 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, April 9, 2008 |
 |
|


US House committee issues subpoena for EPA-White House communications
Andrew Gilmore on April 9, 2008 6:51 PM ET

[JURIST] The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [official website] issued a subpoena [press release] Wednesday to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] to turn over documents relating to White House involvement in the EPA decision to deny California's request for a greenhouse emissions waiver in December 2007 [JURIST report]. In a statement, Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) [official website] said: The Committee has found evidence that EPA officials met with the White House regarding California's motor vehicle regulations. Subsequently, EPA blocked California from moving forward with its landmark program to address climate change. Unfortunately, EPA has refused to disclose the substance and extent of its communications with the White House. The Committee must have these documents in order to understand how the agency's decision was made. In December 2007, the EPA denied California's waiver request, with EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson saying that a unified national standard for greenhouse gas regulation was preferable to a state-by-state network of regulations and pointing to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [HR 6 materials; WH fact sheet], signed into law that month by President George W. Bush. California filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in January to challenge the denial. In February, internal EPA documents [press release and excerpts] revealed that agents with the EPA had urged Johnson to approve the waiver request [JURIST report].
The California standards would have required car manufacturers to cut emissions by 25 percent for cars and light trucks, and 18 percent for SUVs, starting with the 2009 model year. California's Air Resources Board [official website] adopted the greenhouse gas standards in 2004 [press release], but it could not mandate them unless the EPA granted a waiver of the lighter Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) [text] standards. California is the only state permitted to seek a waiver under the CAA, but if granted, other states have the option of choosing between the federal standards and those of California. At least 11 states had indicated that they would follow the California standard. This is the first time that the EPA has denied California a waiver since Congress established the state's right to seek CAA waivers in 1967. AP has more.


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

|

Al-Marri lawyers claim 2003 DOJ memo shows 'enemy combatant' detention illegal
Katerina Ossenova on April 9, 2008 1:29 PM ET

[JURIST] A 2003 US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memorandum [PDF text] demonstrates that the detention of Illinois resident and Qatari native Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri [Brennan Center case materials; NYT profile] "lacks legal basis" as the detention was based on now-discredited legal opinions, a lawyer for al-Marri argued in a letter [PDF text] submitted to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Tuesday. The now officially-repudiated memo written by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, declassified and released [JURIST report] last week, advised the US Department of Defense that military interrogators could employ a wide range of interrogation methods when questioning foreign detainees outside the United States without fear of criminal liability or constitutional sanction. In addition, the 2003 memo cited an unreleased 2001 memorandum [JURIST report], also since repudiated, asserting that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to "domestic military operations" conducted in pursuit of terrorism suspects."
Al-Marri's lawyer wrote: The President relied on an an OLC opinion in designating al-Marri an "enemy combatant" in June 2003, merely three months after the Memo issued, ... and the government says that opinion formed part of the "extremely careful[]" Executive process that produced this designation....
The Memo - later repudiated by the Justice Department... - further demonstrates that al-Marri's detention lacks legal basis. ...
In sum, the President designated al-Marri an "enemy combatant" based upon erroneous legal analysis, and to uphold his detention is to endorse the result of an analysis that even the Justice Department has repudiated. Al-Marri's defense noted that the 2003 memo "incorrectly asserts that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause does not restrict the President's detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists inside the United States ... and that the Fourth Amendment has 'no application to domestic military operations.'" The letter further said that "the memo ... also advocates detention for coercive interrogation. ... As the Memo underscores, al-Marri was impermissibly transferred to military custody after he had already been detained in civilian custody for 17 months precisely so that harsh interrogation methods could be employed against him."
The appeals court is currently considering al-Marri's challenge to his designation as an enemy combatant [JURIST news archive]. In October 2007, the court held an en banc rehearing [JURIST report] of its earlier ruling [PDF text; JURIST report] that the military cannot seize and imprison civilians lawfully residing in the United States and detain them indefinitely as "enemy combatants." Al-Marri was arrested at his home in Peoria, Illinois by civilian authorities in 2001, and was indicted for alleged domestic crimes. In 2003, President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant [CNN report] and ordered the attorney general to transfer custody of al-Marri to the defense secretary, claiming inherent authority to hold him indefinitely. The Washington Post has more. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.


