[JURIST] Federal authorities have arrested and charged [DOJ press release] 84-year-old American citizen Ben-Ami Kadish on four counts of conspiracy to disclose US defense and nuclear weaponry documents to Israel and to act as an Israeli agent, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced Tuesday. The complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] alleges that from 1979-1985, the former US Army engineer took classified documents from a library at the Army’s New Jersey Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center [official website] to his private home to be photographed by an unnamed Israeli co-conspirator. He has acknowledged his participation in the scheme to FBI officials, stating that he believed to be acting in the interest of Israel. Kadish was also charged with conspiring to hinder a communication to a law enforcement officer and to make a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer, stemming from a March 2008 interview with the FBI in which he denied having a telephone conversation with his unnamed Israeli liaison.

The case's unnamed co-conspirator is reportedly linked to convicted spy Jonathan Pollard [advocacy website], another American charged with spying for Israel. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for selling classified documents to Israel while working as a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy; in 2005, a federal court rejected his appeal [JURIST report] to reduce his sentence. That case has been a source of friction in US-Israeli relations as Israel has repeatedly urged Pollard's release. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday partially overturned [judgment summary; ICTY press release] the convictions of former Bosnian Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic and former Brigadier Amir Kubura, reducing sentences issued for failure to check or punish war atrocities [ICTY case backgrounder] committed against Bosnian Croat and Serb civilians by troops under their command during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war [OnWar backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The tribunal reversed [judgment text, PDF] Hadzihasanovic's convictions on several counts of failure to discipline his troops in connection with two murders as well as the cruel treatment of prisoners; his sentence was reduced from five years to three years and six months in jail. Kubura, Hadzihasanovic's deputy, was acquitted on charges of failure to prevent plunder in Varešcut; his sentence was reduced from two years and six months to two years.

The ICTY appeals panel said it could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hadzihasanovic had effective control over volunteer Mujahedin forces who committed the underlying war crimes. The court also said that prosecutors failed to fully persuade it that the men had complete knowledge of the abuses and retained effective control over all perpetrators, who, in many cases, were non-Bosnian fighters. The UN News Centre has more. AP has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in Giles v. California [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-6053, where the Court considered whether a criminal defendant can block the testimony of the person he allegedly killed if he did not kill her with the specific intent of preventing the witness from testifying. Dwayne Giles was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of his ex-girlfriend. He asserted that the killing was committed in self-defense, but the California court trying him admitted as evidence statements that the victim had previously given police that Giles had threatened to kill her. Giles is arguing that allowing the previous statements as evidence violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause [LII backgrounder]. Giles' lawyers maintain that a defendant only forfeits his right to confront a deceased witness if the prosecution shows the defendant killed the witness with the specific intent of preventing their testimony. State prosecutors counter that the statements should be admissible under equitable principles of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine if the defendant murdered the victim. Several Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant to grant such a broad exception to a defendant's right to confront his or her accuser. AP has more.

The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in Davis v. Federal Election Commission [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-320, on the constitutionality of the so-called millionaire's amendment [FEC backgrounder], part of a 2002 campaign finance law that allows political candidates to accept larger contributions from supporters if an opponent is able to finance his campaign with his own money. New York Democratic Congressional candidate Jack Davis [campaign website] challenged the law, saying it violates his First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled [PDF text] in August 2007 that the law, which is intended to ensure that independently wealthy candidates do not unfairly dominate elections, did not infringe Davis' right to free speech. AP has more.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2008 Webby Award as best Law website... Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings [official profile] Tuesday unveiled new proposed regulations [materials; press release] to implement the federal No Child Left Behind Act [official website]. At a meeting of the Detroit Economic Club, Spelling said [text]:

Today, more than 50 years after Brown v. the Board of Education, 40 years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, and 25 years after A Nation at Risk, do we finally have the willpower to achieve equal opportunity in education? Do we have the courage to aim higher, and prepare every student for today's global economy?

I believe we do. Everywhere I go, I meet parents who are demanding change and hardworking educators who are wholeheartedly committed to achieving it. They need and deserve all the leverage we can give.

That's why today, I'm proposing new policy tools that will give families lifelines — and empower educators to create dramatic improvement. Many are actions that have gained broad support through conversations on how to strengthen No Child Left Behind. While I will continue working with legislators to renew this law, I also realize that students and families and teachers and schools need help now.

So, at the President's request, I'm moving forward to empower educators to take actions that families have been waiting for. The Detroit News has called for "bulldozers" to tear down barriers to reform. Today, I'm delivering policy bulldozers that will do just that.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled [PDF text] Tuesday that Christine Todd Whitman [official profile], former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website], cannot be sued for making allegedly misleading reassurances about the air quality in New York after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2004, residents and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn filed a class-action lawsuit [JURIST report; NYELJP materials] against Whitman and the EPA, arguing that people should not have been allowed to go back to the area so soon after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, which spread soot, dust and other debris for miles, and that residents and workers had their health seriously harmed as a result. Tuesday's ruling reverses a February 2006 district court ruling [PDF text; JURIST report] denying the EPA's motion to dismiss and allowing the case to proceed against Whitman personally.

