 |
|

Legal news from Friday, March 19, 2010 |
 |
|


Iran jails reformist leader for propaganda against the revolution
Zach Zagger on March 19, 2010 1:19 PM ET

[JURIST] Iranian authorites jailed a reform movement leader after an appeals court upheld [Kaleme report, in Persian] a one-year-sentence for spreading propaganda against the Islamic republic, according to an opposition website Friday. Hossein Marashi was a leading supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi who opposed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [JURIST news archive] in the disputed presidential election [JURIST news archive] last June. Marashi was an opposition party spokesman for the Executives of Construction and previously served as head of cultural and tourism under former president Mohammed Khatami. The court also upheld [AFP report] a ban on Marashi from participating in party political activity for six years.
Earlier this month, an Iranian appeals court upheld [JURIST] the death sentence for a 20-year-old student who took part in anti-government protests in December. Mohammad Amin Valian was convicted of Moharebeh, which means waging war against God and is punishable by death under Iranian law. Also in March, the official Iranian press supervisory body banned [JURIST report] reformist daily newspaper Etemaad [media website, in Persian] and moderate weekly magazine Iran Dokht [media website]. In late February, six journalists were released [AP report] from a Tehran prison, while many others remain incarcerated for their reformist views. In February, a joint US-EU statement [JURIST report] condemned Iranian action against protesters and other critics of government policy. The Iranian government responded strongly to opposition following June's disputed elections, prompting additional criticism from rights groups and advocacy organizations.


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

|

Philippines lawyers protest ruling allowing president to appoint chief justice
Steve Dotterer on March 19, 2010 1:06 PM ET

[JURIST] Philippine lawyers and activists protested Friday in front of the Supreme Court [official website] in Manila following Wednesday's ruling [judgment text; JURIST report], which held that the constitution does not prevent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website; BBC profile] from replacing retiring Chief Justice Reynato Puno prior to the May presidential elections. Among the activists were Philippine lawyers who used black candles to burn photos of the nine justices who ruled in favor of the decision. The right to protest is guaranteed in Article 3, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution [text], but a Supreme Court official warned that lawyers participating in the protests would be disbarred if they exceed the legal limits of their right to protest. The appointment of the next chief justice has political significance because Arroyo's term ends June 30, and the appointment could be used to confer a political advantage in a reelection campaign.
The Supreme Court has previously sided with Arroyo, ruling last month that she is eligible to run for senate [JURIST report] after her presidential term expires. The court found the law requiring appointed officials to resign when they declare their candidacy for elected office is constitutional, but that the ruling does not affect elected officials. Also last month, the Philippine Department of Justice (PDOJ) [official website] charged 197 people with murder [JURIST report] in connection with the November massacre in the semi-autonomous Maguindanao province that left 57 dead. Among those charged is Andal Ampatuan Sr., a former political ally to Arroyo. Following the killings, Arroyo imposed martial law [JURIST report] and suspended habeas corpus in the province. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges [JURIST reports].


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

|

FDA announces final rule restricting tobacco sales and promotion to youth
Jonathan Cohen on March 19, 2010 12:33 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] on Thursday announced [press release] a final rule [text] restricting tobacco sales and promotions directed at youth. The Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents are a set of broad regulations "designed to significantly curb access to and the appeal of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents in the United States." In order to do so, the FDA said that this rule:
prohibits the sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to people younger than 18, prohibits the sale of cigarette packages with less than 20 cigarettes, prohibits distribution of free samples of cigarettes, restricts distribution of free samples of smokeless tobacco, and prohibits tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical or other social or cultural events.
The FDA first began to regulate the tobacco industry in 1996, but,, in 2000 the US Supreme Court ruled in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. [opinion text] that Congress had not provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products. The new rule, which comes 15 years after the FDA first proposed banning the sale and marketing of tobacco to youth, will go into effect June 22 as law.
In August, several tobacco companies filed a federal lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [text, PDF] on First Amendment grounds. In June, President Obama signed the act into law, just two weeks after it was approved by Congress [JURIST reports]. The law attempts to safeguard the public by granting the FDA certain authority to regulate tobacco products, among other provisions. Last year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee [official website] voted 38-12 to approve the bill [JURIST report]. The US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee [official website] approved a similar bill [JURIST report] in August 2007. Shortly before that, the former FDA commissioner said that the FDA lacked the resources [JURIST report] to handle tobacco regulation.


