 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, April 21, 2009 |
 |
|


Obama open to prosecuting CIA interrogation memo authors
Jaclyn Belczyk on April 21, 2009 4:25 PM ET

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would not rule out the possibility of prosecuting [transcript] lawyers responsible for authoring memos released last week [JURIST report] outlining CIA interrogation policies. Obama had previously said that he would not pursue prosecutions of CIA interrogators [statement], a pledge which drew sharp international criticism [JURIST report]. Obama confirmed Tuesday that he would not seek the prosecution of agents involved in the interrogations, but said that he was open to holding the memos' authors accountable for the alleged abuse. report] holding lawyers who authored the memos accountable for the interrogation techniques, including waterboarding [JURIST news archive], which many have described as "torture." Obama said that Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] would determine whether they would be prosecuted. In response to Obama's statements, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website] called for the resignation [AFP report] of federal judge Jay Bybee, who authored one of the memos while serving as assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] executive director Anthony Romero said [press release], "Torture is a crime, and we are hopeful that President Obama's comments today signal a new acknowledgment of the need for criminal investigations of those who authorized, legally justified and carried out these unlawful acts..
The public release of the memos came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] lawsuit [materials] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] during the George W. Bush administration. The ACLU has also called for an independent investigator [press release] to probe allegations of torture during the Bush administration. Earlier this month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released a final version of a report [JURIST report] calling on Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether any criminal laws were violated. In March, Leahy also called for an investigation [JURIST report] into Bush administration policies through the formation of a "truth commission."


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

|

Supreme Court hears school strip search, timely appeal cases
Andrew Morgan on April 21, 2009 3:59 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; briefs] in two cases. In Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding [oral arguments transcript; JURIST report], the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy. The school district appealed a May 2008 decision [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finding that the student's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials conducted a search of her undergarments based on the suspicion that she was carrying prescription-strength ibuprofen for recreational use. Relying on the Court's decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O [opinion], the Ninth Circuit found that the search was neither "justified at its inception" nor "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances," and that since the school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity because these principles were were clearly established at the time of the search. The school district, and the US as amicus curiae, argued that: The search of Savana Redding in this case was constitutional because Mr. Wilson had reason to suspect that she possessed contraband which posed a health and safety risk. Therefore, searching any place where she might be reasonably hiding that contraband was constitutionally permissible Counsel for the respondent argued that an intrusive search requires a particularized suspicion and that the search was unconstitutional because "there was no suspicion that these objects were going to be found inside Savana's undergarments."
In U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court was asked to determine the time limit for filing an appeal in a case where the plaintiff sues on behalf of the US, but the government declines to intervene. Eisenstein and four other New York City employees sued the city in a qui tam action, alleging that the city violated the False Claims Act [text] by imposing a fee on non-resident city employees. Eisenstein filed an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 54 days after a district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) [text] allows 30 days for parties in a civil suit to appeal generally, but extends the time limit to 60 days when the US is a party. The Second Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that the US was not a "party" in a qui tam case within the meaning of the rule when it chose not to intervene, and therefore the appeal was untimely. Eisenstein argued that "the government is a party in qui tam actions because it is named, served, and bound and a real party in interest, all without ever intervening or actively participating" and that the Court should reject any "participation-based test" when assessing the government's party status. The city argued that the US is clearly not a party to the suit until it intervenes, because it must file a motion to intervene after 60 days and intervention "is the method by which a person who is not a party becomes a party."


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

|

Spain court charges Basque leader with murder for role in 2008 car bombing
Safiya Boucaud on April 21, 2009 3:32 PM ET

[JURIST] A Spanish judge on Tuesday charged Jurdan Martitegi Lizaso [El Pais backgrounder, in Spanish], the alleged leader of the Basque separatist group ETA [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] with murder for allegedly executing a car bomb in May 2008 that killed a Spanish policeman. Three other ETA members were also charged [AFP report] in connection with the incident. Martitegi and three others were arrested [JURIST report] last Saturday in France. Six other ETA members were also detained in Spain last weekend for their alleged roles in the car bombing.
In February, Spain's Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] unanimously banned [JURIST report] the Basque separatist political groups Democracy 3 Million (D3M) and Askatasuna [orders, PDF, in Spanish] from participation in the coming March elections. In January, a Spanish court dismissed the case against Basque Regional Prime Minister Juan José Ibarretxe [official profile]. He and the two leaders of the Basque socialist party were charged [JURIST report] with illegally communicating with the banned Batasuna party [BBC backgrounder], the political wing of the ETA. In November, French authorities arrested [JURIST report] alleged former ETA leader Mikel Garikoitz Aspiazu Rubina [BBC backgrounder] near the country's border with Spain. In September, the court banned [JURIST report] the Basque Nationalist Action Party (ANV) from taking part in political activities because of its alleged ties to Batasuna.


