 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, September 27, 2006 |
 |
|


House passes military commissions bill as Senate limits debate ahead of vote
Alexis Unkovic on September 27, 2006 6:39 PM ET

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives approved its version of the controversial military commissions [JURIST news archive] bill [HR 6166 text] Wednesday by a margin of 253-168 [roll call] with 160 Democrats voting against the legislation. After passage, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) [official website] combatively commended fellow Republicans for their efforts [press release] in pushing the legislation through: House Republicans have worked hard to create a system that will protect our troops on the battlefield, while also conforming to international laws and treaty obligations. This is not enough for the Democrats who continue to support rights for terrorists. In fact, Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. Meanwhile, the US Senate Wednesday prepared to pass its version [S 3930 text] of the military commissions bill after agreeing to limit debate on the legislation to ensure a floor vote. Last Thursday, senior Senate Republicans reached a deal [JURIST report] with the White House on key provisions of the legislation that subsequently sparked outrage [JURIST report] from various rights groups, military lawyers, and legal scholars. US Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) [JURIST news archive] and four Democrats have proposed amendments to the current Senate bill intended to shore up the legal rights of detainees, none of which are expected to garner approval. Specter has publicly questioned [JURIST report] whether the restrictions on habeas corpus in the Senate measure are constitutional. AP has more.


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

|

Former Bosnian Serb parliament leader sentenced to 27 years for war crimes
James M Yoch Jr on September 27, 2006 3:12 PM ET

[JURIST] Former Bosnian Serb parliamentary leader Momcilo Krajisnik [ICTY backgrounder] was sentenced [press release; judgment, PDF] to 27 years' imprisonment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] on Wednesday for various war crimes related to his role in atrocities committed against Croats and Muslims during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. According to the official judgment summary [text], the ICTY found that [A] joint criminal enterprise existed throughout the territories of the Bosnian-Serb Republic. There was a centrally-based core component of the group, which included Mr Krajinik, Radovan Karadic, and other Bosnian-Serb leaders. . . . The common objective of the joint criminal enterprise was to ethnically recompose the territories targeted by the Bosnian-Serb leadership by drastically reducing the proportion of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats through expulsion. . . . [T]he evidence shows that the criminal means of the enterprise very soon grew to include other crimes of persecution, as well as murder, and extermination. . . . [Mr. Krajisnik] deployed his political skills both locally and internationally to facilitate the implementation of the joint criminal enterprises common objective through the crimes envisaged by that objective. Mr Krajinik knew about, and intended, the mass detention and expulsion of civilians. He had the power to intervene, but he was not concerned with the predicament of detained and expelled persons. Mr Krajinik wanted the Muslim and Croat populations moved out of Bosnian-Serb territories in large numbers, and accepted that a heavy price of suffering, death, and destruction was necessary to achieve Serb domination and a viable statehood. The ICTY found Krajisnik, who pleaded not guilty on all charges, not guilty on a charge of genocide for which prosecutors had requested a life sentence [JURIST report]. Krajisnik was initially indicted together with Biljana Plavsic [ICTY case backgrounder], the former Bosnian Serb president, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2003 after testifying against Krajisnik. Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [ICTY case backgrounder; BBC profile], with whom Krajisnik worked closely, and former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic [ICTY case backgrounder; JURIST news archive] remain fugitives from prosecution by the ICTY, causing problems with Serbia's membership negotiations with the European Union [JURIST report]. UPI has more.


