[JURIST] California's court-appointed prison medical overseer J. Clark Kelso [official profile] has asked the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] to force the state to pay $8 billion over the next five years to improve prison hospitals, according to court papers filed Wednesday. Kelso has previously said that California prisons [JURIST news archive] need an influx of $7 billion to bring inmate healthcare up to constitutional standards, but that the state senate has been unwilling to authorize a bond to borrow money for the project. Kelso appealed to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [official website] to use his emergency powers to raise the needed funds [JURIST report], but has more recently accused him of also failing to heed a federal order to secure the money. On Monday, Schwarzenegger himself filed a lawsuit [Mercury News report] seeking to reduce many state employees' pay to federal minimum wage in an effort to force legislators to meet budget deadlines. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

In January, a federal judge ruled [PDF text; JURIST report] that the healthcare provided in California prisons does not meet constitutional standards even though medical services have improved significantly since the court assumed oversight [JURIST report] of the system in 2005. Bringing the state's prison system up to constitutional standards could take as long as four years, according to officials at the California Health Care Receivership [official website]. In July 2007, the court ordered the formation of a special three-judge panel [JURIST report] to supervise and reduce California's prison population after finding that California's prison overcrowding was preventing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) [official website] from adequately providing mental health care.

[JURIST] Thailand Supreme Court vice president Krairiksh Kasemsant and army General Anupong Paochinda on Wednesday said there was no evidence to support accusations by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] that the country's judiciary is biased against the former leader. Thaksin,who faces numerous corruption charges, most recently made the claim Monday when he announced that he and his wife Pojamarn Shinawatra [JURIST news archive] would not return to Thailand [JURIST report] from a trip to the UK. The two had been out on bail, and the Supreme Court issued warrants for their arrest [Bangkok Post report] when they failed to make a court appearance. The Thai government is reportedly seeking their extradition [Bloomberg report] from the UK and will retain their nearly $400,000 in bail. Earlier this month, the Constitutional Court of Thailand [official website, in Thai] rejected [JURIST report] Thaksin's constitutional challenge to the commission that had brought charges against him. Thaksin had argued that the commission's governing statute imposed an unreasonable violation of his and his wife's rights to individual liberty. From Thailand, the Nation has local coverage.

In July, the Thai Attorney General's Office filed corruption charges [JURIST report] against Thaksin for his role in a 2003 resolution that reduced fees paid by mobile phone companies to state telecommunications agencies. In April, Pojamarn pleaded not guilty to charges [JURIST reports] of conflict of interest and malfeasance stemming from a 2003 agreement with the government-directed Financial Institutions Development Fund [official website] to purchase land said to be worth three times more than the $26 million she paid for it. Lawyers for Thaksin have been jailed [JURIST report] for attempting to bribe court officials in one of Thaksin's cases, and current Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej [BBC profile] is facing possible impeachment proceedings [JURIST report] due in part to his party's close association with Thaksin. Thaksin and Pojamarn had been in self-imposed exile from Thailand after Thaksin was ousted in a military coup in 2006, but had returned to the country earlier this year [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf [official website; JURIST news archive] should resign from office immediately, US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) [official website] said in a statement released on Monday. The same day that Pakistan's Punjab Provincial Assembly [official website] voted [JURIST report] to ask Musharraf to resign or face possible impeachment by the country's parliament, Harkin said [text]:

Members of Pakistan's Punjab province local assembly's vote today continues to pressure President Musharraf to leave office. In the coming days, other provinces will have their say through a process of non-binding votes. I urge all political parties not to lose sight of the impact on the Pakistani people - long-standing friends of the Americans.

Today in Pakistan, the judges removed by Musharraf have yet to be restored, inflation is at an all time high and clashes occur frequently in tribal areas between Pakistan forces and 'Taliban' insurgents. One thing is for certain: it is time for the violence, blood shed and fear to cease and the confidence of the Pakistani
people to be restored.

In order to re-establish the rule of law, return the High Court judges to their official posts and get back to solving the day-to-day challenges of the Pakistani people, President Musharraf should strongly take into consideration the will of the Pakistani people and step-down. There are significant challenges that the leaders of Pakistan must confront in order to ensure the most basic needs for the people of Pakistan, and President Musharraf no longer seems to enjoy the confidence of the Pakistani people that will be necessary to move the country forward.

I have great respect, admiration and affection for the Pakistani people. I have spoken out many times in the US Senate for closer ties between the people of the US and the people of Pakistan. I count among my friends and leaders in different Pakistani political parties. My hope is for a better life for all Pakistani people, under a rule of law, in free, open, democratic society.