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

|

Senate minority leader criticizes closure of Guantanamo without plan for detainees
Bhargav Katikaneni on April 21, 2009 12:04 PM ET

[JURIST] US Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [official website] said [press release] Tuesday that the Obama administration doesn't have a plan to deal with detainees at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] once the facility closes. McConnell, speaking before the Senate, called the facilities at the military prison "safe and secure" and said that the administration "doesn't know what to do with" the 240 detainees currently being held there. He called on US President Barack Obama to prove that closing the prison made America safer and cited a Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] report [text, PDF] that many former detainees had committed terrorism after being released. He said: The administration needs to tell the American people what it plans to do with these men if they close Guantanamo. Two years ago the Senate voted 94-3 against sending these killers to the United States. Foreign countries have thus far been unwilling to take them in any significant numbers. And even if countries were willing to take them, theres an increasing probability that some of these murderers would return to the battlefield. In January, Obama issued an executive order [text; JURIST report] directing the military prison be closed "as soon as practicable and no later than one year from the date of this order." In February, US Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that the military facility would be closed despite improvements [JURIST report] and an official report [JURIST report] finding that conditions at the prison are now in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Last month, top US officials met with European counterparts to discuss the transfer [JURIST report] of many of the detainees to other countries before the facility closes. The European Parliament called on its member countries to accept [JURIST report] Guantanamo detainees, and Lithunia, Ireland, Germany, and Portugal [JURIST reports] have expressed willingness to accept them. A spokesperson for the DOD said in January that the US would not change its policy [JURIST report] on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Saudi Arabia, despite reports that two former prisoners have joined al Qaeda in Yemen.


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

|

Khodorkovsky pleads not guilty to embezzlement and money laundering
Brian Jackson on April 21, 2009 11:53 AM ET

[JURIST] Russian oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive] and his former business partner Platon Lebedev pleaded not guilty [RIA Novosti report] Monday to charges of money laundering and embezzlement. Khodorkovsky made two statements to the court, one reflecting his opinion on the charges, and the other specifically refuting [defense documents, PDF] each charge. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office [official website, in Russian] filed these new charges against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in February, alleging that the pair embezzled over $100 million [JURIST report] from Khodorkovsky's former company, Yukos [JURIST news archive]. If convicted, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev could face 22 years in prison.
Khodorkovsky is currently serving an eight-year prison term for six counts of fraud [JURIST report], for which he was convicted in 2005. Khodorkovsky applied for early release last July, but his application was rejected [JURIST reports] by a Russian judge in August because he disobeyed guards at the Krasnokamensk penal colony and refused to participate in a training program. Khodorkovsky appealed [JURIST report] that decision in September.


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

|

Supreme Court decides Iran compensation, veterans benefits, search and seizure cases
Jaclyn Belczyk on April 21, 2009 10:27 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] issued three opinions Tuesday. The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the brother of dissident Cyrus Elahi, assassinated in Paris in 1990, cannot collect on a default judgment he holds against Iran by attaching a $2.8 million judgment obtained by the Iranian Ministry of Defense against California-based Cubic Defense Systems [corporate website]. Dariush Elahi was awarded $11.7 million in compensatory and $300 million in punitive damages after Iran refused to respond to his 2000 lawsuit brought in a Washington federal court, alleging that the Iranian government was responsible for his brother's death. Iran originally won the $2.8 million judgment against Cubic before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) [official website] for Cubic's contract breach following the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 [BBC backgrounder]. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the attachment was valid under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) [text, PDF]. In reversing the lower court's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: We ultimately hold that the Cubic Judgment was not a "blocked asset" at the time the Court of Appeals handed down its decision in this case. We recognize that since that time new Executive Branch action may have "blocked" that asset; but, in light of the posture of the case, we do not decide whether it has done so. Rather, we determine that Elahi cannot attach the Cubic Judgment regardless, for the Judgment is "at issue" in a claim against the United States before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. The Judgment consequently falls within the terms of Elahis waiver. The Court's decision was unanimous as to parts I and II. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion dissenting from Part III, which held that Elahi had waived his right to attachment, in which Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined.
The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-3 in Shinseki v. Sanders [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report], retitled from Peake v. Sanders, that the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [official website] does not bear the burden of proof that it adequately informed a veteran of the information needed to process a benefits claim under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) [text, PDF]. The case involves two veterans whose benefits claims were denied. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the burden was on the VA to prove that notice was not prejudicial. In reversing that decision, Breyer wrote:In our view, the Federal Circuits "harmless-error" framework is too complex and rigid, its presumptions impose unreasonable evidentiary burdens upon the VA, and it is too likely too often to require the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) to treat as harmful errors that in fact are harmless. We conclude that the framework conflicts with established law. Souter filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Justice John Paul Stevens joined.
Finally, the Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Arizona v. Gant [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. Arizona was appealing an Arizona Supreme Court ruling [opinion, PDF] that Rodney Joseph Gant's constitutional rights were violated when police searched his car after he was handcuffed and seated in a police car. In affirming the lower court decision, Stevens wrote:Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined in part by Breyer.


