 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, May 9, 2007 |
 |
|


Oregon gay rights bills signed into law
Mike Rosen-Molina on May 9, 2007 3:34 PM ET

[JURIST] Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski [official website] signed two gay rights bills into law [press release] Wednesday, establishing civil unions for gay couples and enacting anti-discrimination measures. House Bill 2007 [text] allows same-sex couples to enter into contractual domestic partnerships with the same state benefits as married couples. The measure covers state benefits including inheritance, child custody, and hospital visitation rights, but does not affect federal benefits for married couples. Kulongoski had said [press release] he would sign the bill if it passed the state House and Senate [JURIST reports]. Kulongoski also signed Senate Bill 2 [text], banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and creating a civil cause of action for violations of the act. KGW has more.
Currently, Vermont, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington are the only states that recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. The Washington State Senate passed a domestic partnership bill [JURIST report] in March. Late last month, the New Hampshire Senate voted [JURIST report] in favor of a bill already passed by the state House allowing same-sex civil unions. Also in late April, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage [JURIST report] in New York.


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

|

Alabama grand jury issues sealed indictment in 1965 civil rights protest death
Michael Sung on May 9, 2007 3:01 PM ET

[JURIST] An Alabama grand jury issued a sealed indictment Wednesday in the 1965 shooting and death of 26-year-old Jimmie Lee Jackson [Sojourners report] by state trooper James Bonard Fowler during an attempt by state troopers to disperse a protest against the jailing of a civil rights worker. The indictment, which will remain sealed until it is served, is expected to name Fowler, who says he acted in self-defense. Perry County District Attorney Michael Jackson, elected in 2004, revived the dormant case in 2005. Jackson said there are "strong witnesses" to support the prosecution despite the death of two FBI [official website] agents who originally investigated the killing and the destruction of journalists' photographic evidence by the state troopers during the dispersal. Jackson's death helped spark the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches [Wikipedia backgrounder].
The indictment falls in line with a recent trend in settling unfinished civil rights [JURIST news archive] cases. In 2004, the US Justice Department re-opened the case of Emmett Till [JURIST report], who was abducted and murdered in August 1955 in Money, Mississippi. The next year, however, the FBI declined to file federal civil rights charges [JURIST report] and subsequently turned over the case to the local Mississippi district attorney. In February, a Mississippi grand jury refused to indict a suspect in the case [JURIST report] due to lack of sufficient evidence. AP has more.


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

|

Iraq parliament approves legal action against Al Jazeera for 'insulting' Shiite cleric
Michael Sung on May 9, 2007 2:15 PM ET

[JURIST] The Iraqi Council of Representatives [official website, in Arabic] Wednesday approved a measure to take legal action against Al Jazeera [media website] television for alleged insults against top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani [BBC profile; official website]. The measure followed days of protests [AP report] by thousands of Shi'a Muslims in the southern cities of Basra and Najaf against Egyptian talk show host Ahmed Mansour, who had openly questioned al-Sistani's leadership credentials and whether the revered leader authored his own fatwas. Council Speaker Mamoud al-Mashhadani did not reveal the specifics of the action, but did say the matter would be referred to the council's legal committee. Al-Sistani, who rarely appears in public, has not responded to the comments.
On Sunday, Iran's legislative body, the Majlis [official website, in English], voted to ban Al Jazeera reporters from its parliamentary building. In August of 2004, the interim Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from operating in Iraq [JURIST report] on grounds that the Qatar-based satellite television network incited sectarian violence and hatred by airing footage of threatened hostages. The ban has not been rescinded. AP has more.


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

|

UK launches new Ministry of Justice as judges balk
Brett Murphy on May 9, 2007 12:29 PM ET

[JURIST] The new UK Ministry of Justice [official website] began operations Wednesday, as a controversial split of the traditional Home Office [official website] that is setting the British government against the judiciary went into effect. Lord Falconer of Thoroton [official profile], serving as the first Secretary of State for Justice, said [press release] that the new focus of the Justice Ministry "provides the opportunity for the whole justice system to work together better than ever before." Outgoing [Guardian report] Home Secretary John Reid shared similar sentiments [press release] from his institutional perspective, saying that the changes "have refocused the Home Office on the issues that matter most to the public."
Critics, however, have expressed concerns over the likely effectiveness of the split, and even doubt its constitutional advisability. Late last month the former Lord Chief Justice of English and Wales Lord Woolf said that shifting the traditional position of Lord Chancellor into the Ministry of Justice represented a major constitutional change [JURIST report] that should be undertaken only after serious study and not rushed through, warning that the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor in the expanded Ministry might water down his traditionally close relationship with judges. Top judges have been particularly wary of the possibility that government concerns over sentencing practices [JURIST report] might put judges under political pressure [Phillips letter, PDF]; Lord Justice Thomas, who has led negotiations with the government on behalf of the judges, has said that "difficult questions of principle" relating to the merged responsibilities of the new ministry remain to be settled.
In a statement [text] issued Wednesday, current Chief Justice Lord Phillips reiterated the judges concerns: The judiciary consider that the creation of a new Ministry of Justice raises important issues of principle; these have been communicated repeatedly to the Lord Chancellor since January 2007 and are summarised in the judicial position paper of 29 March 2007. A working group composed of senior judges and senior Government officials has been meeting since 21 March 2007 to discuss the issues with the aim of putting in place constitutional safeguards to protect the independence of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice...
We have not yet reached agreement on a way forward. We will continue with our discussions with the Government in our attempt to resolve the important issues of principle that remain.
I have convened a special meeting of the Judges' Council to discuss these issues on 15 May 2007 with representatives of all levels of the judiciary. I will also be giving evidence on this subject to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons on 22 May 2007 when I shall explain the judiciary's position, and the stage we have reached in our discussions with the Government. The plan [HO press release] to create the new justice ministry was developed [JURIST report] earlier this year and announced [transcript] in late March by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It called for a Ministry of Justice - a successor body to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the National Offender Management Service [official websites] - to be responsible for the judiciary and for prisons, probation and the prevention of criminal recidivism. The jurisdiction of a reduced Home Office would be largely confined to terrorism, security and immigration. BBC News has more.