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

|

UK Law Lords reject bid for inquiry into legality of Iraq war
Brett Murphy on April 9, 2008 9:42 AM ET

[JURIST] The judicial members of the House of Lords making up Britain's highest court on Wednesday denied a request [judgment] by two mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq for a public inquiry into the legality of UK's decision to go to war in Iraq [JURIST report]. The mothers had requested an inquiry into the decision to go to war based on the right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights [PDF text]. Lord Bingham of Cornhill wrote: It may be significant that article 2 has never been held to apply to the process of deciding on the lawfulness of a resort to arms, despite the number of occasions on which member states have made that decision over the past half century and despite the fact that such a decision almost inevitably exposes military personnel to the risk of fatalities. There are, I think, three main reasons for this:
(1) The lawfulness of military action has no immediate bearing on the risk of fatalities...
(2) The draftsmen of the European Convention cannot, in my opinion, have envisaged that it could provide a suitable framework or machinery for resolving questions about the resort to war...
(3) The obligation of member states under article 1 of the Convention is to secure "to everyone within their jurisdiction" the rights and freedoms in the Convention. Subject to limited exceptions and specific extensions, the application of the Convention is territorial: the rights and freedoms are ordinarily to be secured to those within the borders of the state and not outside. The mothers were appealing a December 2005 lower court ruling [text; JURIST report] that they could not challenge the government's refusal to hold a public inquiry. In December 2006, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court judgment [judgment text; JURIST report], ruling that the decision to establish an inquiry was one for the executive, not the courts.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has indicated that an inquiry will take place after British troops return from Iraq to the UK. AP has more.


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

|

HRW: CIA transferred terror suspects to Jordan as part of rendition program
Brett Murphy on April 9, 2008 8:59 AM ET

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] accused the CIA Tuesday of transferring terror suspects to Jordan [report; press release] following September 11, saying that the US sent them there for interrogations as part of the CIA's rendition program [JURIST news archive]. HRW reported that at least 14 persons were sent to Jordan, saying that: From 2001 until at least 2004, Jordan's General Intelligence Department (GID) served as a proxy jailer for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), holding prisoners that the CIA apparently wanted kept out of circulation, and later handing some of them back to the CIA. More than just warehousing these men, the GID interrogated them using methods that were even more brutal than those in which the CIA has been implicated to date. The prisoners were typically held for several months in GID custodyand in at least one case, for nearly two years. Jordan denied any involvement [Reuters report] in the rendition program, saying that the report was based on biased, individual allegations. AP has more.
In another CIA alleged rendition case, an Italian judge last month resumed the trial [JURIST report] of 26 Americans and several former Italian intelligence officials for the 2003 abduction and alleged rendition of Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr [JURIST news archive]. Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was seized on the streets of Milan by CIA agents with the help of Italy's Military Intelligence and Security Service. He was then allegedly transferred to Egypt and turned over to Egypt's State Security Intelligence, where he said he was tortured before being released [JURIST reports] in February 2007.


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

|

Senegal amends constitution to allow war crimes trial of former Chad dictator
Leslie Schulman on April 9, 2008 7:27 AM ET

[JURIST] The National Assembly of Senegal [official backgrounder, in French] on Tuesday amended the Senegalese Constitution [text, in French] to give Senegalese courts jurisdiction over the trial of former Chadian dictator Hissene Habre [HRW materials; JURIST news archive], who is accused of crimes against humanity. Habre was accused in 1992 by a Chadian Truth Commission of committing some 40,000 acts of murder and torture of political opponents during his rule from 1982 to 1990. He has been living is Senegal since he was deposed in 1990, and the Senegalese courts dismissed an action against him in 2001 [HRW case backgrounder], claiming that they lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed elsewhere. Recent pressure from the African Union and the UN Committee Against Torture [official websites] have prompted Senegal to revisit its position on Habre, and the constitutional amendment now gives Senegalese courts the jurisdiction to try him for crimes he is accused of having committed in Chad.
Senegal courts have long refused to extradite Habre, despite the issuance of an international arrest warrant [JURIST reports] issued by Belgium pursuant to its universal jurisdiction laws [HRW backgrounder]. Under growing international pressure to either try Habre locally or extradite him to Belgium, Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade [official profile, in French; BBC profile] agreed in April 2006 to try him in Senegal and the government later determined [JURIST reports] he would face charges in a criminal court, rather than in front of a special tribunal. Human rights groups, however, have still criticized Senegal for its lack of progress. In January, an EU official sent to Senegal to advise the court where trial should take place reported that the trial would not begin in 2008 [JURIST report]. BBC News has more. Reuters has additional coverage.


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

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