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

|

Turkish court allows assassination case to be merged with coup plot prosecution
Amelia Mathias on April 21, 2009 8:18 AM ET

[JURIST] Turkey's Eleventh Criminal Court in Ankara on Monday granted permission for a case involving the 2006 killing of a senior judge by lawyer Alparslan Aslan to be merged with a larger case against alleged Ergenekon [BBC backgrounder] coup leaders. Ergenekon is accused of planning to destabilize the country's Justice and Development Party (AKP) [official website, in Turkish] led government in an effort to incite a military coup. The court found that the judge's killing could have been part [UPI report] of the group's efforts [Hurriyet Daily News report], which also included the creation of a supposed "hit list" of prominent Turkish figures, bombings at the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet [media website, in Turkish], and the assassination of the journalist Hrant Dink. In order for the cases to be merged, the Thirteenth Criminal Court, which is hearing the Ergenekon case, must also approve the move. The Supreme Court had previously permitted the two cases to be joined, and if they are, they will be tried in Istanbul.
The court's decision comes after the arrest of eight professors and former university officials [NYT report] allegedly connected to Ergenekon on Friday. In March, 56 people were arrested in connection with the group [JURIST report], including two former generals. Earlier that month, a Turkish court ordered the arrest [JURIST report] of Cumhuriyet journalist Mustafa Balbay and internet publisher Neriman Aydin for their alleged involvement the coup plot. There are currently more than 100 suspects in custody, with 40 arrested January 7, another 12 arrested January 12, and 30 arrested January 19 [JURIST reports]. The suspects include journalists, academics, army officers, policemen, and Turkish Workers' Party [party website, in Turkish] leader Dogu Perincek [JURIST report]. In October the High Criminal Court in Istanbul began the trial [JURIST report] of 86 defendants allegedly involved in the coup plot.


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

|

UN racism delegates walk out to protest anti-Israel comments by Iran president
Adrienne Lester on April 21, 2009 8:16 AM ET

[JURIST] Delegates to the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism [official website] walked out of a speech [text, PDF] on Monday by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [official profile; JURIST news archive] after he described Israel as "totally racist." Additionally, a protester dressed as a clown threw his rubber nose at the Iranian president. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] released a statement [text] in response to Ahmadinejad's speech saying: I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite. This is the opposite of what this Conference seeks to achieve. This makes it significantly more difficult to build constructive solutions to the very real problem of racism. Despite the disruptions, the UN conference on racism passed a draft resolution [text, PDF] assessing the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA) [text, PDF] and evaluating the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [text].
The conference was the first of its kind [JURIST news report] since 2001. Many critics viewed the 2001 conference as being anti-Israel, which undoubtedly led to the heightened concerns leading up to this year's conference. The US, Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, and New Zealand boycotted this year's conference due to the draft declaration's position on Israel and the Middle East. Also, the US has refused to continue negotiations [press release] on the draft declaration, which the Department of State [official website] believes "must not single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of 'defamation of religion' [and] ... should not go further than the DDPA on the issue of reparations for slavery." In preparation for the conference, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] passed a resolution [JURIST report] last month calling for laws against defamation of religion.


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

|

Rwanda court rejects detained Congo militia leader lawsuit
Andrew Gilmore on April 21, 2009 7:42 AM ET

[JURIST] A Rwandan court rejected a lawsuit brought by captured Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) rebel leader Laurent Nkunda [BBC profile] seeking his release from Rwandan custody. Nkunda was apprehended by Rwandan authorities in January near the DRC border after a joint DRC-Rwandan military operation to capture him and root out Rwandan Hutu rebels operating in the DRC. He is the leader of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) [group website], a rebel group operating in the eastern DRC province of Nord-Kivu. According to Nkunda's lawyer, he is being held illegally [Retuers report] without charges or access to counsel. Nkunda faces an uncertain legal future [JURIST report], with the DRC government having called on Rwanda to extradite Nkunda to DRC [BBC report] where he would face charges for atrocities allegedly committed by forces under his command. Another possibility for Nkunda is extradition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] in The Hague. While there is no arrest warrant or case outstanding against Nkunda, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant [JURIST report] and prepared a case against his deputy in the CNDP, Bosco Ntaganda [ICC materials], for war crimes committed in the DRC, including the recruitment and use of child soldiers [JURIST news archive]. Nkunda has repeatedly denied allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] against him and the CNDP.
In November, head of the UN Peacekeeping Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo (MUNOC) [official website] Alan Doss condemned the killing of civilians in Nord-Kivu by militia groups as war crimes [JURIST report]. Prior to Doss' statement, MUNOC announced that it had received "credible reports" that civilians had been targeted by militia groups including Nkunda's CNDP. Earlier in November, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] reasserted [JURIST report] that the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed in Nord-Kivu, and that his office intends to punish those responsible.


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

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