST] Attorneys for a US soldier under investigation for civilian killings in Iraq filed a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Wednesday against Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) [official website] in a Washington DC federal court. The suit alleges that Murtha falsely accused US Marine Corps sergeant Frank Wuterich of war crimes during press conferences where Murtha discussed [JURIST report] the alleged killing of 24 Iraqi civilians [JURIST report] by Marines in the city of Haditha in November, 2005. Wuterich, whose name was never specifically mentioned by Murtha, is currently a subject of a Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) probe into his involvement in the deaths, and has not been charged. The suit also repeats Wuterich's version of the incident. Wuterich has previously said that Iraqi civilians were killed during a house-to-house hunt for insurgents who fired at his squad, but that no cold-blooded murders occurred.
Murtha released a statement [text] Wednesday saying that his public comments regarding the Haditha allegations were intended to "draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident." Lawyers for Wuterich say that while the lawsuit seeks over $75,000 in compensatory damages, the true purpose of the litigation is to clear Wuterlich's name and to hold Murtha accountable for allegedly false statements, which the lawsuit argues were made outside of Murtha's role as a US congressman. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal judge certifies class in lawsuit against Georgia sex-offender law
Jaime Jansen on August 2, 2006 1:06 PM ET

[JURIST] A federal judge in Georgia has certified a class of more than 10,000 registered sex offenders living in Georgia that would be subject to a new state law [legislative materials] barring them from living or working within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate," including school bus stops. US District Judge Clarence Cooper [official profile] of the Northern District of Georgia [official website] certified the class in a case challenging the new law in an effort to prevent a flood of new complaints, motions to add plaintiffs to the case, and requests for temporary restraining orders. In June, Cooper granted a temporary restraining order preventing the state from fully enforcing the new law, which was scheduled to take effect on July 1, against eight plaintiffs, and then later extended the restraining order to all registered sex offenders in the state [JURIST reports].
The Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) [advocacy website], which is representing the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit [complaint, PDF; SCHR materials], says that the law violates several constitutional provisions and at least one federal statute, and that it would require all but a few of the state's offenders to move out of their current homes. Wednesday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution has more [registration required].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Anti-evolution advocates lose control of Kansas school board in primaries
Jaime Jansen on August 2, 2006 11:31 AM ET

[JURIST] Hardline Republicans in Kansas lost control of the Kansas Board of Education [official website] during a Tuesday primary vote that brought in more moderate conservatives who support the theory of evolution. The School Board garnered international attention last year when it upheld anti-evolution standards [JURIST report] in schools across the state, using its two-person conservative majority. After Tuesday's election, evolution supporters on the School Board have a two-person majority. The new moderate Republicans on the ballots this fall will face Democratic challengers who also support teaching evolution, paving the way to overturn last year's vote.
Last year, the School Board approved revised science standards [BOE materials] by a vote of 6-4 that require students to understand not only evolution [BBC backgrounder], but also recent religiously-motivated challenges to the theory, such as intelligent design [JURIST news archive], a policy struck down [JURIST report] last December by a federal judge after being embraced in a Pennsylvania school district. In a separate lawsuit challenging a Georgia school board's decision to include stickers in biology books calling "evolution a theory, not a fact," the Eleventh Circuit in May vacated and remanded a district court decision [JURIST report], asking the lower court to determine whether the school district's actions were "religiously neutral." AP has more. The New York Times has additional coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US Senate votes to seize San Diego cross property
Joshua Pantesco on August 2, 2006 11:21 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate on Tuesday approved a measure [PDF text; HR 5683 summary] to seize land on Mount Soledad in San Diego, thus permitting the First Amendment [text], rather than the California constitution, to control the issue of whether a cross [image], erected on the land as a tribute to Vietnam War veterans, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion. The US House of Representatives last month agreed to transfer the land to the Defense Department [JURIST report] before an expected appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this fall because federal law has been more permissive toward religious displays on public property than the California constitution [text].
Last month, US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ordered the continuation of a temporary stay [JURIST reports] against the removal of the monument pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. Kennedy issued the original stay after a district court ordered [Union-Tribune report] in May that the cross be removed by Aug. 2 and that the city be fined $5,000 a day if it was not, finding that the cross constitutes a state endorsement of religion. Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam War veteran, has been challenging the cross for more than 16 years [Paulson commentary]. The Los Angeles Times has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Mexico interior minister slams 'illegal' election protests
Jaime Jansen on August 2, 2006 9:49 AM ET

