 |
|

Legal news from Monday, December 3, 2007 |
 |
|


Russia to resume Europe arms treaty if West ratifies: Putin
Mike Rosen-Molina on December 3, 2007 7:56 PM ET

[JURIST] Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website] said Monday that Russia will recommence participation in the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) [text; backgrounder] if western nations ratify the treaty. NATO is currently discussing the possibility of ratifying an adapted CFE, according to a spokesperson. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov [official profile] also demanded in a statement that NATO be allowed lesser amounts of "treaty-limited equipment" under a revised CFE and that flank limitations on Russia be ended. RIA Novosti has more.
Last week, Putin signed into law [JURIST report] a measure suspending Russia's responsibilities under the CFE. The Federation Council of Russia, Russia's upper house, unanimously approved [JURIST report] the measure earlier this month following a unanimous vote in the State Duma [JURIST report] in favor of suspending the CFE. The Russian government first threatened to temporarily withdraw [JURIST report] from the treaty in June, amid tensions between the US and Russia over US plans for an anti-missile defense shield in central Europe, which Russia perceives to be a threat to Russian national security. In April, Putin told both houses of the Russian parliament that he was suspending Russia's implementation of the CFE Treaty [JURIST report] due to what he called a US-led NATO military "build up" in Europe, and said he would explore the possibility of ending Russia's commitments under the treaty.
The CFE Treaty, concluded in 1990 by the 22 members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, regulates deployment of non-nuclear forces in Europe. In October, Putin also threatened to withdraw [JURIST report] Russia from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [US DOS backgrounder] unless that treaty is expanded to include neighboring countries such as China, India, and Pakistan. This past Wednesday, Russian officials said they wanted replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with a formal, binding agreement [JURIST report] with the US that will limit the creation of new nuclear weapons. That treaty, which signaled the end of the Cold War, will expire in 2009. The Bush administration has said that it wants to replace START with an informal agreement that does not include the strict verification requirements of the current treaty.


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

|

Federal appeals court rules state funding for faith-based program unconstitutional
Kiely Lewandowski on December 3, 2007 6:00 PM ET

[JURIST] A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] that included retired US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ruled [opinion text] Monday that using taxpayer money to fund a faith-based treatment program in a state jail is unconstitutional. The voluntary program, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative [advocacy website], immerses prisoners in evangelical Christianity by requiring participants to engage in Bible study, religious revivals, and church services. The program has operated at Iowa's minimum security Newton Correctional Facility since 1999. The lawsuit was brought against InnerChange by inmates, taxpayers, inmate relatives and Americans United for Separation of Church and State [advocate website]. The appellate court found that Iowa's direct financial aid to InnerChange between 2000 and 2004 violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The appellate court broadly affirmed a district court holding [JURIST report] that InnerChange was 'permanently enjoined from further operation at the Newton Facility, or any other institution within the Iowas Dept. of Corrections, so long as it is supported by government funding', but reversed in part holding that the the lower court 'abused its discretion in granting recoupment for services rendered before its order.' InnerPeace is therefore no longer required to repay the state funds received under all the contracts. InnerPeace welcomed the ruling in a press release, noting that the original injunction no longer applies to it as its Iowa program is no longer partially funded by the state. The Des Moines Register has more.


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

|

Myanmar has freed over 8,500 prisoners: state media
Mike Rosen-Molina on December 3, 2007 5:32 PM ET

[JURIST] The military government of Myanmar [JURIST news archive] reported Monday that it has released 8,585 detainees since the middle of November to celebrate progress toward drafting a national constitution [JURIST news archive], but opposition party National League for Democracy said that number only includes 10 political prisoners. International groups believe that Myanmar is still detaining 1,800 political prisoners, including 700 arrested during September pro-democracy demonstrations. Also Monday, the military government said that the new constitution would be drafted solely by a 54-member constitution-drafting commission [JURIST report], rejecting UN calls for the country's constitution-drafting process to be opened to outside groups.
Last week, the UN General Assembly Third Committee passed [JURIST report] a draft resolution [press release] condemning the recent crackdown against political dissidents in Myanmar, calling on the country's military government to release all political prisoners and to cooperate with UN special envoy to Myanmar Ibrahim Gambari [official profile]. The crackdown started when Myanmar security officers arrested hundreds of Buddhist monks demonstrating against rising fuel prices and human rights abuses by the military regime. At least 10 people were killed when government soldiers shot into protesting crowds [JURIST report] and the government has said that some 3,000 people were arrested for participating in the protests. AFP has more.


