JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Thursday, January 12, 2012




Guantanamo chief defense counsel refuses to allow review of attorney letters
Jamie Reese on January 12, 2012 12:44 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Chief Defense Counsel for Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] war crimes tribunals, Colonel J.P. Colwell on Sunday ordered [e-mail, PDF] attorneys under his command not to comply with rules [text, PDF] requiring military officials to review all legal correspondence between lawyers and the detainees accused of involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks [JURIST backgrounder]. The rules were issued [JURIST report] in December by Navy rear Adm. David Woods [official profile], commander of the prison facility. Colwell's e-mail informed all military commission defense lawyers that they are ethically obligated to refuse to follow the rules: "These orders compel you to unlawfully reveal information related to the representation of a client in violation of Rule for Professional Conduct 1.6(a)" [text] which addresses the confidentiality in a client-attorney relationship. He went on to advise all attorneys not to submit their acknowledgement of the rules, and if they had already done so, to withdraw that acknowledgement immediately. The new rules would require all correspondence to the five detainees to undergo a security review by officials from law enforcement and the Department of Defense (DOD) [official website]. The detainees, whose arraignment is anticipated to occur in 2012, include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive].

Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo have previously raised concerns with practices used at the prison. Last November, lawyers complained specifically about the infringement on attorney-client privilege [JURIST report] in a letter directed to the attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs. The attorneys alleged that those working with the Joint Task Force Guantanamo [JTF-GTMO) seize, open, interpret, read and review attorney-client privileged communications, actions which the attorneys argued are unlawful. The five detainees have been held at Guantanamo since 2006 when they were transferred there from the custody of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Last April, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the trials [JURIST report] for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other detainees are set to be held before a military commission. This was a change from Holder's previous position to conduct the trials in federal civilian court [JURIST report]. Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of operation at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report].




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


Thailand independent commission calls for overhaul of royal insult law
Katherine Getty on January 12, 2012 12:20 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) [backgrounder] has recommended that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra [BBC profile] amend the law that punishes anyone who insults the royal family with up to 15 years in prison [Thai Penal Code text] for each separate crime. The Commission was set up by the Thai cabinet in 2010 to investigate the violence in the country. The TRCT asked that a senior member of the government be appointed to authorize criminal proceedings, instead of any member of the public, as is the case now. Despite attacks on the law within the country, as well as abroad from the US, EU and UN, Thailand's political parties have indicated that they will not reform the law. Opponents of the law claim that it has become a political tool used to limit free speech. In a letter to the prime minister [AFP report], the Commission requested that the punishments fit with public sentiment and be less harsh. The law is even drawing criticism from some with royal blood who, in a letter, requested the prime minister change the law. However, they did not specify how they wish the law to be changed.

In early December an American was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison [JURIST report] after he translated part of a banned biography and put the translation on the Internet. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue [official website] condemned the law [JURIST report] in October 2011 saying that it was too vague on what constituted an insult. In 2009, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for a public trial [JURIST report] for a Thai political activist accused of violating the law, when the judge ordered the trial closed for national security reasons. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul [advocacy website] was convicted [BBC report] at the trial and sentenced to 15 years in prison.




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


Supreme Court hears arguments on state immunity, disability compensation
Maureen Cosgrove on January 12, 2012 11:19 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] in two cases Wednesday. In Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court will determine whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment [text] immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) [DOL backgrounder]. Petitioner Daniel Coleman was terminated from his job at the Maryland Court of Appeals and filed suit under Title VII and FMLA seeking money damages. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] a lower court ruling that dismissed petitioner's FMLA clams as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Congress passed the self-care leave provision in an effort to protect women from employment discrimination by giving all employees, men included, equal right to leave. The state asserted that the self-care leave provision's purposes are not sufficiently in line with the Equal Protection Clause to overcome states' sovereign immunity.

In Roberts v. Sea-Land Services [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court will clarify when the period for compensation is under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act [text], which goes into effect after a worker is disabled on the job. The calculation for compensation is based on several factors, including the national average wage. Dana Roberts was disabled for a period between 2002 and 2005, but her claim was not adjudicated until 2007. Roberts argues that the national average wage when her claim was first adjudicated and decided in 2007 should be used, as opposed to the national average wage from 2002 when she was injured. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Roberts misinterpreted the phrase "those newly awarded compensation during such period" and held that her compensation should be calculated based on the 2002 national average. The oral arguments focus on the ambiguity of the word "award," which counsel for the petitioner maintains is the compensation resulting from an administrative compensation order. The state argued that it would not make sense to compensate an employee who has not received an administrative order differently that one who has.




