[JURIST] The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] announced Friday a proposed finding [report, PDF] that atmospheric greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, setting the stage for government regulation of the harmful gases for the first time. Announcement of the proposed finding, which was submitted [JURIST report] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) [official website] for final review last month, begins a 60-day public comment period prior to the promulgation of proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The final ruling reached by the EPA with the approval of President Barack Obama [official profile] is expected to lead to restrictions of manufacturing and vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act [text, PDF]. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson [official profile] said at the announcement [press release] of the proposed findings that the document "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," and that "it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation[.]" The summary of the proposed finding gives specific reference to the gases that will be subject to future regulation:

Today the Administrator is proposing to find that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are at unprecedented levels compared to the recent and distant past. These high atmospheric levels are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future – including but not limited to the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems – are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. In light of the likelihood that greenhouse gases cause these effects, and the magnitude of the effects that are occurring and are very likely to occur in the future, the Administrator proposes to find that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. She proposes to make this finding specifically with respect to six greenhouse gases that together constitute the root of the climate change problem: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

The Administrator is also proposing to find that the combined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines are contributing to this mix of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thus, she proposes to find that the emissions of these substances from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines are contributing to air pollution which is endangering public health and welfare under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

[JURIST] A jury for a UK crown court convicted Arunachalam Chrishanthakumar Friday of supplying bomb-making materials to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive] a Sri Lankan separatist group. Chrishanthakumar was also convicted [BBC report] of receiving documents for the purpose of terrorism, but the jury failed to reach a verdict on charges of receiving military equipment, receiving money, and belonging to the LTTE. The suspicions regarding Chrishanthakumar began in 2004 when UK police discovered he was sending computers, circuit boards, and other electronics to Sri Lanka [JURIST news archive]. But he was not arrested [BBC report] until 2007 when police searched his home and found evidence of his involvement with the LTTE. Chrishanthakumar maintained the electronics were sent to Sri Lanka to assist farmers.

The LTTE argue that the government of Sri Lanka must establish an independent ethnic state for Tamils within the current boundaries of Sri Lanka, a demand the government has rejected since the Tigers began an open rebellion in the 1970s. Additionally, the Sri Lankan government has refused to hold cease-fire negotiations with the LTTE, as it believes it is close to ending the country's 25 year civil war [BBC timeline] that has resulted in over 70,000 deaths. Human rights groups have accused both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE of committing human rights violations [JURIST report] by attacking civilians. In 2000, the New Terrorism Act [text] banned the LTTE in the UK.

[JURIST] The lawyer for the accused gunman on trial in India for the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] moved Friday to suppress his client's confession, arguing it was the product of torture. The lawyer also argued that the trial of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab [NDTV backgrounder] should be moved to juvenile court because Kasab was 17 at the time of his arrest. Judge M.L. Tahiliyani rejected [Times of India report] the petition for removal to juvenile court because Kasab asserted at the time of his arrest that he was 21 and because he does not appear to be 17. The court will announce its ruling [Reuters report] on the admissibility of the confession on Saturday.

Kasab's first defense lawyer was removed [JURIST report] earlier this week as she was also reportedly representing a victim of the attacks in a civil suit. Kasab first appeared [JURIST report] before Tahiliyani in March via video. In February, Pakistan officials conceded [JURIST report] that the attacks were partially planned in their country and that the perpetrators traveled by ship [NYT report] from southern Pakistan to Mumbai. An international tribunal to prosecute persons involved has been proposed [JURIST op-ed] in order to avoid further complications between Pakistan and India. The attacks in Mumbai, which claimed at least 170 lives, were carried out at ten locations across the city including the landmark Taj Mahal Palace hotel.

[JURIST] The ability of councils in the UK to monitor citizens for minor infractions will be curtailed [press release], according to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith [official profile] on Friday. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) [text], passed in 2000, gives broad powers of surveillance to councils, with reasonable suspicion, to watch with closed-circuit television and read the e-mails of those suspected of crimes. Though the legislation was originally meant to target terrorism and serious crime, RIPA does not rule out the use of its powers for tackling lesser crimes such as littering and illegal trash-dumping by otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats [party websites] both favor restricting the use of RIPA. The Home Office [official website] is considering redefining what groups are permitted to use the RIPA legislation, such as restricting its use to magistrate-sanctioned searches only, and has begun an investigation on the subject [Times report], seeking public input [press release].