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

|

Retrial of six former Guantanamo detainees begins in France
Mike Rosen-Molina on December 3, 2007 4:16 PM ET

[JURIST] The retrial of six Frenchmen who were released from the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] began Monday in Paris. The six stand accused of attending combat training at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. France freed five of the suspects after their repatriation to France from Guantanamo in July 2004 and March 2005 [BBC reports]. The prosecution alleges that the six suspects were recruited by Rachid Boukhalfa, an Algerian held in a British prison also known as Abu Doha. France formally charged the six defendants [JURIST report] in April 2006. During the original September 2006 trial, the judge refused to deliver a verdict [JURIST report], instead saying that he wanted to know more about a French intelligence-gathering mission in which French agents had interviewed the six men while still at Guantanamo. The French government at first failed to disclose the meetings [JURIST report], a fact that could have rendered the case invalid.
France said that the agents visited the detainees for the administrative purposes of identifying the French citizens and generally assessing their situation. The French Foreign Ministry [official website] said in an official statement [text, in French] that it never made a secret out of intelligence visits to Guantanamo between 2002 and 2004, adding that the agents were also gathering information for France to help prevent terrorism. A French diplomatic telegram published in the Liberation daily referred to intelligence agents who conducted interviews with the suspects at least twice while at Guantanamo [Liberation report, in French]. The prosecution in the Paris trial failed to disclose the interviews, however, and defense lawyers said the encounters violated their clients' rights because no lawyer was present when they took place. AFP has more.


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

|

Supreme Court takes sovereign immunity, tax, right to counsel cases
Brett Murphy on December 3, 2007 11:59 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday granted certiorari in three cases [order list, PDF], including Philippines v. Pimental (06-1204) [docket; cert. petition], in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the government of the Philippines had the right to be a party in litigation on claims to a $35 million account for a Panamanian corporation allegedly formed to hide money by former Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The Philippines has claimed that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should bar US courts from hearing the issue, and filed to have the rival claims on the account dismissed. Additionally, the Court will consider whether the Philippines had the right to appeal the District Court's decision and the Circuit Court ruling [opinion, PDF] even though it was not an indispensable party in the original litigation. AP has more.
In United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Minig Co. (07-308) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Supreme Court will rule on whether a taxpayer may sue directly under the Constitution via the Tucker Act [text] when failing to pursue administrative remedies before filing a refund suit. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld [opinion, PDF] the district court's holding that a taxpayer could sue under the Tucker Act, but reversed on its ruling that an award of interest under Tucker Act claims was unavailable, stating that the Code provides "a straightforward recognition that the government should pay for its use of a taxpayer's money to which the government was not entitled."
In Rothgery v. Gillespie County, TX (07-77) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Supreme Court will consider whether a person accused of a felony has the right to an attorney at a probable cause hearing before a magistrate judge. The US Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the decision of the court below, holding that the right to counsel does not exist until a defendant is indicted on the charges on the basis "that the appearance [at a probable cause hearing] in this case did not commence adversary judicial proceedings for purpose of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel." SCOUTSBlog has more on Monday's cert. grants.


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

|

Myanmar constitution to be drafted solely by government-appointed panel
Katerina Ossenova on December 3, 2007 10:13 AM ET

[JURIST] The military government of Myanmar [JURIST news archive] Monday rejected calls from the United Nations for the country's constitution-drafting process to be opened to outside groups, saying that the new constitution would be drafted solely by a 54-member constitution-drafting commission [JURIST report]. The constitution-drafting commission, announced in October, will be comprised of both civilian and military members, all of whom will be appointed by the military government. In September, a constitutional convention composed mainly of military-appointed delegates adopted guidelines for a new constitution [JURIST report]. Under the adopted principles, opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi [JURIST news archive] would be barred from holding an elected office.
Last week, the UN General Assembly Third Committee passed [JURIST report] a draft resolution [press release] condemning the recent crackdown against political dissidents in Myanmar, calling on the country's military government to release all political prisoners and to cooperate with UN special envoy to Myanmar Ibrahim Gambari [official profile]. The crackdown started when Myanmar security officers arrested hundreds of Buddhist monks demonstrating against rising fuel prices and human rights abuses by the military regime. At least 10 people were killed when government soldiers shot into protesting crowds [JURIST report] and the government has said that some 3,000 people were arrested for participating in the protests. AP has more.


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

|

Venezuelans reject proposed constitutional reforms
Jaime Jansen on December 3, 2007 7:47 AM ET

[JURIST] Venezuelans have rejected sweeping constitutional reforms [JURIST news archive] proposed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez [BBC profile] by a narrow margin of 51 to 49 percent, preliminary results of Sunday's constitutional referendum [JURIST report] showed on Monday. Chavez, accepting his first electoral defeat, acknowledged that his proposed reforms - which would have allowed him to stand indefinitely for re-election, handpick local leaders under a new political map, create new types of communal property, and to suspend civil liberties during states of emergency - was "quite profound and intense," and noted that he may have been too ambitious in his proposals.
Chavez has touted the constitutional changes as necessary to advance Venezuela's socialist revolution. Human Rights Watch has warned that the reforms would violate international law [press release] by allowing the president to suspend due process guarantees during times of emergency, and UN experts have flagged concerns over the independence of the judiciary under the proposed amendments. Opposition politicians have accused Chavez [JURIST report] of using the constitutional reforms to consolidate his power. Although the Venezuelan National Assembly approved [JURIST report] the reforms by a 160-7 vote earlier this month, several prominent figures, including former Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Baduel, have spoken out against the reforms [JURIST report]. AP has more. From Caracas, El Universal has local coverage.


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

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