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

|

Human rights groups oppose Serbia Council of Europe presidency
Leslie Schulman on May 9, 2007 10:57 AM ET

[JURIST] With Serbia poised to assume the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe [official website] this week, several human rights groups have spoken out against the country's new role, asserting that a country in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention [text] should not be allowed to lead the European human rights watchdog. In February, the International Court of Justice ruled [JURIST report] that although the Serbian government was not directly responsible for genocide during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war [Wikipedia backgrounder], the country violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent genocide and by failing to bring to justice former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [ICTY case backgrounder; BBC profile] and his military commander Ratko Mladic [ICTY case backgrounder; JURIST news archive], both wanted on war crimes charges.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] director Richard Dicker submitted a letter [text; HRW report] Monday to the Council of Europe, urging reconsideration of Serbia's presidency. Dicker said: Serbia is the only country [in the United Nations] ever judged to have violated the Genocide Convention, and it's persisting in that violation by not turning over Ratko Mladic. The Council of Europe, the 'human rights conscience of the European Union,' should insist that Serbia cooperates fully with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. Chief ICTY prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has also submitted a letter of protest, saying that Serbia's failure to arrest Mladic and Karadzic make the country unfit for Council leadership. The International Herald Tribune has more.


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

|

Padilla jury seated for terrorism support trial
Brett Murphy on May 9, 2007 10:33 AM ET

[JURIST] Jury selection concluded Tuesday in the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla [JURIST news archive] and two co-defendants. Prosecutors have accused the defense of trying to exclude all white and Hispanic men from the jury, while the defense accused prosecutors of excluding any person with ties to Islam. US District Judge Marcia Cooke [official profile], however, determined that neither side was basing their objections to potential jurors on racial or ethnic biases. Opening statements are scheduled to begin on Monday.
Jury selection began over three weeks ago, shortly after Cooke refused to dismiss the terror charges based on Padilla's allegations that he was tortured [JURIST reports]. Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently detained as an "enemy combatant" at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially accused of planning to set off a "dirty bomb" in the United States, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged [indictment, PDF; JURIST report] in November 2005 on unrelated counts of conspiracy to murder US nationals and supporting terrorist activity. He was transferred to civilian custody [JURIST report] in January 2006 and has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges. In February, Padilla was ruled competent to stand trial [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.


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

|

UK police arrest four more suspects in July 7 London bombing investigation
Brett Murphy on May 9, 2007 10:07 AM ET

[JURIST] Scotland Yard arrested four suspects [press release] in London on Wednesday in connection with the London transit bombings [JURIST report; JURIST news archive; BBC News timeline] on July 7, 2005 that left 52 people dead. Police arrested Mohammed Sidique Khan, Mohammed Shakil, Sadeer Saleem, and Waheed Ali on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 [text]. According to the Metropolitan Police [official website], the arrests were part of a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation."
Last month, British police arrested three men [JURIST report] in connection with the bombings. Those arrests were the first significant arrests in the bombings case. Al Qaeda officially claimed responsibility for the attacks on September 1, 2005, in a videotape which aired on al Jazeera TV. AP has more.


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

|

DHS proceeding with REAL ID despite opposition
Brett Murphy on May 9, 2007 9:03 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] said Tuesday that it will continue to move forward with implementation of the REAL ID Act [PDF text; JURIST news archive], despite opposition among state legislatures and in the US Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] met on Tuesday to hear testimony on privacy and civil liberties Concerns with the law, the same day public comments on the Act were due to DHS for review. At the hearing [committee materials], chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed doubt [statement text] that states would be able to comply with rigid requirements of the Act, and said that "there are also civil liberties concerns involving this hasty Act." Jim Harper of the Cato Institute [think tank website] testified [Cato materials] that these are real concerns, and that the "proposal lays the groundwork for systematic tracking of Americans based on their race." As of May 1, 43 organizations have joined together in opposition [FCW report] to the Act due to worries that it will seriously effect the privacy and civil rights of US residents.
Since the REAL ID Act passed in May 2005, five states have passed anti-REAL ID legislation that rejects implementation of the Act. Most recently, Washington passed legislation [JURIST report] with strong support that dictates that the state not spend any money implementing the REAL ID Act unless privacy and security concerns are addressed. Initially drafted after the Sept. 11 attacks and designed to discourage illegal immigration, the law attempts to make it more difficult for terrorists to fraudulently obtain US driver's licenses and other government IDs by mandating that states require birth certificates or similar documentation and also consult national immigration databases before issuing IDs. The law is also meant to make it more difficult for potential terrorists to board aircraft or enter federal government buildings. After controversy and strenuous opposition from civil libertarians [FindLaw commentary], it finally passed in 2005 [JURIST report] as part of an emergency supplemental appropriations defense spending bill. Other state lawmakers have previously expressed concern [JURIST report] about possible problems expected to accompany the implementation of the REAL ID Act, fearing that they will not be able to comply with the law's requirements before a May 2008 deadline. In March, Homeland Security responded to these concerns by extending the deadline for compliance by 18 months [JURIST report]. The New York Times has more.


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

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