[JURIST] Mexican Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal [official profile, in Spanish] criticized presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador [campaign website, in Spanish; Wikipedia profile] and supporters staging protests [JURIST report] in Mexico City, saying Tuesday that the protestors have set up an "illegal blockade" by effectively bringing Reforma Avenue and the nearby Zocalo square to a standstill. The protest are causing traffic jams and business delays at the headquarters of many major corporations located on the street. Abascal urged Mexico City Mayor Alejandro Encinas, a member of Lopez Obrador's party, to bring order to the streets of the capital city, saying it was his responsibility to stop the blockade. Hundreds of thousands of protestors began to camp out on the streets of Mexico City on Sunday, demanding a full manual recount of ballots in the July 2 election [JURIST report], where Lopez Obrador lost to conservative candidate Felipe Calderon [campaign website, in Spanish; Wikipedia profile] by just 0.6 percent of the vote [JURIST report]. Lopez Obrador supporters claim that fraudulent election practices [JURIST report] allowed Calderon to win the election, though officials have not confirmed Calderon as the winner.
Observers from the European Union have said that they witnessed no fraud in their review of the election, but Mexico's Federal Electoral Tribunal [official website, in Spanish] voted unanimously late Monday to consider a recount, after hearing arguments from Lopez Obrador on Saturday [JURIST report]. The seven judges will decide whether to recalculate the ballots by August 31 and many of Lopez Obrador's supporters are expected to continue protesting in the capital until a decision is reached. Mexico City police are unlikely to intervene since Lopez Obrador was mayor of the capital city prior to his presidential bid and the police force is still led by his Democratic Revolution Party [party website, in Spanish]. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

White House now backs detainee trial process more like courts-martial: Graham
Joshua Pantesco on August 2, 2006 9:46 AM ET

[JURIST] US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) [official website] told reporters on Tuesday that the White House has changed its position on military commissions [DOD materials; JURIST news archive], and now favors an approach that would try suspected terrorist detainees under a system modeled more on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) [text]. Graham, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the latest proposal a "hybrid" between the military commissions established under Military Commission Order No. 1 [text] that the US Supreme Court in June ruled lacked proper legal authorization [JURIST report], and the courts-martial system under the UCMJ. The Bush administration has considered asking Congress to authorize the current system [JURIST report], a solution once backed by Graham [press release] and contemplated by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [text]. The White House circulated a draft bill [JURIST report; PDF text] last week that among other things would allow military commissions to proceed against an accused "enemy combatant" without the defendant being present, if necessary to protect national security, a provision inconsistent with the UCMJ.
The UCMJ mandates a courts-martial system [Globalsecurity.org backgrounder] that provides defendants with fundamental trial rights similar to those enjoyed in US civilian trials. Defendants are guaranteed counsel and the right to a trial by jury, and the defendant is provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Several administration lawyers have warned against a courts-martial system [JURIST report] to try terrorist suspects, arguing that the evidentiary requirements place severe burdens on the prosecution, but other DOJ lawyers said that the Military Rules of Evidence could be altered to admit reliable hearsay, among other things. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal appeals court overturns convictions of Merrill Lynch execs in Enron scam
Jaime Jansen on August 2, 2006 8:00 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Tuesday reversed the convictions [opinion text, PDF] of four former Merrill Lynch [corporate website] executives found guilty in connection with an Enron [corporate website; JURIST news archive] Nigerian barge scam. The Fifth Circuit overturned conspiracy and wire fraud convictions [JURIST report] for James Brown, William Fuhs, Daniel Bayly and Robert Furst [JURIST reports] "on the legal ground that the government's theory of fraud relating to the deprivation of honest services -- one of three theories of fraud charged in the Indictment -- is flawed." The four defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that there were problems with the jury instructions and the government's theory of criminal liability, as well as a deprivation of honest services. The court, however, ruled only on the deprivation of Enron's intangible right to honest services of employees argument, finding that the four executives had acted for the benefit of Enron and not to benefit themselves personally.
The court did, however, uphold a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction against Brown. A fifth executive convicted in the scandal, Daniel Boyle, did not appeal his conviction. AP has more. The Houston Chronicle has additional coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|