Concerns about the economy or the security situation are no justification for repressive laws and no substitute for responsible policing and sound economic policies. Economic difficulties are no excuse for limiting people's rights. ... The provisions of this law criminalizing demonstrations that disrupt public works or harm societal peace are as overly broad and open to abuse as the restrictions in place under the Mubarak government. It's quite shocking, really, that a transitional government meant to replace a government ousted for its failure to respect free speech and assembly is now itself putting new restrictions on free speech and assembly.

In February, the military council pledged to lift the emergency laws [JURIST report] once circumstances in the country improved. The council also vowed to have a peaceful transition to power and promised not to prosecute "honourable people who refused corruption and demanded for reform." Last week, a majority of Egyptian citizens voted to approve constitutional reforms [JURIST report], including parliamentary elections within the next six months. The council took over control of the country after former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile] was forced to step down following nearly three weeks of demonstrations protesting the Egyptian government and calling for his resignation. During the three weeks of protests leading up to Mubarak's resignation, nearly 400 people were killed and 5,500 were wounded.

In light of the close relationship between the United States an Honduras, it is probable that little goes on in Honduras without the knowledge of, and/or consultation with, the U.S. Government. ... Despite public information regarding the U.S. Government's knowledge of the coup and its perpetrators, before and during the actual commission of the act, Defendants refuse to release and continue to unlawfully withhold documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests.

In November, International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] opened a preliminary investigation [JURIST report] into the 2009 coup. In July, a Honduran court dismissed abuse of power charges against Zeleya because Zelaya's successor granted amnesty [JURIST reports] to Zeleya and those involved in his removal. In June, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] accused the Honduran government [JURIST report] of failing to address human rights violations stemming from the June 2009 coup. AI contends that hundreds of people opposed to the coup have been beaten and detained. The group cited evidence that judges critical of the coup have "suffered a series of arbitrary transferrals and unfair disciplinary proceedings" as well as threats and intimidation.

Without approval from Congress, and absent an imminent or actual threat to our nation, the President does not have the constitutional authority to take us to war. The RECLAIM Act will enforce the constitutional requirement that Congress approve of an offensive military operation. Until the President seeks and is given authorization from Congress, air strikes in Libya must be halted. Sending our brave men and women into harm's way demands careful consideration. Whether or not Congress agrees with the President’s decision, initiating this conflict was not his decision to make alone.

Operation Odyssey Dawn [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], a US-led military operation, has been conducting air strikes against the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] for two weeks. The action began after the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 [text] earlier this month, imposing a no-fly zone over the country. The mission, as well as US involvement absent Congressional approval, has been controversial. JURIST Contributing Editor Michael J. Kelly [official profile] has argued that Obama has the constitutional authority [JURIST op-ed] to conduct the operation under the 1973 War Powers Resolution [50 USC § 1541 et seq.]. The resolution leaves Obama 92 days to act without Congressional authorization. Congress, however, reserves the right to "pull the plug," but has never before done so according to Kelly. JURIST Guest Columnist Curtis Doebbler [official profile] has argued that the operation violates international law [JURIST op-ed] by failing to comport with Article 42 of the UN Charter [text], which requires a determination that "measures not involving the use of force" have failed.