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

|

Retired US general tells Senate committee gays weakened Dutch military
Daniel Makosky on March 19, 2010 12:19 PM ET

[JURIST] Retired US Marine Corps General John Sheehan [official profile] testified [video] before the US Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) [official website] on Thursday that he believes the Dutch military's inclusion of openly gay soldiers is partially responsible for the severity of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archives]. Sheehan, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, made the remarks during a hearing [materials] charged with evaluating the future of the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy [10 § USC 654; JURIST news archive]. He argued that the Netherlands and several other European countries reconfigured their militaries for less demanding peacekeeping roles after the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequently "made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality." The result, Sheehan contends, rendered their armed forces weaker and less effective. Dutch Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop [official profile, in Dutch] called the comments "utter nonsense" [press release, in Dutch].
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 [text, PDF] was introduced [JURIST report] in the Senate earlier this month, and would allow gay soldiers to serve openly if approved. The repeal of the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has been an important issue for US President Barack Obama since he took office, and its inclusion in the State of Union Address [JURIST report] makes it clear that it remains a priority for the administration. In January, legal advisers for the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, suggested that he delay any internal efforts [JURIST report] to repeal the policy until 2011. In October, Obama pledged [JURIST report] to end the controversial policy. After the US Supreme Court [official website] denied certiorari [JURIST report] to review the policy in June, the SASC announced [JURIST reports] that it would hold hearings to review it. In 2008, more than 100 retired admirals and generals of the US military called for a repeal [JURIST report] of the policy.


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

|

Iraq election commission rejects European fraud allegations
Sarah Paulsworth on March 19, 2010 11:35 AM ET

[JURIST] Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) [official website] on Friday dismissed allegations of election fraud [DPA report] from a member of the European Parliament [official website]. After the March 7 parliamentary elections [JURIST news archive], head of the European Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Iraq, Struan Stevenson [official website], reported that he had received a "flood" of complaints about election fraud. He said [press release]:
The issue of fraud and ballot-rigging perpetrated by the Iranian regime and the ruling State of Law coalition is an extremely worrying situation for all political parties in Iraq. Many political leaders and officials who have participated in the elections have revealed such cheating with precise details during numerous interviews with the press and in emails to me and telephone conversations.
In its response, the IHEC called the fraud claims "baseless," but also expressed a willingness to investigate the allegations and take corrective measures if necessary. Also, on Wednesday, the State of Law Coalition led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [official website, in Arabic] alleged fraud [JURIST report] and asked the IHEC to conduct a recount. In contrast, UN election observers reported [CSM report] that they have not seen any indicators of large-scale election fraud.
Fraud allegations are the latest in a series of problems plaguing the parliamentary elections. Last month, an Iraqi appeals panel ruled [JURIST report] that 28 previously banned candidates could stand for election. The Responsibility and Justice Committee had initially ruled that some 500 banned candidates could stand for election despite allegations of ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party [BBC backgrounder]. The decision was characterized by the Iraqi government as illegal, and was reversed [JURIST reports] when the panel acknowledged that it did not have to rule on all 500 candidates at once. Last year, the Iraqi parliament approved [JURIST report] an amended version of a controversial election law after numerous delays. The new version of the law increased the number of seats in parliament from 275 to 325, with 310 of those seats allotted to Iraq's 18 provinces and the remainder reserved for Iraqis living outside the country.


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

|

US senators unveil bipartisan immigration reform proposal
Daniel Makosky on March 19, 2010 10:56 AM ET

[JURIST] Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) [official websites] on Thursday unveiled [WP op-ed] their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. The plan entails four principal tenets: improving border security, creating a system through which temporary workers would be admitted, introducing biometric identification cards, and instituting a process to legalize illegal immigrants [JURIST news archive] currently residing within the US. Undocumented immigrants would receive legal status upon paying back taxes and fines, submitting to background checks, completing an English proficiency examination, and performing community service. All job-seeking US citizens and legal immigrants would be issued a tamper-proof Social Security card containing biometric identification information, which potential employers would use to confirm an applicant's identity and employment eligibility. Additionally, immigrants earning an advanced science, engineering, technology, or math degree from a US institution would receive green cards. The senators underscored the need for swift action, saying:
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
The proposal was met with praise [press release] from President Barack Obama, who encouraged the senators to draft corresponding legislation.
The Office of Immigration Statistics of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] released a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] in February estimating that the total number of illegal immigrants living in the US fell to 10.8 million during the year ending in January 2009, a seven percent decline from the previous year. In December, Democratic lawmakers introduced an immigration reform bill [JURIST report] in the US House of Representatives [official website] that would give undocumented immigrants an easier path to seek legal status in the country. The proposed legislation, titled the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) [bill summary, PDF], follows the Obama administration's announcement [JURIST report] that it would seek immigration reform early in 2010. In November, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano [official profile] said that the proposed reform legislation would be a "three-legged stool" that combines effective and fair enforcement, an improved process for legal immigration, and a "firm but fair way" to deal with illegal immigrants who are already in the US. The proposed bill is also the first attempt at immigration reform since the failed [JURIST report] Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill [S 1639 materials] in 2007. At that time, detractors called the bill too lenient on illegal immigrants and said that by granting legal status to illegal aliens, the US was granting "amnesty."