The New York Environmental Law and Justice Project [advocacy website] filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, alleging that the EPA issued misleading statements that the air quality was safe enough to permit return to homes, schools, and offices. Those statements attesting to the safety of the air quality were later refuted [NYELJP health studies]. AP has more.

[JURIST] The Iraqi government on Monday released 122 detainees from a prison in Sulaimaniyah under an amnesty law [JURIST report] passed in February as part of the national reconciliation effort. The release was part of an effort to ease crowding in Iraqi prisons and reintegrate people convicted of minor crimes back into society; most of the released detainees were low-ranking army officers or minor members of Saddam Hussein's defunct Baath Party [BBC backgrounder]. Iraqi officials plan to release more detainees in Baghdad on Thursday.

The amnesty law does not apply to Iraqis held in US custody, but a spokesperson for coalition detainee operations said that almost 8,000 detainees held at coalition detention centers have been released since September. USA Today has more.

[JURIST] At least two dozen former and current detainees have alleged that they were either forcibly administered drugs or witnessed the forceful administration of drugs on other detainees while in US custody, the Washington Post reported Tuesday. The detainees, held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] and other sites, said in interviews and court documents that they did not know what drugs they were given, but that they believed they were intended to make detainees more pliant during interrogation. The Pentagon and the CIA have both denied using drugs for that purpose, but accusations have been fueled by the release of a 2003 DOJ memorandum [PDF text; JURIST report] earlier this month endorsing the use of drugs in interrogations. The Washington Post has more.

The DOJ memo showed that the department approved a wide range of interrogation methods for the military to use - the same broad limits that the DOJ had earlier approved for the CIA. The 81-page memo was later rescinded.

[JURIST] Convicted former top Chinese Communist Party official Chen Liangyu [People's Daily profile] has decided not to appeal his corruption conviction [JURIST report], Chinese media reported Tuesday. Chen was found guilty earlier this month of accepting bribes and abuse of power, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. His lawyer had previously indicated Chen would appeal the conviction and sentence, but a Monday deadline passed without an appeal being filed. AP has more.

Chen was fired [JURIST report] in 2006 after being accused of involvement in a pension plan scandal, in which some $4.8 billion was illegally siphoned from Shanghai's pension fund. China has taken a hard line on corruption recently, punishing several officials with lengthy prison terms and the death penalty [JURIST report]. In January, the Communist Party of China [official backgrounder] issued a list of "10 taboos" [JURIST report] for public officials as part of the government's attempt to fight corruption ahead of a reshuffling of provincial leadership posts. Chinese prosecutors said last month that the number of corruption convictions against government officials has increased by 30 percent in the last five years [JURIST report].

[JURIST] A federal judge on Monday dismissed claims of fraud [ruling, PDF] against State Farm Insurance by a Mississippi couple who claimed that the company denied their insurance claim for damage from Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive] based on bad faith and fraud. US District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. rejected the claim, writing:

Plaintiffs allege that State Farm committed actionable fraud in the handling of the plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs primarily rely on their contention that State Farm ordered two engineering reports from Forensic in an effort to dishonestly minimize its liability to the plaintiffs rather than for any legitimate reason. ...

Plaintiffs contend that State Farm, acting through Renfroe and Forensic, deliberately underestimated the amount of wind damage the insured property sustained in order to minimize its liability under the plaintiffs' homeowners policy. While this allegation, if sustained, would support a finding of bad faith, it is not sufficient to support an allegation of fraud. Fraud requires reasonable reliance on a misrepresentation, and the plaintiffs have not relied upon State Farm's evaluation of their claim. Indeed plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit in an effort to establish that State Farm has underestimated the wind damage to the insured property. Although plaintiffs may prevail on the merits of their claims for additional policy benefits and other extracontractual damages, including punitive damages if they establish bad faith on the part of State Farm or its agents, in the absence of any evidence that the plaintiffs relied upon State Farm's damage assessment I can see no basis for a claim of fraud.

[JURIST] Pakistan's coalition government has not yet reached a specific agreement on restoring judges ousted by President Pervez Musharraf last year after he declared emergency rule [PDF text; JURIST report], former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said Tuesday. Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) wrapped up a fresh round of discussions with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) [party website] Tuesday, and though Sharif said that the judges would be reinstated "soon," PPP chief Asif Ali Zardari indicated that the process would not be rushed. Zardari said that the PPP is in favor of a "broad-based" course of action that would allow the judiciary to be restored "without any agitation." Sources told AFP that a main point of disagreement between the two parties is whether to include ousted Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry [JURIST news archive] among the judges to be reinstated. AFP has more.

The coalition government, sworn in last month after parliamentary elections earlier this year, has vowed to establish a fully independent judiciary [JURIST reports]. One of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's first actions upon taking office was seeking Chaudhry's and other ousted judges' immediate release from house arrest [JURIST report]. Pakistan's attorney general has said that reinstating the ousted judges would require a constitutional amendment [JURIST report] with a two-thirds majority vote in parliament.