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


Senegal rejects Belgium request to extradite Chad ex-president
Jennie Ryan on January 12, 2012 11:06 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A court in Senegal on Thursday rejected a Belgian court's request to extradite Hissene Habre [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], the former president of Chad, on accusations that he killed and tortured opponents during his regime. Habre served as president of Chad from 1982 to 1990. Belgium alleges that, during that time, Habre was involved in the murder or torture of more than 40,000 political opponents. When he was ousted in 1990, he sought refuge in Senegal where he has resided ever since. Senegal placed Habre under arrest in 2005 after he was charged by Belgium. Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade said the rejection of the extradition request was based on a procedural error [BBC report]. The court did not receive original copies of the Belgian arrest warrant and other necessary documents, instead receiving photocopies. Wade said he expects the request for extradition to be granted once these procedural issues are resolved.

Senegal has been under pressure to send Habre to a country where he will face trial for his alleged war crimes committed during his rule of Chad. In July of last year, Senegal reversed [JURIST report] its decision to send the former dictator back to Chad after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] warned he could be tortured. The decision came after Pillay issued a plea [JURIST report] not to return Habre to Chad, which has already sentenced him to death in absentia and where she fears he will be tortured. The plea from Pillay came just days after Senegal announced it was deporting Habre to Chad [JURIST report] to face charges for war crimes. Belgium has long sought Habre's extradition under a universal jurisdiction law that allows Belgian courts to hear cases over violations of international law. In 2009, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] denied [JURIST report] Belgium's request to compel Habre's extradition.




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


New Jersey legislature passes one-year fracking ban
Max Slater on January 12, 2012 8:28 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The New Jersey Legislature [official website] passed an amendment to a bill [A567 text, PDF] on Monday that establishes a one-year ban on a natural gas extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking [JURIST news archive]. Legislators re-introduced the bill this year after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) [official website] conditionally vetoed legislation [press release] last June that would have permanently banned fracking in New Jersey [JURIST report]. When Christie vetoed the bill, he instituted a one-year moratorium on fracking in order to study its potential consequences. The bill passed on Monday asserts that public safety concerns stemming from uncertainty over the environmental consequences of fracking necessitate a ban on the practice:
[T]he drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas exploration and production has been found to use a variety of contaminating chemicals and materials that can suddenly and in an uncontrolled manner be introduced into the surface waters and ground water of the State; that the companies engaging in the use of this drilling technique have been less than forthcoming in revealing the "cocktail" of chemicals and their volume that can be introduced into these waters ... The Legislature therefore determines it is prudent and in the best interest of the people of the State of New Jersey to prohibit hydraulic fracturing in the State for the purpose of natural gas exploration or production.
The bill now goes to Christie, who can either sign or veto it.

Fracking has been a contentious issue recently, both in the US and abroad. Fracking is a process in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped into the ground to create fractures in rocks which allows trapped gas and oil to come to surface. Proponents trumpet the technique for providing people with abundant energy as well as for creating jobs in a tough economy. Opponents of fracking point out its negative consequences on the environment and public health. In October the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] announced plans to develop standards [JURIST report] for wastewater discharge from fracking. In July JURIST contributor Joseph Schaeffer wrote extensively [JURIST op-ed] about communities in Appalachia preemptively passing laws to curb fracking. In June New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official profile] sued the US government [JURIST report] for its alleged failure to study the risks of fracking. In May France's lower house approved a nationwide ban on fracking [JURIST report].




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


Bangladesh opposition leader charged with crimes against humanity
Rebecca DiLeonardo on January 12, 2012 7:30 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Prosecutors for the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh (ICTB) [Facebook page] arrested the former leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party (JI) [party website; GlobalSecurity backgrounder] on Wednesday, alleging crimes against humanity committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 [Bangladesh News backgrounder]. Ghulam Azam, 89, was taken into custody [bdnews24.com report] Wednesday after his preemptive request for bail, based on health and age, was denied by the court on Tuesday. A hearing has been scheduled for February 15 to formally establish charges against him. Azam, who opposed the independence of Bangladesh and allegedly aided the Pakistani Army during the war, maintains that the charges are politically motivated [BBC report]. He functioned as chief of JI in Bangladesh until 2000.

In November the ICTB began its first trial [JURIST report] for crimes against humanity committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War. The defendant is Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a former member of Parliament in the National Assembly of Bangladesh [official website, in Bengali] and one of the former leaders of JI. Earlier that month ICTB prosecutors filed an application [JURIST report] for formal charges against Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a former leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party [party website] who is also accused of crimes against humanity during the Liberation War. In May Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] sent a letter to the Bangladesh government praising its efforts through the ICTB to prosecute war crimes, but urging the government to ensure that the trials are carried out in accordance with international human rights expectations [JURIST report]. Bangladesh established the ICTB [JURIST report] in March 2010.




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

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


LATEST OP-ED

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org