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

|

Israel rights groups condemns June bombing of Gaza power plant as 'war crime'
Brett Murphy on September 27, 2006 2:17 PM ET

[JURIST] Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [advocacy website] issued a report [DOC] Wednesday concluding that the June 28 bombing by Israeli forces of a power plant in the Gaza Strip during the early stages of the 34-day Middle East conflict [JURIST news archive] precipitated by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers amounts to a war crime under international humanitarian law [press release] as an act of collective punishment, and that Israel must fund repairs and pay compensation. The government of Israel [JURIST news archive] has defended the bombing, saying that it was done to cut power to militants, thereby making it harder to move a soldier abducted by Hamas. B'Tselem, however, maintains that "there was no apparent military basis for the action, and it seems that its intention was to satisfy a desire for revenge."
The bombing destroyed the power plant, cutting off power to over a million Gaza residents. In July, United Nations relief coordinator Jan Egeland said that Israel had used "disproportionate" force in its military offensive in the Gaza Strip and expressed dismay over the destruction the power plant, saying that international law clearly prohibits the destruction of civilian infrastructure [JURIST report] and that the plant was "more important for hospitals, for sewage, and for water of civilians than for any Hamas man." Reuters has more.


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

|

EU panel delays report on US financial transactions monitoring program
Brett Murphy on September 27, 2006 1:52 PM ET

[JURIST] An EU panel comprised of European data security officials has decided to delay the release of a final report on a Bush administration program that keeps track of international financial transactions until further investigations into whether the program violates EU privacy law are complete. On Monday, Peter Schaar, head of the European Commission's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party [official website], criticized [JURIST report] the White House-authorized program, doubting its legality under European Law. The data officials are expected to reconvene in November to give a final report on the program and potentially recommend measures to help guard against abuses of privacy.
The New York Times and other papers revealed the once-secret program [NYT report; JURIST report] in June, prompting sharp criticism from the Bush administration, which defended the initiative [press briefing]. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee later encouraged the administration to press criminal charges [JURIST report] against the media for publicizing the program, which allowed the CIA [official website] to monitor international financial transactions processed by Swift [official website], a Belgium-based banking cooperative. A London-based civil liberties group subsequently asked data-protection and privacy officials in more than a dozen countries to prevent the further release of confidential financial information [JURIST report] to American authorities. According to US government officials, the program targets those with suspected ties to Al Qaeda. AP has more.


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

|

Domestic surveillance bill stalls in Congress
Joshua Pantesco on September 27, 2006 7:13 AM ET

[JURIST] There are too many substantive differences between the Senate and House versions of a bill aimed at approving the NSA domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive] for legislation to be approved before the November elections, anonymous GOP staffers told reporters Tuesday. The Senate version, the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 [S 3876 materials], the product of a compromise between the White House and Senator Arlen Specter [JURIST report], places fewer restrictions on presidential authority to conduct wiretaps than the House version [JURIST report], the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006 [HR 5825 summary], sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM).
President Bush pressed for passage of the surveillance legislation in a press conference [JURIST report] earlier this month, saying "when an al Qaeda operative is calling into the United States or out of the country, we need to know who they're calling, why they're calling, and what they're planning." AP has more.


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

|

Property rights bill fails in US House
Joshua Pantesco on September 27, 2006 6:56 AM ET

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives on Tuesday failed to pass the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2005 [HR 4772 text, PDF], a bill that its supporters said would provide easier access to federal courts to landowners seeking to challenge governmental actions under the Takings Clause [text] of the Fifth Amendment. The bill summary specifies that it would: Amend[] the federal judicial code to provide that, whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction in civil rights cases in which the operative facts concern the uses of real property, it shall not abstain from exercising such jurisdiction, or relinquish it to a state court, if the party seeking redress does not allege a violation of a state law, right, or privilege, and no parallel proceeding is pending in state court that arises out of the same operative facts as the district court proceeding. Opponents argued that the bill would entangle local and state governments in expensive federal court litigation. The measure was defeated 234-172 [roll call].
Last June, the Supreme Court held [JURIST report] in Kelo v. New London [opinion, text] that a local government authority can expropriate private property - land, homes and businesses - for private redevelopment that confers economic benefits on the community such as more jobs and tax revenue so long as it is not just a private use of the property for private benefit. The controversial ruling gave prompted a rash of local, state and even federal laws [JURIST report] purporting to increase private property protections. AP has more.


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

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