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

|

Ninth Circuit denies rehearing on Ashcroft immunity petition
Patrice Collins on March 19, 2010 9:39 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday denied [opinion, PDF] a petition by former attorney general John Ashcroft [JURIST news archive] to reconsider its decision that Ashcroft is not entitled to absolute and qualified immunity in an unlawful detention case. By declining to rehear its previous ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], the court is allowing the lawsuit by US citizen Abdullah al-Kidd to go forward. Ashcroft could be found personally liable for misusing the material witness statute [18 USC § 3144 text; HRW backgrounder, PDF]. The court was split in its decision. In the dissent, Judge O'Scannlain questioned the scope of the majority's decision. He wrote:
By permitting al-Kidd's suit to proceed, the majority commits two distinct but equally troubling legal errors, each of which will have far-reaching implications for how government officials perform their duties. First, the majority strips Ashcroft of his official immunity, holding that it was clearly established at the time of al-Kidds arrest that prosecutors violate the Fourth Amendment when they obtain and execute a material witness warrant as a pretext for other law enforcement objectives. Second, by holding that Ashcroft may be personally liable if his subordinates swore false affidavits to obtain the warrant authorizing al-Kidd's arrest, the majority stretches beyond recognition the rule that a government official is liable only when he personally violates the constitution.
The majority opinion responded directly to the dissenting judges, rejecting their analysis and the potential ramifications from the decision. Upon learning of the court's decision, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] Immigrants' Rights Project Deputy Director Lee Gelernt criticized [press release] Ashcroft saying that he "deliberately distorted the federal material witness law to allow the detention of innocent people. ... [H]e should be held personally liable."
Ashcroft has faced a number of lawsuits for his actions while attorney general. In December, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that post-arrest detention is legal in cases where the detainees are reasonably detained in a case, finding Ashcroft not liable. The government had settled with five of the plaintiffs [JURIST report] for $1.26 million in November, despite admitting no wrongdoing. Ashcroft had previously claimed absolute immunity because his actions to seek a material witness warrant were those of a "prosecutor." He had claimed qualified immunity as an attorney general because his actions furthered an investigatory or national security function. In September, the Ninth Circuit rejected both of those claims, upholding a lower court decision [JURIST report]. In May, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a similar case challenging Ashcroft's immunity from lawsuits for mistreatment of prisoners could not go forward because of failure to adequately state a claim.


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

|

Mumbai terror suspect pleads guilty in US court
Megan McKee on March 19, 2010 8:01 AM ET

[JURIST] US citizen and Chicago resident David Headley pleaded guilty [press release] to 12 counts of federal terrorism Thursday, including charges related to the 2008 Mumbai terror attack [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and an alleged plot against the Danish creator and publishers of controversial cartoons [JURIST news archive] depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The government had accused [indictment, PDF] Headley of conducting surveillance in preparation for the Mumbai attack for the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) [CFR backgrounder], which is blamed for the attack. Headley was also charged with conspiring to bomb the headquarters of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten [media website, in Danish], which published the cartoons. In January, Headly pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website]. It is thought he changed his plea to avoid extradition [BBC report] to India, Pakistan, or Denmark, or to avoid capital punishment.
In January, an Indian court rejected [JURIST report] a request by the lone surviving gunman from the Mumbai attacks for an international trial. Muhammad Ajmal Amir Kasab claimed he would not receive a fair trial in India. Kasab, whom India claims participated directly in the Mumbai attacks, said during his trial that he had met Headley while in jail after being arrested. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has charged [press release] three men along with Headley for their role [JURIST report] in the Mumbai attacks and plot against the Danish Newspaper. Tahawwur Rana, a Chicago resident with Canadian citizenship, was charged with three counts of providing material support to terrorism, one each for his alleged roles in the Denmark plan and Mumbai attacks, and a third for alleged involvement with LeT. Retired Pakistani military officer Abdur Rehman and Ilyas Kashmiri, who is believed to have ties to al Qaeda [JURIST news archive], were also named in the indictment. Both face one count of conspiracy and one count of providing material support to terrorism for their alleged participation in the Danish newspaper plot. Rana is in federal custody and has pleaded not guilty, and Rehman and Kashmiri remain at-large.


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

|

Guatemala court approves extradition of ex-president to US
Matt Glenn on March 19, 2010 6:14 AM ET

[JURIST] A Guatemalan criminal court ruled Wednesday that former Guatemalan president Alfonso Portillo [CIDOB profile, in Spanish] can be extradited to the US to face charges of money laundering [indictment; press release, PDF]. Portillo, who was president of Guatemala from 2000 to 2004, has been charged in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on information provided by former members of Portillo's government. He is accused of taking $15.8 million from funds designated for the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense and siphoning it into bank accounts in Europe and Bermuda. The former president maintains he is not guilty [BBC report] of any of the charges. Portillo might face corruption charges [AFP report] in Guatemala before being extradited. Portillo's lawyers plan to appeal [La Prensa report, in Spanish] the extradition order.
Portillo was arrested [BBC report] in January following an arrest warrant issued by Guatemala [JURIST report] based on the US indictment. In 2008, Portillo was extradited [JURIST report] back to Guatemala from Mexico, where he had fled after his immunity expired along with his term in office. The extradition order was first signed [JURIST report] in 2006, but Portillo challenged it until the Mexican Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] ruled against him in January 2008. Numerous members of Portillo's cabinet were arrested and tried on fraud charges during his time in exile.


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

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