[JURIST] Alexander Bastrykin, chairman of Russia's Prosecutor General's Office, said Wednesday that his staff is collecting evidence [ITAR-TASS report] of war crimes allegedly committed by Georgian forces in the breakaway region of South Ossetia [BBC report]. European Union leaders are planning to meet in Brussels to discuss the conflict [AFP report] and UK Foreign Minister David Miliband said that action should be taken if country can substantiate the allegations. On Tuesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official website] ordered an end to military action [press release] in the region, but Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili [official website] said Wednesday that Russian troops had continued to advance [speech transcript].

Russian legislators on Monday adopted a measure calling for the establishment of an international tribunal [Itar-TASS report; JURIST report] charged with investigating allegations of genocide in the region, but Russia's Prosecutor General, Yury Chaika [Russiaprofile.org bio], later asserted that no such body is required [Interfax report] since any grievances could be resolved in the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. Also Monday, Georgia and Russia each accused the other of organizing mass civilian arrests and detentions [JURIST report]. Rights groups have warned that killings of civilians would constitute war crimes [JURIST report].

[JURIST] French judges have launched an investigation into torture allegations by a Palestinian doctor who was detained in Libya [JURIST news archive] for eight years after being accused of deliberately infecting hundreds of children with HIV, a judicial official said Tuesday. Last year, Ashraf Jima Hajuj filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in France against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [official website], relying on France's accession to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [text], which allows signatory countries to take legal action against torture suspects who enter their territory. Gaddafi had arrived in France that week for a five-day visit, but as a head of state, he may enjoy immunity. In January, Hajuj also filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) [official website] against Libya, alleging he was tortured during his detention. Decisions by the UNHRC are not binding, but it could ask that Libya pay damages. AFP has more.

Hajuj was among six foreign medics [BBC Q&A; JURIST news archive] sentenced by a Libyan court to life in prison [JURIST report] in July 2007 for allegedly infecting hospital patients with HIV. Libya released [JURIST report] the six that month after obtaining an agreement from the European Union to normalize and develop closer political and economic ties and increase medical and infrastructure aid. The medics have consistently maintained their innocence, saying they were scapegoated for unsanitary conditions in the Libyan hospital where they worked. Bulgaria, the home country of the nurses involved, has insisted that the medics were tortured into admitting guilt [HRW report].

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Wyoming [official website] on Tuesday granted the state an injunction [decision, PDF] prohibiting the National Forest Service (NFS) [NFS materials] from enforcing a 2001 rule [PDF text] prohibiting the construction of roads and other developments in designated wilderness areas. Writing for the court, Judge Clarence Brimmer said that the rule violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act [texts]. The state had brought a complaint against the agency in 2003, but the lawsuit was eventually dismissed [opinion] after the rule was superseded by an order from President George Bush in 2005. A judge in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California reinstated the 2001 rule [decision, PDF] in 2006, but Brimmer found that decision to be erroneous. The California ruling is pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and wilderness advocates have said they plan to appeal the Wyoming decision to the Tenth Circuit. AP has more.

In July, an en-banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] released a ruling [PDF text; JURIST report] granting broad deference to the NFS when making decisions regarding the impact of logging on national forests. In late June, the same panel ruled [PDF text, AP report] that the NFS generally has the prerogative to determine which trees are candidates for clearing after after a forest fire, but directed the agency to more thoroughly consider whether any logging should be done in certain wilderness areas. In May, the court reversed [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] a lower court order denying an injunction against a NFS plan to allow commercial logging in another forest to help pay for a wildfire prevention program.

[JURIST] US Department of Justice (DOJ) officials accused of politicizing the hiring process will likely not face criminal prosecution, Attorney General Michael Mukasey [official profile] told members of the American Bar Association [official website] on Tuesday. Mukasey criticized [prepared remarks; recorded video] DOJ officials for considering political affiliation in assessing job applicants, but noted that employees hired under the politicized process were not necessarily less qualified:

[S]ome commentators have suggested that we should criminally prosecute the people found in the reports to have committed misconduct. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it. And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute. But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws...

...Other critics have suggested that we should summarily fire or reassign all those people who were hired through the flawed processes described in the joint reports. But there is a principle of equity that we all learned in the schoolyard, and that remains as true today as when we first heard it: two wrongs do not make a right. As the Inspector General himself recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, the people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair – and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections – to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause.