The reevaluation of RIPA comes after condemnation of other British surveillance measures. Earlier this week, the European Commission informed the UK that it is failing to follow European Union Internet privacy laws [JURIST report]. In February, the House of Lords released a report [JURIST report] holding that privacy interests of citizens should be balanced with concerns for security and safety and warning that the widespread use of surveillance cameras infringes on privacy. In February 2008, the Home Office said that the government has no plans [JURIST report] to create a compulsory DNA database for British citizens. Rights groups have criticized the National DNA Database for retaining information on criminal suspects after they are found innocent, and for displaying a racial bias [JURIST reports] against minorities. In September 2007, UK rights group Liberty [advocacy website] released a report [press release; JURIST report] arguing that the government was endangering the privacy of law-abiding Britons by increasingly using mass surveillance to profile people rather than targeting individual criminal suspects using intelligence-led policing.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that former Israeli security chief Avraham Dichter cannot be sued in the US because he is immune under traditional common law. The decision affirms the ruling [opinion, PDF] of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website]. Dichter faced suit [complaint, PDF] by survivors of a 2002 Israeli bombing, the target of which was alleged Hamas leader Saleh Mustafah Shehadeh [advocacy profile]. Shehadeh was killed along with his wife and nine children when a bomb detonated in a densely populated section of Gaza City. Human rights groups have widely called the attack a war crime.

The Second Circuit's ruling came as Israel rejected [JURIST report] the UN Human Rights Council's proposed investigation into possible war crimes committed during the most recent Gaza conflict. The proposed investigation is the result of a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] authored by UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk that criticized Israel for failing to take adequate precautions to distinguish between civilians and combatants in their offensives in the region. Israel and the US are united in their condemnation [JURIST report] of the report's alleged lack of objectivity.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion text] Thursday that oral arguments in a copyright infringement case could not be broadcast over the Internet. Respondent Joel Tenenbaum, one of many to be sued for copyright infringement, made a motion in December in the district court to allow Courtroom View Network [corporate website] to "webcast a non-evidentiary motions hearing" originally scheduled for January 22, 2009. The district court granted the motion due to "keen public interest in the litigation." The petitioners, including Warner Brothers, Sony BMG [corporate websites], and other recording companies, petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the district court's ruling. The companies relied on Rule 83.3 of the Local Rules of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [text, PDF], which provides that "[e]xcept as specifically provided in these rules or by order of the court, no person shall ... make any broadcast by radio, television, or other means, in the course of or in connection with any proceedings in this court." Additionally, petitioners argued that the US Judicial Conference [official website] advocated a ban on recording devices in federal courtrooms except where needed to preserve trial evidence. The court ruled on the discretion provided by Local Rule 83.3 by stating that a broad interpretation would be limitless. The standard of review that the appellate court applied considered abuse of discretion with "a special degree of deference." The court determined:

Here, we think that the limits of the district judge's discretion were exceeded; her interpretation of Local Rule 83.3 is unprecedented and, in our view, palpably incorrect.

We are mindful that good arguments can be made for and against the webcasting of civil cases. We are also mindful that emerging technologies eventually may change the way in which information — including information about court cases — historically has been imparted. Yet, this is not a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Thursday asserted his intention [statement] not to investigate individuals who used or authorized enhanced interrogation techniques the same day the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] released memos [JURIST report] outlining CIA use of these techniques. The president urged the country to look forward, rather than to the past, saying:

We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

[JURIST] Two families whose children were killed in the 2007 Virginia Tech school shooting [Washington Post backgrounder] filed separate lawsuits [Pryde complaint, PDF; Peterson complaint, PDF] Thursday in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, asking for $10 million in compensatory damages. The parents of Julie Pryde and Erin Peterson [Virginia Tech profiles], who were shot and killed by fellow student Seung-Hoi Cho [BBC profile], filed suit against the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Tech [university website], the university's Cook Counseling Center [website], top university officials, and local counseling center New River Valley Community Services [website] for negligence resulting the death of the two victims. The complaint alleges that Virginia Tech, and in the alternative, the Commonwealth of Virginia, were "deliberately indifferent" to the safety needs of the students in failing to have proper procedures in place to safeguard students. It further alleges that top university officials were negligent in failing to "issue a full, fair, and accurate warning" about the threat to students from Cho and that the psychiatric institutions did not follow procedures to confine him to a mental institution despite multiple warning signs. The suit was filed on the two-year anniversary of the shooting, the deadline under the statute of limitations.

The Virginia Tech shooting left 33 people dead and wounded 25 in the deadliest school shooting in US history. In June, a Virginia judge approved [JURIST report] an $11 million settlement with the families of 24 people who had been killed in the shooting. The settlement awarded each family $100,000 plus medical expenses and provides for meetings with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and university and police officials. The Pryde and Peterson families did not participate in the settlement agreement.

[JURIST] Iraqi insurgent Wesam al Delaema was sentenced to 25 years in prison [DOJ press release] Thursday for conspiracy to murder US nationals outside the US. Al Delaema, who was charged [indictment, PDF] with the crime in 2005, is the first Iraqi insurgent to be tried in a US federal court. Al Delaema's final sentence will be determined by a Dutch court, and he will ultimately serve his term in a Dutch prison. Assistant Attorney General for National Security David Kris, commenting on the verdict, said, "The sentence imposed today should serve notice that the United States will use all available tools to pursue those who would plot attacks against our men and women serving in Iraq."

Al Delaema pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to conspiracy to commit murder in February, reversing his earlier plea of not guilty [JURIST report], entered in 2007. The Dutch Ministry of Justice extradited [JURIST report] al Delaema to the US in 2007 after authorization [JURIST report] from a Dutch court based on US promises to try al Delaema in a federal court rather than by a military commission.

[JURIST] A Swedish court on Friday found four defendants guilty of abetting copyright infringement [judgment, PDF, in Swedish; press release, in Swedish] for hosting the file-sharing website The Pirate Bay [website] and sentenced them to one year in prison. The popular website is hosted by defendants Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundstrom and uses Bittorrent technology [backgrounder] to allow the distribution of files without ever actually hosting the copyrighted works on their own servers. The Stockholm district court found that the defendants intentionally and sufficiently promoted copyright infringement by being aware that the violations were taking place, providing sophisticated search functions for users, and allowing easy upload and storage of the torrent data files that facilitated the infringement. The sentence was calculated by taking into account the organization of the website, the extensive amount of copyrighted work available on it, and the commercial nature of the site. The court estimated damages at around 30 million crowns (3.56 million USD) despite much higher estimates by various copyright holders including Warner Brothers, MGM, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG [corporate websites], and others. The Pirate Bay has posted complaints [text] from copyright holders and maintains that "[n]o action (except ridiculing the senders) has been taken by us because of these [complaints]." The website goes on to state defiantly that no torrents have ever been removed by request and never will be. The Pirate Bay attempted to use a European Union (EU) directive on electronic commerce [text] in their defense, claiming that they were a "mere conduit" for information passed by their users and therefore not liable. The prosecution pointed out that the directive was aimed at service providers, not private websites.

Sweden's National Museum of Science and Technology [website] is now displaying a server from The Pirate Bay [Engadget report] that was confiscated last year. Earlier this month, the Swedish Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) went into effect, resulting in a 33 percent decrease [BBC report] in Internet traffic. The law was based on similar legislation [text, PDF] passed by the EU and allows copyright holders to force internet service providers into providing information about users. Before the Swedish law was passed, copyright holders had no recourse [Wired report] in the country aside from reporting the alleged infringement to the police who were often reluctant to pursue the complaints. The French Parliament recently defeated [JURIST report] legislation that would cut off internet access for those who illegally download copyrighted material.