Also, that some of the officials involved in hiring gave improper consideration to politics does not mean that the people they hired are unqualified for their jobs. I am a former federal judge. I will disclose to you in this room, as I did more than once in the courtroom where I used to preside, that I did not sit for a competitive examination to get that job, nor did any of my colleagues, and I do not flatter myself with the thought that my selection was in any rigorous sense a merits appointment. Politics can and does play a role in the appointment of federal judges, but it doesn't follow from that that federal judges are unqualified to do their jobs.

Attorney General Mukasey's blanket conclusions appear premature based on the facts and evidence that congressional investigators and the Inspector General have uncovered so far. The White House stonewalling continues, with aides refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and testify about their role in the politicization of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, seems intent on insulating this administration from accountability. We must continue to pursue the truth and facts, and hold any wrongdoers accountable.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday declined to rule [order, PDF] on whether Exxon Mobil [corporate website] owes interest on a punitive damages award entered against it for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill [EPA backgrounder]. In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 [opinion; JURIST report] to reduce a punitive damages award to be paid by Exxon from $2.5 billion to $500 million, but did not rule on the issue of interest. Exxon then petitioned the Court for clarification of that issue. On Tuesday, the Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the matter to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website]. Exxon has argued that if it is required to pay interest on the award, it should only have to pay that which has accrued since the Supreme Court awarded damages, rather that which has accrued since a federal jury first awarded damages in 1994. AP has more.

In December 2006, the Ninth Circuit reduced [JURIST report] Exxon's original $5 billion punitive damage award by over $2 billion, ruling [PDF, text] that the award was excessive in light of a 2003 US Supreme Court ruling that punitive damages must be reasonable and proportionate to the harm incurred, and also considered Exxon's cleanup and compensation efforts. On Wednesday, the US Coast Guard [official website] resumed investigatory hearings into another tanker collision [JURIST report] which caused the spilling of approximately 400,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River on July 23, resulting in the temporary closure of a 100-mile stretch of the waterway.

[JURIST] The US Coast Guard [official website] on Wednesday resumed its investigatory hearings into a collision between a barge and a tanker [Washington Post report] which caused the spilling of approximately 400,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River on July 23, resulting in the temporary closure of a 100-mile stretch of the waterway. Three foreign crew members from the Tintomara, the Liberian tanker ship that crashed into a barge loaded with fuel oil, are expected to be among the first witnesses questioned. Formal legal proceedings began in New Orleans on Tuesday, but Lt. Cmdr. Melissa Harper, the Coast Guard officer in charge of the trial-like investigation [Times-Picayune report], adjourned the hearing in order to give the parties one more day to review the voluminous documents. The tug boat pushing the barge was driven by an apprentice pilot, John Paul Bavaret II, who has elected to represent himself. Following Harper's questioning of the witnesses, Bavaret and the other interested parties, including the barge's owner, a staffing company, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) [official website], and the nation of Liberia, will all have a chance to question the crew members. A formal list of witnesses expected to be called during the investigation has not yet been released. KATC has local coverage.

While it is unclear if the Coast Guard will seek criminal charges against any of the crew involved in the Mississippi river spill, earlier this year federal charges were brought against Capt. John Joseph Cota, the California maritime pilot accused in the November 2007 spill of approximately 58,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil in the San Francisco Bay. Following preliminary Coast Guard and NTSB investigations, Cota was charged with two felony counts of making false statements to the Coast Guard on required annual medical forms, along with misdemeanor environmental violations [JURIST reports] of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [texts] due to his allegedly negligent behavior.

The Secretary-General is deeply troubled by the outcome... He reiterates, in the strongest possible terms, that such behaviour, if substantiated, is wholly unacceptable and that disciplinary action to the maximum degree permitted by Indian law should be taken as soon as possible against those found to be involved in such misconduct... The Secretary-General highly values India’s long-standing and valuable support for United Nations peacekeeping. He expresses his respect for all those peacekeepers from India and other troop-contributing countries who serve with honour and commitment, and stresses that the misconduct of a few should not diminish the enormous contribution and sacrifice of the large number of Blue Helmets who serve the cause of peace.

[JURIST] The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] on Tuesday reached a settlement agreement [PDF text] in a federal class action suit brought by two pro-immigration advocacy groups seeking to force the government to rule on the naturalization applications of over 350 immigrants living in Washington state. The settlement, still subject to approval by a US district court judge, would require the government to decide on the applications of all remaining class members by October 18 and reimburse the plaintiffs for $185,000 in attorneys fees. The Northwest Immigration Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy websites] filed the lawsuit [Seattle Pi report] last October after immigrants complained that delays in the processing of their applications for citizenship violated federal law, which states in relevant part:

[A] decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization.