JURIST's legal news service, powered by a team of over 40 law student reporters and editors led by Professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/index.phpnoreply@blogger.comBernard Hibbitts pitt/vLdlhttp://feedburner.google.comSubscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with PageflakesThis full text feed is freely available for personal use in RSS readers. Display on other websites without permission is strictly prohibited. Webmasters may, however, display our digest feed. [JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Friday appointed British lawyer Richard Harvey to represent Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic if he continues to boycott his trial when proceedings resume in March. Harvey is currently joint head of the British defense firm Garden Court Chambers and has extensive experience in high profile criminal defense cases in both the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He served as lead defense counsel for Lahi Brahimaj, who was accused of ordering the torture and murder of detainees at Jablanica detention center as local commander of the Kosovo Liberation Amy and co-counsel in the ICTY Haradin Bala and ICTR Juvenal Kajelijeli prosecutions. It is unlikely that Karadzic, whose trial was adjourned just days after it began because of his refusal to participate, will cooperate with Harvey. Karadzic claims that he is boycotting his trial because of inadequate time to prepare a defense. The ICTY announced earlier this month that it would appoint counsel after a tribunal judge again denied Karadzic's request for a 10-month delay. Before requesting delay, Karadzic asked the UN Security Council to grant him immunity from trial after the ICTY appeals chamber rejected his argument that he was promised immunity by former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke in exchange for his resignation. Karadzic faces 11 charges, including genocide and murder, for war crimes committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-2620995884125711884 2009-11-20T15:05:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/bEbif5kqo6I/icty-appoints-uk-lawyer-to-represent.phpnoreply@blogger.comPatrice Collins JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Friday appointed British lawyer Richard Harvey to represent Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic if he continues to boycott his trial when proceedings resume in March. Harvey is currently joint head of the British defense firm Garden Court Chambers and has extensive experience in high profile criminal defense cases in both the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He served as lead defense counsel for Lahi Brahimaj, who was accused of ordering the torture and murder of detainees at Jablanica detention center as local commander of the Kosovo Liberation Amy and co-counsel in the ICTY Haradin Bala and ICTR Juvenal Kajelijeli prosecutions. It is unlikely that Karadzic, whose trial was adjourned just days after it began because of his refusal to participate, will cooperate with Harvey. Karadzic claims that he is boycotting his trial because of inadequate time to prepare a defense. The ICTY announced earlier this month that it would appoint counsel after a tribunal judge again denied Karadzic's request for a 10-month delay. Before requesting delay, Karadzic asked the UN Security Council to grant him immunity from trial after the ICTY appeals chamber rejected his argument that he was promised immunity by former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke in exchange for his resignation. Karadzic faces 11 charges, including genocide and murder, for war crimes committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/icty-appoints-uk-lawyer-to-represent.php [JURIST] The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has begun lobbying for the UN General Assembly to pass an international treaty protecting religious beliefs and symbols from defamation, according to an AP report Friday. The efforts of the OIC are being led by Pakistan and Algeria with full support of the organization's 54 remaining members. The proposal is strongly opposed by western countries due to the effects the ban could have on freedom of speech and expression. The US government has openly condemned the idea of a bar on defamation of religion, which could have the adverse affect of suppressing dissidents and reformists in Muslim countries. Pakistani diplomat, Marghoob Saleem Butt, defended the OIC's proposal telling the AP that, "here has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others. ... Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a terrorist, that is where we draw the line." Butt was referring to a string of satirical Muslim comics published in Denmark four years ago, one of which depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. The proposed ban does not state who would determine which actions would incite criminal liability, but these decision would likely be initially decided by each country's criminal court. Last month, the US State Department released its annual Report on International Religious Freedom, criticizing Islamic countries for limiting religious expression. The report found that countries such as North Korea and Iran have attempted to prevent religious defamation as a way to limit religious expression. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that freedom of religion is essential not only in the US but in every society, and limiting an individual's right of expression reduces that freedom. In addition to North Korea and Iran, the report criticized Myanmar, China, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-882185241139309590 2009-11-20T14:05:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/QlQCHHo_zLM/islamic-countries-lobbying-for-treaty.phpnoreply@blogger.comSarah Miley JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has begun lobbying for the UN General Assembly to pass an international treaty protecting religious beliefs and symbols from defamation, according to an AP report Friday. The efforts of the OIC are being led by Pakistan and Algeria with full support of the organization's 54 remaining members. The proposal is strongly opposed by western countries due to the effects the ban could have on freedom of speech and expression. The US government has openly condemned the idea of a bar on defamation of religion, which could have the adverse affect of suppressing dissidents and reformists in Muslim countries. Pakistani diplomat, Marghoob Saleem Butt, defended the OIC's proposal telling the AP that, "here has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others. ... Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a terrorist, that is where we draw the line." Butt was referring to a string of satirical Muslim comics published in Denmark four years ago, one of which depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. The proposed ban does not state who would determine which actions would incite criminal liability, but these decision would likely be initially decided by each country's criminal court. Last month, the US State Department released its annual Report on International Religious Freedom, criticizing Islamic countries for limiting religious expression. The report found that countries such as North Korea and Iran have attempted to prevent religious defamation as a way to limit religious expression. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that freedom of religion is essential not only in the US but in every society, and limiting an individual's right of expression reduces that freedom. In addition to North Korea and Iran, the report criticized Myanmar, China, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/islamic-countries-lobbying-for-treaty.php [JURIST] A judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday ordered the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO) to provide health benefits to the same-sex spouse of a federal employee. Karen Golinski, the federal court employee who sued for the benefits, was married in California during the six-month period during which same-sex marriage licenses were granted under state law. The director of the AO, Jim Duff, refused to certify Golinski's eligibility for the benefits to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of gay and lesbian families. Judge Alex Kozinski rejected that argument, finding that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act "permit the coverage of same-sex spouses." A similar order was issued by the Ninth Circuit Wednesday, when a judge ordered the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California to compensate a gay man denied benefits for his male spouse. Also this week, New York's highest court ruled that same-sex spouses of state employees married in other states are entitled to benefits. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-1641219592460222038 2009-11-20T13:03:00.024-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/XcwYg7SBnKA/federal-judge-orders-health-benefits.phpnoreply@blogger.comSteve Dotterer JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] A judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday ordered the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO) to provide health benefits to the same-sex spouse of a federal employee. Karen Golinski, the federal court employee who sued for the benefits, was married in California during the six-month period during which same-sex marriage licenses were granted under state law. The director of the AO, Jim Duff, refused to certify Golinski's eligibility for the benefits to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of gay and lesbian families. Judge Alex Kozinski rejected that argument, finding that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act "permit the coverage of same-sex spouses." A similar order was issued by the Ninth Circuit Wednesday, when a judge ordered the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California to compensate a gay man denied benefits for his male spouse. Also this week, New York's highest court ruled that same-sex spouses of state employees married in other states are entitled to benefits. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/federal-judge-orders-health-benefits.php [JURIST] The US Senate on Thursday voted 59-39 to confirm Judge David Hamilton to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, overcoming Republican opposition to secure President Barack Obama's first and longest-delayed judicial nominee. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said a Republican filibuster delayed the vote for five-and-a-half months, since it was first put on the Senate's executive calendar on June 4. On Tuesday, the Senate broke the Republican filibuster, voting 70-29 to bring debate over the nomination to an end. Obama nominated Hamilton on March 17 and he is Obama's eighth judicial nominee to be confirmed by the Senate. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates judicial nominees, unanimously gave Hamilton its highest rating of "well qualified." Hamilton's confirmation comes less than two weeks after the Senate confirmed Judge Andre Davis to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by a vote of 72-16. Obama's other judicial nominee confirmations include Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Second Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, and three federal district court judges. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-4811389648793860719 2009-11-20T12:19:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/iFvI8mNCqvg/done-after-5-month-delay-senate.phpnoreply@blogger.comZach Zagger JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The US Senate on Thursday voted 59-39 to confirm Judge David Hamilton to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, overcoming Republican opposition to secure President Barack Obama's first and longest-delayed judicial nominee. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said a Republican filibuster delayed the vote for five-and-a-half months, since it was first put on the Senate's executive calendar on June 4. On Tuesday, the Senate broke the Republican filibuster, voting 70-29 to bring debate over the nomination to an end. Obama nominated Hamilton on March 17 and he is Obama's eighth judicial nominee to be confirmed by the Senate. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates judicial nominees, unanimously gave Hamilton its highest rating of "well qualified." Hamilton's confirmation comes less than two weeks after the Senate confirmed Judge Andre Davis to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by a vote of 72-16. Obama's other judicial nominee confirmations include Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Second Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, and three federal district court judges. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/done-after-5-month-delay-senate.php [JURIST] The Somali Transitional Federal Government on Friday announced its intention to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which, if successful, would make the US the only UN member state not to have done so. The UN International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) welcomed the announcement that Somalia's ministers had agreed in principle to work toward ratification of the convention defining universal children's rights. The convention has been ratified by 193 nations, making it the world's most widely ratified human rights treaty. In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the UN's adoption of the CRC, UNICEF released a report detailing the progress and challenges remaining in protecting the rights of children. Noting that the Convention is largely compliant with US laws and that the US played a significant role in drafting the treaty, Human Rights Watch said Thursday that "US ratification is long over-due" and urged the president and Senate to ratify the convention. In June, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that the Obama administration is seeking ways to have the US sign on to the treaty. In 1995, then-president Bill Clinton signed the CRC, but never submitted it to be ratified by the Senate. Opponents of the CRC allege that the treaty puts US sovereignty in jeopardy and undermines parental rights. Earlier this year, Obama signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the first international human rights treaty the US has signed in nearly a decade. The CRPD is awaiting ratification in the Senate. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-7834519029896432390 2009-11-20T10:15:00.021-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/2k-PxmWx_r4/somalia-announces-intent-to-ratify-un.phpnoreply@blogger.comAnn Riley JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Somali Transitional Federal Government on Friday announced its intention to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which, if successful, would make the US the only UN member state not to have done so. The UN International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) welcomed the announcement that Somalia's ministers had agreed in principle to work toward ratification of the convention defining universal children's rights. The convention has been ratified by 193 nations, making it the world's most widely ratified human rights treaty. In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the UN's adoption of the CRC, UNICEF released a report detailing the progress and challenges remaining in protecting the rights of children. Noting that the Convention is largely compliant with US laws and that the US played a significant role in drafting the treaty, Human Rights Watch said Thursday that "US ratification is long over-due" and urged the president and Senate to ratify the convention. In June, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that the Obama administration is seeking ways to have the US sign on to the treaty. In 1995, then-president Bill Clinton signed the CRC, but never submitted it to be ratified by the Senate. Opponents of the CRC allege that the treaty puts US sovereignty in jeopardy and undermines parental rights. Earlier this year, Obama signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the first international human rights treaty the US has signed in nearly a decade. The CRPD is awaiting ratification in the Senate. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/somalia-announces-intent-to-ratify-un.php [JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed a lower court's denial of a conservative advocacy group's motion to intervene in a challenge to Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The appeals court held that the district court did not abuse abuse its discretion by denying the motions to intervene. The Campaign for California Families (the Campaign) had sought to intervene, alleging that the defending parties to the suit, Official Proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com, would not adequately represent the interests of the Campaign. Judge Margaret McKeown rejected that argument: The reality is that the Campaign and those advocating the constitutionality of Prop. 8 have identical interests—that is, to uphold Prop. 8. Any differences are rooted in style and degree, not the ultimate bottom line. Divergence of tactics and litigation strategy is not tantamount to divergence over the ultimate objective of the suit.The Campaign alleges that the current defendants in the suit challenging Proposition 8 have compromised upholding the measure by conceding to facts that declare homosexuality is an immutable characteristics. The current defending parties deny those claims.In August, a judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that several advocacy organizations representing both sides of the issue could not intervene in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The lawsuit was filed in May by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies, who were opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, which decided the outcome of the contested 2000 US Presidential election. The challenge was announced shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that state law challenges to the ban lacked merit. Proposition 8, approved by voters in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision last year striking down a statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-3381171131147715162 2009-11-20T09:43:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/brs3bhfL1Fk/ninth-circuit-upholds-ruling-to-block.phpnoreply@blogger.comXimena Marinero JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed a lower court's denial of a conservative advocacy group's motion to intervene in a challenge to Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The appeals court held that the district court did not abuse abuse its discretion by denying the motions to intervene. The Campaign for California Families (the Campaign) had sought to intervene, alleging that the defending parties to the suit, Official Proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com, would not adequately represent the interests of the Campaign. Judge Margaret McKeown rejected that argument: The reality is that the Campaign and those advocating the constitutionality of Prop. 8 have identical interests—that is, to uphold Prop. 8. Any differences are rooted in style and degree, not the ultimate bottom line. Divergence of tactics and litigation strategy is not tantamount to divergence over the ultimate objective of the suit.The Campaign alleges that the current defendants in the suit challenging Proposition 8 have compromised upholding the measure by conceding to facts that declare homosexuality is an immutable characteristics. The current defending parties deny those claims.In August, a judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that several advocacy organizations representing both sides of the issue could not intervene in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The lawsuit was filed in May by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies, who were opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, which decided the outcome of the contested 2000 US Presidential election. The challenge was announced shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that state law challenges to the ban lacked merit. Proposition 8, approved by voters in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision last year striking down a statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/ninth-circuit-upholds-ruling-to-block.php [JURIST] The Argentine Senate on Thursday voted 57-1 to approve a law that authorizes the government to obtain DNA samples from individuals suspected to have been born to forced disappearance victims of the 1976-1983 "Dirty War". The law will amend Article 218 of the Criminal Penal Code to allow minimal biological samples to be taken from a person to determine biologic identity, authorizing judges to issue warrants to obtain alternate biological samples from personal effects using the least coercive methods necessary. Controversy around the law stemmed from issues of consent and right to privacy, as well as an individual's right to refuse knowledge of their biological parents. Among the supporters of the law is the association Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, a group dedicated to obtaining restitution for the relatives of persons disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship. Among the vocal opponents to the law is Ernestina Herrera de Noble, owner of the influential media group El Clarin, who has two adopted children born during the years of the Dirty War. Also on Thursday, the Argentine Senate approved voted 38-20 to approve a law that establishes the National Genetic Information Bank as an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The same Senate session also approved a law that will allow non governmental human rights organizations to bring suit in cases involving human rights violations or crimes against humanity, including crimes forced disappearances. Last week, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation enhanced a sentence imposed on a couple convicted of abducting children of forced disappearance victims and suppressing the child's identity, holding that these offenses constitute crimes against humanity. In August, the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled in the case of two suspected children of disappeared persons that individuals cannot be required to submit blood samples to test whether they were abducted as children during the Pinochet regime, but that genetic material can be collected from personal effects. The case was raised by the association Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. The association has been able to locate about 100 of the 500 children they have set out to find. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-408600315223932954 2009-11-20T08:44:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/okbeT8DzzIw/argentina-senate-approves-law-to-compel.phpnoreply@blogger.comXimena Marinero JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Argentine Senate on Thursday voted 57-1 to approve a law that authorizes the government to obtain DNA samples from individuals suspected to have been born to forced disappearance victims of the 1976-1983 "Dirty War". The law will amend Article 218 of the Criminal Penal Code to allow minimal biological samples to be taken from a person to determine biologic identity, authorizing judges to issue warrants to obtain alternate biological samples from personal effects using the least coercive methods necessary. Controversy around the law stemmed from issues of consent and right to privacy, as well as an individual's right to refuse knowledge of their biological parents. Among the supporters of the law is the association Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, a group dedicated to obtaining restitution for the relatives of persons disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship. Among the vocal opponents to the law is Ernestina Herrera de Noble, owner of the influential media group El Clarin, who has two adopted children born during the years of the Dirty War. Also on Thursday, the Argentine Senate approved voted 38-20 to approve a law that establishes the National Genetic Information Bank as an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The same Senate session also approved a law that will allow non governmental human rights organizations to bring suit in cases involving human rights violations or crimes against humanity, including crimes forced disappearances. Last week, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation enhanced a sentence imposed on a couple convicted of abducting children of forced disappearance victims and suppressing the child's identity, holding that these offenses constitute crimes against humanity. In August, the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled in the case of two suspected children of disappeared persons that individuals cannot be required to submit blood samples to test whether they were abducted as children during the Pinochet regime, but that genetic material can be collected from personal effects. The case was raised by the association Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. The association has been able to locate about 100 of the 500 children they have set out to find. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/argentina-senate-approves-law-to-compel.php [JURIST] The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday dismissed a challenge to two policies that provide benefits to same-sex couples married outside of the state. The first policy was a 2006 decision by the Westchester County executive to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of county employees. The second policy was a 2006 decision by the president of the New York Civil Service Commission, mandating an extension of full benefits to all spouses of state employees enrolled in the New York State Health Insurance Plan. Prior to that decision, extension of benefits to same-sex spouses was at the discretion of the individual state agencies. In explaining the court's decision to affirm the Appellate Division's dismissal, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. stated that in regards to the Westchester policy, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of specific harms resulting from the policy, relying instead on, "bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity." In regards to the State Civil Service Commission policy, Pigott noted that under sections 161 and 164 of the New York Civil Service Laws, the commission president is authorized to establish a health insurance plan for state officers and their dependents, and that the president has discretion to define the scope of dependents for purposes of benefits. In a concurring opinion joined by three others, Judge Carmen Ciparick stated that she would have simply affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that, "same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our State's longstanding marriage recognition rule." Currently, New York does not permit same-sex marriages, but in April, Governor David Patterson announced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to be married in the state. That legislation was approved by the state assembly in May, and a senate vote is expected before the end of the year. Patterson had previously issued an order to all state agencies in 2008 to recognize same-sex marriages, citing a New York Appellate Division ruling that same-sex marriages performed out of state are entitled to recognition in New York. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-2945816963069117893 2009-11-20T08:21:00.023-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/WN4ZWRdt648/new-york-high-court-rules-same-sex.phpnoreply@blogger.comBrian Jackson JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday dismissed a challenge to two policies that provide benefits to same-sex couples married outside of the state. The first policy was a 2006 decision by the Westchester County executive to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of county employees. The second policy was a 2006 decision by the president of the New York Civil Service Commission, mandating an extension of full benefits to all spouses of state employees enrolled in the New York State Health Insurance Plan. Prior to that decision, extension of benefits to same-sex spouses was at the discretion of the individual state agencies. In explaining the court's decision to affirm the Appellate Division's dismissal, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. stated that in regards to the Westchester policy, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of specific harms resulting from the policy, relying instead on, "bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity." In regards to the State Civil Service Commission policy, Pigott noted that under sections 161 and 164 of the New York Civil Service Laws, the commission president is authorized to establish a health insurance plan for state officers and their dependents, and that the president has discretion to define the scope of dependents for purposes of benefits. In a concurring opinion joined by three others, Judge Carmen Ciparick stated that she would have simply affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that, "same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our State's longstanding marriage recognition rule." Currently, New York does not permit same-sex marriages, but in April, Governor David Patterson announced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to be married in the state. That legislation was approved by the state assembly in May, and a senate vote is expected before the end of the year. Patterson had previously issued an order to all state agencies in 2008 to recognize same-sex marriages, citing a New York Appellate Division ruling that same-sex marriages performed out of state are entitled to recognition in New York. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/new-york-high-court-rules-same-sex.php [JURIST] The conflict-ravaged nations of Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, and Iraq rank among the world's most corrupt, according to the 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) prepared by Transparency International (TI). The index, released Tuesday, ranked 180 countries based on observations by businesspeople and analysts, giving each a score between 0 and 10. Somalia had the lowest score of 1.1, while Afghanistan scored 1.3, Myanmar scored 1.4, and Sudan and Iraq tied at 1.5. More than half of the countries surveyed had scores below 5. TI suggests that the global financial crisis may be contributing to corruption, especially in countries that lack stable governments. TI chair Huguette Labelle said:Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows, as well as space for independent media and a vibrant civil society. The international community must find efficient ways to help war-torn countries to develop and sustain their own institutions.The countries with the highest scores were New Zealand, with a 9.4 and Denmark, with a 9.3. The 2008 CPI also found Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan at the bottom of the list, as well as Haiti. Haiti improved its score in 2009, but still remains near the bottom of the list. The 2007 and 2006 CPIs had similar findings. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-7194790075254833308 2009-11-20T07:32:00.001-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/tKPxSTaMG20/somalia-afghanistan-ranked-most-corrupt.phpnoreply@blogger.comJaclyn Belczyk JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The conflict-ravaged nations of Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, and Iraq rank among the world's most corrupt, according to the 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) prepared by Transparency International (TI). The index, released Tuesday, ranked 180 countries based on observations by businesspeople and analysts, giving each a score between 0 and 10. Somalia had the lowest score of 1.1, while Afghanistan scored 1.3, Myanmar scored 1.4, and Sudan and Iraq tied at 1.5. More than half of the countries surveyed had scores below 5. TI suggests that the global financial crisis may be contributing to corruption, especially in countries that lack stable governments. TI chair Huguette Labelle said:Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows, as well as space for independent media and a vibrant civil society. The international community must find efficient ways to help war-torn countries to develop and sustain their own institutions.The countries with the highest scores were New Zealand, with a 9.4 and Denmark, with a 9.3. The 2008 CPI also found Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan at the bottom of the list, as well as Haiti. Haiti improved its score in 2009, but still remains near the bottom of the list. The 2007 and 2006 CPIs had similar findings. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/somalia-afghanistan-ranked-most-corrupt.php [JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Russia on Thursday extended the moratorium on the death penalty until the Russian parliament ratifies an international treaty abolishing capital punishment. In 1997, Russia signed, but did not ratify, Protocol 6 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was put forward by the Council of Europe (COE) in 1983 to limit the exercise of the death penalty to cases involving "acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war." The court noted that Russia was invited to join the COE in part because of its expressed intention to place a moratorium on the penalty and take steps towards its abolition. The court also stated that allowing capital punishment may violate Russia's obligations under Protocol 6, citing Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which requires signatories to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty." In December 2006, the Russian Duma effectively extended the national moratorium on the death penalty until 2010, when Chechnya is expected to become the last state to adopt a federal law establishing trials by jury. In February 1999, the Constitutional Court imposed a moratorium on the death penalty until the federal law is implemented in all regions within the country. The Russian death penalty has drawn repeated criticism from the COE, which has pressured Russia to abolish it completely. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-3548184876934941698 2009-11-19T15:03:00.001-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/kYLQAiPz4wI/russia-constitutional-court-extends.phpHwojdowski@gmail.comHaley Wojdowski JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Russia on Thursday extended the moratorium on the death penalty until the Russian parliament ratifies an international treaty abolishing capital punishment. In 1997, Russia signed, but did not ratify, Protocol 6 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was put forward by the Council of Europe (COE) in 1983 to limit the exercise of the death penalty to cases involving "acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war." The court noted that Russia was invited to join the COE in part because of its expressed intention to place a moratorium on the penalty and take steps towards its abolition. The court also stated that allowing capital punishment may violate Russia's obligations under Protocol 6, citing Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which requires signatories to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty." In December 2006, the Russian Duma effectively extended the national moratorium on the death penalty until 2010, when Chechnya is expected to become the last state to adopt a federal law establishing trials by jury. In February 1999, the Constitutional Court imposed a moratorium on the death penalty until the federal law is implemented in all regions within the country. The Russian death penalty has drawn repeated criticism from the COE, which has pressured Russia to abolish it completely. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/russia-constitutional-court-extends.php [JURIST] The UK High Court ruled Thursday that the details of the detention of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002 must be released. This most recent decision is the latest in a series of back and forth rulings on whether redacted materials regarding Mohamed's detention should be disclosed. An October interim ruling by Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones resulted in a redacted release, which the High Court indicated it would revisit after receiving submissions from both the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Mohamed. In handing down this most recent decision, Thomas and Jones said that in making public details of a detainee's treatment, "we were not in the judgment 'giving away the intelligence secrets of a foreign country' or making public 'American secrets.'" Both justices were critical of Foreign Secretary David Milliband's efforts to keep the information classified, noting that the US had already released similar information on the treatment of Abu Zubayah. As part of the judgment, the justices indicated that the FCO had already sought an expedited appeal of the decision, though that matter would be handled by another court and it is not clear how quickly the hearing will occur. This decision comes one day after a separate judge on the High Court ruled that, in Mohamed's separate suit for damages, information relating to his treatment at Guantanamo Bay may be withheld under a "closed material procedure." Mohamed was returned to the UK in February, after charges against him were dismissed in October 2008. Mohamed had been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit terrorism. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-5514490077713841873 2009-11-19T14:38:00.004-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/g3ETXXiExAA/uk-court-orders-release-of-details-of.phpnoreply@blogger.comBrian Jackson JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The UK High Court ruled Thursday that the details of the detention of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002 must be released. This most recent decision is the latest in a series of back and forth rulings on whether redacted materials regarding Mohamed's detention should be disclosed. An October interim ruling by Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones resulted in a redacted release, which the High Court indicated it would revisit after receiving submissions from both the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Mohamed. In handing down this most recent decision, Thomas and Jones said that in making public details of a detainee's treatment, "we were not in the judgment 'giving away the intelligence secrets of a foreign country' or making public 'American secrets.'" Both justices were critical of Foreign Secretary David Milliband's efforts to keep the information classified, noting that the US had already released similar information on the treatment of Abu Zubayah. As part of the judgment, the justices indicated that the FCO had already sought an expedited appeal of the decision, though that matter would be handled by another court and it is not clear how quickly the hearing will occur. This decision comes one day after a separate judge on the High Court ruled that, in Mohamed's separate suit for damages, information relating to his treatment at Guantanamo Bay may be withheld under a "closed material procedure." Mohamed was returned to the UK in February, after charges against him were dismissed in October 2008. Mohamed had been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit terrorism. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/uk-court-orders-release-of-details-of.php [JURIST] The Supreme Court of Bangladesh on Thursday denied the final appeals of five former military officers sentenced to death for the 1975 military coup assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's first leader. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Mujibur's daughter, praised the latest decision in the 16-year old murder trial. The convicted officers, who are currently in prison, may appeal to the prime minister for clemency. Hasina had promised to make her father's murder trial a priority of her administration when she was elected in 2008 to a second term in office. Mujibur and 16 family members were killed during a military coup that erupted only four years after Bangladesh won independence from Pakistan in 1971. In April, the government of Bangladesh announced that it was working with the UN to establish prosecutions of alleged war crimes committed during the 1971 War of Independence. The country ended 2 years of emergency rule in December 2008, with the government declaring its intent to restore the 1972 constitution. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-703662517554413376 2009-11-19T13:32:00.002-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/PDRhsRv8YYA/bangladesh-supreme-court-upholds-death.phpnoreply@blogger.comAndrea Bottorff JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Supreme Court of Bangladesh on Thursday denied the final appeals of five former military officers sentenced to death for the 1975 military coup assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's first leader. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Mujibur's daughter, praised the latest decision in the 16-year old murder trial. The convicted officers, who are currently in prison, may appeal to the prime minister for clemency. Hasina had promised to make her father's murder trial a priority of her administration when she was elected in 2008 to a second term in office. Mujibur and 16 family members were killed during a military coup that erupted only four years after Bangladesh won independence from Pakistan in 1971. In April, the government of Bangladesh announced that it was working with the UN to establish prosecutions of alleged war crimes committed during the 1971 War of Independence. The country ended 2 years of emergency rule in December 2008, with the government declaring its intent to restore the 1972 constitution. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/bangladesh-supreme-court-upholds-death.php [JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Thursday that airline passengers confronted with flight delays of two hours or more may receive compensation equal to that of passengers whose flights are cancelled. The flat-rate compensation ranges between 250 and 600 euros. The case arose under European Parliament and European Council Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, which sets forth rules for compensation and assistance of airline passengers. The court found:Given that the damage sustained by air passengers in cases of cancellation or long delay is comparable, passengers whose flights are delayed and passengers whose flights are cancelled cannot be treated differently without the principle of equal treatment being infringed. That is a fortiori the case in view of the aim sought by Regulation No 261/2004, which is to increase protection for all air passengers. In those circumstances, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.The judgment clarifies circumstances under which a "delay" or a "cancellation" occurs and the corresponding duties of airlines to affected passengers. A right to compensation does not arise if the airline can show "extraordinary" circumstances caused the delay. The task falls to national courts to determine the meaning of the ECJ ruling.The German and Austrian courts that initially referred the case to the ECJ are expected to review the decision. The ECJ ruling mirrors a 2008 ruling, which upheld the right of compensation to passengers whose flights are canceled. The legislation, which went into effect in 2005, requires airlines to compensate travelers for cancellations, delays, and denial of seats. It places the burden of proof on airlines if they wish to avoid payment. In 2006, the ECJ upheld the airline passenger regulations in a challenge brought by International Air Transport Association and the European Low Fares Airline Association, which argued that the law was too costly to implement and some conditions were outside of the airlines' control. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-3017215913830092332 2009-11-19T12:59:00.002-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/nS_BIbk2ffA/europe-court-rules-delayed-airline.phpnoreply@blogger.comSteve Dotterer JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Thursday that airline passengers confronted with flight delays of two hours or more may receive compensation equal to that of passengers whose flights are cancelled. The flat-rate compensation ranges between 250 and 600 euros. The case arose under European Parliament and European Council Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, which sets forth rules for compensation and assistance of airline passengers. The court found:Given that the damage sustained by air passengers in cases of cancellation or long delay is comparable, passengers whose flights are delayed and passengers whose flights are cancelled cannot be treated differently without the principle of equal treatment being infringed. That is a fortiori the case in view of the aim sought by Regulation No 261/2004, which is to increase protection for all air passengers. In those circumstances, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.The judgment clarifies circumstances under which a "delay" or a "cancellation" occurs and the corresponding duties of airlines to affected passengers. A right to compensation does not arise if the airline can show "extraordinary" circumstances caused the delay. The task falls to national courts to determine the meaning of the ECJ ruling.The German and Austrian courts that initially referred the case to the ECJ are expected to review the decision. The ECJ ruling mirrors a 2008 ruling, which upheld the right of compensation to passengers whose flights are canceled. The legislation, which went into effect in 2005, requires airlines to compensate travelers for cancellations, delays, and denial of seats. It places the burden of proof on airlines if they wish to avoid payment. In 2006, the ECJ upheld the airline passenger regulations in a challenge brought by International Air Transport Association and the European Low Fares Airline Association, which argued that the law was too costly to implement and some conditions were outside of the airlines' control. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/europe-court-rules-delayed-airline.php [JURIST] Afghan President Hamid Karzai pledged to fight corruption in his government during his inaugural address on Thursday. To this end, Karzai announced that he would soon be organizing a conference to research the sources of the corruption and bribery that is widespread throughout Afghanistan and find ways to combat it. Additionally, he announced that his office, in cooperation with the National Assembly, would draft a new law that would require senior government officials to declare their assets and an expansion of bodies charged with the oversight of the government: The Government of Afghanistan is committed to end the culture of impunity and violation of law and bring to justice those involved in spreading corruption and abuse of public property. To do this, will require effective and strong measures. Therefore, alongside an intensified judicial reform, all government anti-corruption efforts and agencies have to be strengthened and supported. Particular attention will be given to building the capacity and upgrading the High Office of Oversight for the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy. Measures for supporting the anti-corruption agencies include: increasing the scope of their authority, improving their capacity and resources for detection and investigation, expanding their organizational structure, as well as reforming the relevant anti-corruption laws and regulations. Under intense pressure from the US and European Union, Karzai announced earlier this month the formation of a commission to investigate corruption in the government, which is ranked by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt in the world, with only Somalia ranked as more corrupt. Also during his address, Karzai set a goal of full Afghan control of security within five years and declared the government's intention of dismissing and prosecuting all officials connected with the illicit drug trade in the country. Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC) earlier this month declared Karzai the winner of the presidential election after challenger Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the runoff election due to the his belief that the upcoming vote would not be free or fair. Karzai was originally declared to have secured over half of the vote, avoiding a runoff, but this was challenged by the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) in October when it invalided a significant portion of Karzai's vote due to findings of fraud at 210 polling stations. Soon after the election was held in August, Abdullah alleged widespread voter fraud, filing more than 100 complaints with the ECC alleging ballot stuffing, inflated vote counts, and intimidation at the polls by Karzai supporters. The tumultuous election has come amid a major policy review of the US war effort in Afghanistan by the administration of US President Barack Obama. The legitimacy and competence of the Afghan government is seen as a major factor in the deliberations by top US officials. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-3316579595257938187 2009-11-19T12:01:00.000-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/boRs2c09KI0/afghanistan-president-vows-to-fight.phpnoreply@blogger.comDwyer Arce JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] Afghan President Hamid Karzai pledged to fight corruption in his government during his inaugural address on Thursday. To this end, Karzai announced that he would soon be organizing a conference to research the sources of the corruption and bribery that is widespread throughout Afghanistan and find ways to combat it. Additionally, he announced that his office, in cooperation with the National Assembly, would draft a new law that would require senior government officials to declare their assets and an expansion of bodies charged with the oversight of the government: The Government of Afghanistan is committed to end the culture of impunity and violation of law and bring to justice those involved in spreading corruption and abuse of public property. To do this, will require effective and strong measures. Therefore, alongside an intensified judicial reform, all government anti-corruption efforts and agencies have to be strengthened and supported. Particular attention will be given to building the capacity and upgrading the High Office of Oversight for the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy. Measures for supporting the anti-corruption agencies include: increasing the scope of their authority, improving their capacity and resources for detection and investigation, expanding their organizational structure, as well as reforming the relevant anti-corruption laws and regulations. Under intense pressure from the US and European Union, Karzai announced earlier this month the formation of a commission to investigate corruption in the government, which is ranked by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt in the world, with only Somalia ranked as more corrupt. Also during his address, Karzai set a goal of full Afghan control of security within five years and declared the government's intention of dismissing and prosecuting all officials connected with the illicit drug trade in the country. Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC) earlier this month declared Karzai the winner of the presidential election after challenger Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the runoff election due to the his belief that the upcoming vote would not be free or fair. Karzai was originally declared to have secured over half of the vote, avoiding a runoff, but this was challenged by the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) in October when it invalided a significant portion of Karzai's vote due to findings of fraud at 210 polling stations. Soon after the election was held in August, Abdullah alleged widespread voter fraud, filing more than 100 complaints with the ECC alleging ballot stuffing, inflated vote counts, and intimidation at the polls by Karzai supporters. The tumultuous election has come amid a major policy review of the US war effort in Afghanistan by the administration of US President Barack Obama. The legitimacy and competence of the Afghan government is seen as a major factor in the deliberations by top US officials. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/afghanistan-president-vows-to-fight.php [JURIST] The Brazilian Supreme Court on Wednesday voted 5-to-4 to extradite former Italian guerrilla Cesare Battisti back to Italy, but left the final decision to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who granted him asylum earlier this year. The high court has yet to decide if the order mandates Lula to extradite Battisti or merely authorizes him to do so. Early in the week, Battisti sent a letter to Lula saying he would rather die in Brazil than be sent back to Italy. Lula granted Battisti political refugee status in January due to doubts about the fairness of his trial where he was convicted in absentia of four murders in the late 1970s. Battisti has firmly protested his extradition, going on a hunger strike last week in the Brazilian prison where he is being held. Italy considers Battisti a terrorist and has been pressuring the Brazilian government to extradite him. Battisti was sentenced to life in prison in Italy for murders committed by the Armed Proletarians for Communism, an arm of a radical communist group known as the Red Brigades to which Battisti belonged. He escaped from an Italian prison in 1981 and fled to Brazil after spending ten years as a refugee in France. Battisti was arrested in Rio de Janeiro in March 2007. Other members of the Red Brigades group have been convicted for murders in Italy over the past few years. In 2005, three members, who were among five people sentenced to life in prison for the murder of government economic advisor Marco Biagi, were sentenced to another life term for the murder of Massimo D'Antona, a professor and legal consultant to the Minister of Labour. The murders occurred three years apart, but both victims were government advisers who were killed to deter reforms which would introduce greater flexibility to Italy's labor market. Four defendants were acquitted and nine other defendants received sentences ranging from four to 10 years in prison. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-4890505690434439125 2009-11-19T11:41:00.001-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/ga4LhjFlOTM/brazil-top-court-rules-for-extradition.phpnoreply@blogger.comCarrie Schimizzi JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Brazilian Supreme Court on Wednesday voted 5-to-4 to extradite former Italian guerrilla Cesare Battisti back to Italy, but left the final decision to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who granted him asylum earlier this year. The high court has yet to decide if the order mandates Lula to extradite Battisti or merely authorizes him to do so. Early in the week, Battisti sent a letter to Lula saying he would rather die in Brazil than be sent back to Italy. Lula granted Battisti political refugee status in January due to doubts about the fairness of his trial where he was convicted in absentia of four murders in the late 1970s. Battisti has firmly protested his extradition, going on a hunger strike last week in the Brazilian prison where he is being held. Italy considers Battisti a terrorist and has been pressuring the Brazilian government to extradite him. Battisti was sentenced to life in prison in Italy for murders committed by the Armed Proletarians for Communism, an arm of a radical communist group known as the Red Brigades to which Battisti belonged. He escaped from an Italian prison in 1981 and fled to Brazil after spending ten years as a refugee in France. Battisti was arrested in Rio de Janeiro in March 2007. Other members of the Red Brigades group have been convicted for murders in Italy over the past few years. In 2005, three members, who were among five people sentenced to life in prison for the murder of government economic advisor Marco Biagi, were sentenced to another life term for the murder of Massimo D'Antona, a professor and legal consultant to the Minister of Labour. The murders occurred three years apart, but both victims were government advisers who were killed to deter reforms which would introduce greater flexibility to Italy's labor market. Four defendants were acquitted and nine other defendants received sentences ranging from four to 10 years in prison. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/brazil-top-court-rules-for-extradition.php [JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Wednesday found the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) negligent in its operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). Damages nearing $720,000 were awarded to five plaintiffs, who successfully demonstrated that known defects in the MRGO and the USACE's subsequent failure to take action contributed significantly to the devastation caused in the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In his ruling, Judge Stanwood Duval wrote: It is the Court's opinion that the negligence of the Corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MRGO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness. ... The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so. Clearly the expression "talk is cheap" applies here.Duval dismissed the claims of two additional plaintiffs, ruling that the USACE is not liable for flooding in the eastern part of the city. The decision is expected to ease the burden for more than 100,000 victims pursuing similar claims in the area.The USACE had sought dismissal of the suit on several occasions. In March, Duval found that material questions of fact existed as to a potential violation of the USACE's mandate that, if proven, would preclude it from protection under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Duval previously allowed the lawsuit to proceed in May 2008, when he ruled that the outlet was a shipping channel and not a flood control outlet in connection with which the USACE would have been properly immune in tort, and rejected the USACE's argument that the MRGO was nonetheless part of a larger flood control system in the New Orleans area. Duval made a similar ruling in February 2007 in the context of an earlier motion to dismiss. Three months before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, an expert at the LSU Hurricane Center predicted that the MRGO could amplify storm surges by 20-40 percent. After Katrina, the center determined through computer modeling that the presence of the MRGO also increased the speed of the surge, causing an even greater detrimental effect. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-1013191770429070069 2009-11-19T10:35:00.014-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/q3o2NKt7wmQ/federal-judge-finds-army-corps-of.phpnoreply@blogger.comDaniel Makosky JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Wednesday found the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) negligent in its operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). Damages nearing $720,000 were awarded to five plaintiffs, who successfully demonstrated that known defects in the MRGO and the USACE's subsequent failure to take action contributed significantly to the devastation caused in the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In his ruling, Judge Stanwood Duval wrote: It is the Court's opinion that the negligence of the Corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MRGO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness. ... The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so. Clearly the expression "talk is cheap" applies here.Duval dismissed the claims of two additional plaintiffs, ruling that the USACE is not liable for flooding in the eastern part of the city. The decision is expected to ease the burden for more than 100,000 victims pursuing similar claims in the area.The USACE had sought dismissal of the suit on several occasions. In March, Duval found that material questions of fact existed as to a potential violation of the USACE's mandate that, if proven, would preclude it from protection under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Duval previously allowed the lawsuit to proceed in May 2008, when he ruled that the outlet was a shipping channel and not a flood control outlet in connection with which the USACE would have been properly immune in tort, and rejected the USACE's argument that the MRGO was nonetheless part of a larger flood control system in the New Orleans area. Duval made a similar ruling in February 2007 in the context of an earlier motion to dismiss. Three months before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, an expert at the LSU Hurricane Center predicted that the MRGO could amplify storm surges by 20-40 percent. After Katrina, the center determined through computer modeling that the presence of the MRGO also increased the speed of the surge, causing an even greater detrimental effect. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/federal-judge-finds-army-corps-of.php [JURIST] A former senior Canadian diplomat alleged Wednesday that the Canadian military was complicit in the torture of Afghans by their own government, during testimony before the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. Richard Colvin, who represented the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in Kandahar from 2006-2007 and is currently the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, said that captives transferred from a Canadian military base in Kandahar to Afghan authorities were subsequently tortured. Colvin accused both the government and military of ignoring and even suppressing reports of torture by Afghan authorities, citing upwards of twelve memos that he sent to top officials beginning in early 2006. The minority Conservative Party government maintains that captives were not transferred if there was a threat of torture, and questions the validity of Colvin's information. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association filed complaints in 2007 against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan. Amnesty accused Canada of violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by turning Afghan detainees over to Afghan authorities without any protection against later cruel and unusual punishment. In March 2008, the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) decided to hold public hearings to investigate the country's detainee transfer process in Afghanistan despite a move from the Canadian Department of Justice to block the inquiry. In September, the Canadian Federal Court ruled that the MPCC's authority was limited to the investigation of military police, and it did not have the authority to "to investigate government policy and to inquire as to the state of knowledge of the Government of Canada at large." tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-5205493737955282043 2009-11-19T10:22:00.029-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/5mhk80nUbyo/senior-canada-diplomat-accuses-military.phpnoreply@blogger.comMegan McKee JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] A former senior Canadian diplomat alleged Wednesday that the Canadian military was complicit in the torture of Afghans by their own government, during testimony before the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. Richard Colvin, who represented the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in Kandahar from 2006-2007 and is currently the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, said that captives transferred from a Canadian military base in Kandahar to Afghan authorities were subsequently tortured. Colvin accused both the government and military of ignoring and even suppressing reports of torture by Afghan authorities, citing upwards of twelve memos that he sent to top officials beginning in early 2006. The minority Conservative Party government maintains that captives were not transferred if there was a threat of torture, and questions the validity of Colvin's information. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association filed complaints in 2007 against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan. Amnesty accused Canada of violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by turning Afghan detainees over to Afghan authorities without any protection against later cruel and unusual punishment. In March 2008, the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) decided to hold public hearings to investigate the country's detainee transfer process in Afghanistan despite a move from the Canadian Department of Justice to block the inquiry. In September, the Canadian Federal Court ruled that the MPCC's authority was limited to the investigation of military police, and it did not have the authority to "to investigate government policy and to inquire as to the state of knowledge of the Government of Canada at large." http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/senior-canada-diplomat-accuses-military.php [JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California (FPD) on Wednesday to pay a monetary award to a man denied healthcare benefits for his same-sex spouse. Deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson brought the suit requesting the court to direct the FPD to obtain separate coverage for his spouse by contracting with private health insurance carriers or issue a monetary award in accordance with the Back Pay Act. The court found that a back pay award would be the "necessary and appropriate" remedy "tailored as closely as possible" to address the specific violation within the scope of the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan for Federal Public Defenders and Staff since the FPD does not have federal contracting authority. The case was remanded for the lower court to determine the appropriate monetary award. Judge Stephen Reinhardt was the Chair of the Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders at the time of filing and continues to retain jurisdiction in the matter until Levenson's spouse receives his entitled benefits. Reinhardt reasoned:o the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA as applied contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefor unconstitutional.Levenson's suit was based on a February Ninth Circuit court order directing the Administrative Office (AO) of the United States Courts to secure the benefits to which Levinson's spouse is entitled as a California legally married couple. That order also determined that denying Levenson's spouse benefits violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the EDR Plan as well as the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The AO took actions to comply with that original order, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intervened invoking the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to prevent the AO from complying with the court order. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-120066479316197362 2009-11-19T09:14:00.004-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/ptPj9Q7S864/ninth-circuit-orders-back-pay-for.phpnoreply@blogger.comXimena Marinero JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California (FPD) on Wednesday to pay a monetary award to a man denied healthcare benefits for his same-sex spouse. Deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson brought the suit requesting the court to direct the FPD to obtain separate coverage for his spouse by contracting with private health insurance carriers or issue a monetary award in accordance with the Back Pay Act. The court found that a back pay award would be the "necessary and appropriate" remedy "tailored as closely as possible" to address the specific violation within the scope of the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan for Federal Public Defenders and Staff since the FPD does not have federal contracting authority. The case was remanded for the lower court to determine the appropriate monetary award. Judge Stephen Reinhardt was the Chair of the Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders at the time of filing and continues to retain jurisdiction in the matter until Levenson's spouse receives his entitled benefits. Reinhardt reasoned:o the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA as applied contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefor unconstitutional.Levenson's suit was based on a February Ninth Circuit court order directing the Administrative Office (AO) of the United States Courts to secure the benefits to which Levinson's spouse is entitled as a California legally married couple. That order also determined that denying Levenson's spouse benefits violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the EDR Plan as well as the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The AO took actions to comply with that original order, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intervened invoking the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to prevent the AO from complying with the court order. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/ninth-circuit-orders-back-pay-for.php [JURIST] A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that former Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani does not have a right to be represented by his military defense lawyers in a civilian court. Military lawyers Colonel Jeffrey Colwell and Major Richard Reiter were reassigned by the Department of Defense despite their willingness to continue representing Ghailani and Judge Lewis Kaplan's initial ruling in June allowing them to do so. Ghailani's court-appointed lawyer argued that the reassignment orders violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Kaplan rejected the due process claim because of its post-indictment nature and held that, despite a right to continued services of appointed counsel in military proceedings, the right did not extend to Ghailani in civil court. Kaplan reasoned that: the more generous protection of the right to counsel afforded in the military justice system is grounded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and military regulations, not the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the military analogy lends no support to Ghailani's argument. He is entitled to, and is receiving, representation of appointed counsel at public expense. He is not entitled to choose particular government-paid counsel – military or civilian – and he does not have a right to the continued services of previously appointed counsel.Despite his ruling, Kaplan recognized the "near-insurmountable difficulties created by the US government" in the case and that Ghailani's unique trust in his military attorneys may not be equaled.In July, Ghailani's military lawyers requested access to secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency at which their client was held prior to his transfer to Guantanamo Bay. Ghailani faces charges for his alleged involvement in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and is the first Guantanamo detainee to be brought to the US for prosecution. Having been held at the Guantanamo facility since 2006, Ghailani was transferred to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in June to face 286 separate counts including involvement in the bombings and conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans worldwide. He pleaded not guilty at his initial appearance. The announcement that Ghailani would be tried in federal court came earlier this year following the ordered review of all Guantanamo detainees pursuant to plans to close the detention facility. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-7316366001885589038 2009-11-19T08:10:00.010-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/CWx1FrDSUbw/federal-judge-rules-against-military.phpnoreply@blogger.comChristian Ehret JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that former Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani does not have a right to be represented by his military defense lawyers in a civilian court. Military lawyers Colonel Jeffrey Colwell and Major Richard Reiter were reassigned by the Department of Defense despite their willingness to continue representing Ghailani and Judge Lewis Kaplan's initial ruling in June allowing them to do so. Ghailani's court-appointed lawyer argued that the reassignment orders violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Kaplan rejected the due process claim because of its post-indictment nature and held that, despite a right to continued services of appointed counsel in military proceedings, the right did not extend to Ghailani in civil court. Kaplan reasoned that: the more generous protection of the right to counsel afforded in the military justice system is grounded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and military regulations, not the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the military analogy lends no support to Ghailani's argument. He is entitled to, and is receiving, representation of appointed counsel at public expense. He is not entitled to choose particular government-paid counsel – military or civilian – and he does not have a right to the continued services of previously appointed counsel.Despite his ruling, Kaplan recognized the "near-insurmountable difficulties created by the US government" in the case and that Ghailani's unique trust in his military attorneys may not be equaled.In July, Ghailani's military lawyers requested access to secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency at which their client was held prior to his transfer to Guantanamo Bay. Ghailani faces charges for his alleged involvement in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and is the first Guantanamo detainee to be brought to the US for prosecution. Having been held at the Guantanamo facility since 2006, Ghailani was transferred to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in June to face 286 separate counts including involvement in the bombings and conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans worldwide. He pleaded not guilty at his initial appearance. The announcement that Ghailani would be tried in federal court came earlier this year following the ordered review of all Guantanamo detainees pursuant to plans to close the detention facility. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/federal-judge-rules-against-military.php [JURIST] The Cuban government of Raul Castro has continued to repress dissidents and violate fundamental civil liberties of Cubans, maintaining the mechanisms put in place by Fidel Castro, according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report released on Wednesday. Specifically, HRW reported that 53 political dissidents imprisoned since 2003 under Fidel Castro remain imprisoned, as well as "scores of of individuals incarcerated for 'dangerousness' under Raul Castro." The HRW report claims that Raul Castro's government relies heavily on the Criminal Code offense of "dangerousness", which provides for imprisonment of people suspected of behavior against socialist values. Among those imprisoned are individuals whose behavior included unemployment, voicing opinions contrary to the government, and staging peaceful protests. HRW maintains that Raul Castro's government has resorted to imposing short-term imprisonment measures to elude international critique, while mistreatment of prisoners may rise to the level of torture. The report does acknowledge that a limited amount of dissent outlets, like independent blogging, have been allowed to emerge in recent years. The Cuban Interests Section Washington DC has charged in a statement published by the Miami Herald that the HRW report is an illegitimate and illegal evaluation that aims to manipulate public scrutiny away from the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on Thursday about ending the travel ban to Cuba. The number of political prisoners in Cuba had declined from 234 in January 2008 to 205, while the number of brief detentions had increased, according to a Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) report in February. The same report also charged that the decline in the number of political prisoners was due to the new practice of imposing shorter prison terms for those arrested employed since 2003. In January, HRW acknowledged some attempts in 2008 by the Cuban government to improve its position on human rights in its 2009 report on the country. HRW decried that overall the Cuban government continues to deny its citizens their fundamental rights. Last year, Cuba was ranked 170th in the eighth annual Worldwide Index of Press Freedom issued by Reporters Without Borders (RWB). tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-1193154618021241313 2009-11-19T07:20:00.003-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/35Orql2mEGs/cuba-continues-political-repression.phpnoreply@blogger.comXimena Marinero JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The Cuban government of Raul Castro has continued to repress dissidents and violate fundamental civil liberties of Cubans, maintaining the mechanisms put in place by Fidel Castro, according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report released on Wednesday. Specifically, HRW reported that 53 political dissidents imprisoned since 2003 under Fidel Castro remain imprisoned, as well as "scores of of individuals incarcerated for 'dangerousness' under Raul Castro." The HRW report claims that Raul Castro's government relies heavily on the Criminal Code offense of "dangerousness", which provides for imprisonment of people suspected of behavior against socialist values. Among those imprisoned are individuals whose behavior included unemployment, voicing opinions contrary to the government, and staging peaceful protests. HRW maintains that Raul Castro's government has resorted to imposing short-term imprisonment measures to elude international critique, while mistreatment of prisoners may rise to the level of torture. The report does acknowledge that a limited amount of dissent outlets, like independent blogging, have been allowed to emerge in recent years. The Cuban Interests Section Washington DC has charged in a statement published by the Miami Herald that the HRW report is an illegitimate and illegal evaluation that aims to manipulate public scrutiny away from the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on Thursday about ending the travel ban to Cuba. The number of political prisoners in Cuba had declined from 234 in January 2008 to 205, while the number of brief detentions had increased, according to a Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) report in February. The same report also charged that the decline in the number of political prisoners was due to the new practice of imposing shorter prison terms for those arrested employed since 2003. In January, HRW acknowledged some attempts in 2008 by the Cuban government to improve its position on human rights in its 2009 report on the country. HRW decried that overall the Cuban government continues to deny its citizens their fundamental rights. Last year, Cuba was ranked 170th in the eighth annual Worldwide Index of Press Freedom issued by Reporters Without Borders (RWB). http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/cuba-continues-political-repression.php [JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder appeared Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions regarding the decision to try five men accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks in federal court. In his opening remarks, Holder refuted the arguments made by his predecessor and other lawmakers that the decision to try these men in civilian courts represents a "pre-9/11" mentality. Additionally, he sought to allay concerns voiced by critics that civilian courts are inadequate to handle the cases of suspected terrorists and will provide a public forum to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks: Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what will have to say at trial – and no one else needs to be either. Holder was faced with heavy criticism during the hearing from Republican committee members. Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Holder his decision was "dangerous, misguided, and unnecessary" and would create a security risk. The hearing comes amid efforts by the Obama administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by next year. President Barack Obama on Wednesday confirmed that the facility would not be closed by the self-imposed January 22 deadline, as has been stated by administration officials for the past several weeks. Holder on Friday announced that the government will pursue federal charges against the five suspected 9/11 conspirators in a Manhattan district court by prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia. Holder said that he recommended that the men be tried in civilian court after a case-by-case review conducted by the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense according to a new protocol announced in July. Reactions to the decision have fallen mostly along partisan lines, with many Republicans opposing the plan, and many Democrats supporting it. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-9024896779918375846 2009-11-18T14:19:00.011-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/E3fHbOkQpSI/holder-defends-911-federal-trials.phpnoreply@blogger.comDwyer Arce JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder appeared Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions regarding the decision to try five men accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks in federal court. In his opening remarks, Holder refuted the arguments made by his predecessor and other lawmakers that the decision to try these men in civilian courts represents a "pre-9/11" mentality. Additionally, he sought to allay concerns voiced by critics that civilian courts are inadequate to handle the cases of suspected terrorists and will provide a public forum to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks: Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what will have to say at trial – and no one else needs to be either. Holder was faced with heavy criticism during the hearing from Republican committee members. Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Holder his decision was "dangerous, misguided, and unnecessary" and would create a security risk. The hearing comes amid efforts by the Obama administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by next year. President Barack Obama on Wednesday confirmed that the facility would not be closed by the self-imposed January 22 deadline, as has been stated by administration officials for the past several weeks. Holder on Friday announced that the government will pursue federal charges against the five suspected 9/11 conspirators in a Manhattan district court by prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia. Holder said that he recommended that the men be tried in civilian court after a case-by-case review conducted by the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense according to a new protocol announced in July. Reactions to the decision have fallen mostly along partisan lines, with many Republicans opposing the plan, and many Democrats supporting it. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/holder-defends-911-federal-trials.php [JURIST] The British High Court ruled Wednesday that the government may withhold evidence from seven claimants suing UK intelligence services MI5 and MI6 for their roles in alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay. The court ruled that the agencies can rely on the evidence in their defense without disclosing it to the claimants. The ruling marks a departure from the "public interest immunity" procedure, which weighed the public interest in non-disclosure against the interests of justice. If the evidence was found to be so sensitive that it should not be revealed, the information could not be used by either side. The court indicated that a "closed material" procedure, where a "special advocate" reviews evidence not disclosed by the government and acts on behalf of the claimants, would be appropriate in this case. The ruling was condemned by Amnesty International, and lawyers representing the men have indicated they will appeal the decision. The ruling comes amid criticism of an October ruling by the High Court ordering disclosure of portions of previously redacted text regarding the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, one of the seven men involved in the civil suit. UK officials have expressed concern that the release of alleged torture information would pose a risk to the national security of the UK and its relations with the US. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-7645919038876242768 2009-11-18T13:30:00.012-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/xFiu3lJnA1w/uk-court-rules-evidence-may-be-kept.phpnoreply@blogger.comHillary Stemple JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The British High Court ruled Wednesday that the government may withhold evidence from seven claimants suing UK intelligence services MI5 and MI6 for their roles in alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay. The court ruled that the agencies can rely on the evidence in their defense without disclosing it to the claimants. The ruling marks a departure from the "public interest immunity" procedure, which weighed the public interest in non-disclosure against the interests of justice. If the evidence was found to be so sensitive that it should not be revealed, the information could not be used by either side. The court indicated that a "closed material" procedure, where a "special advocate" reviews evidence not disclosed by the government and acts on behalf of the claimants, would be appropriate in this case. The ruling was condemned by Amnesty International, and lawyers representing the men have indicated they will appeal the decision. The ruling comes amid criticism of an October ruling by the High Court ordering disclosure of portions of previously redacted text regarding the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, one of the seven men involved in the civil suit. UK officials have expressed concern that the release of alleged torture information would pose a risk to the national security of the UK and its relations with the US. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/uk-court-rules-evidence-may-be-kept.php [JURIST] The US Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to bar using federal funds to build or modify prisons in the US to hold detainees from Guantanamo Bay. By a mostly party-line 57-43 vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, proposed by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), which would have prevented federal funds from being used to construct or modify prison facilities in the US to hold Guantanamo detainees. The action suggests congressional Democrats may be lining up behind President Obama's vision for closing the Guantanamo military prison. The Senate approved the $133.9 billion fiscal 2010 spending bill after defeating the amendment, which Illinois officials feared could have complicated the Obama administration's plans to move Guantanamo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Facility, a maximum security prison in Northwestern Illinois. The proposed measure was also seen as a hindrance to President Obama's administration plans to try suspected terrorists in civilian courts in New York City. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the government will pursue federal charges in a Manhattan district court against five men accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Earlier this month, the US Senate voted 54-45 to defeat an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have prevented Guantanamo detainees accused of involvement in 9/11 from being tried in federal courts. In October, US President Barack Obama signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010 which allows for Guantanamo Bay detainees to be transferred to the US for prosecution. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-6769086250560332911 2009-11-18T12:31:00.013-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/tCYpZER63oM/senate-defeats-amendment-to-block-funds.phpnoreply@blogger.comCarrie Schimizzi JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] The US Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to bar using federal funds to build or modify prisons in the US to hold detainees from Guantanamo Bay. By a mostly party-line 57-43 vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, proposed by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), which would have prevented federal funds from being used to construct or modify prison facilities in the US to hold Guantanamo detainees. The action suggests congressional Democrats may be lining up behind President Obama's vision for closing the Guantanamo military prison. The Senate approved the $133.9 billion fiscal 2010 spending bill after defeating the amendment, which Illinois officials feared could have complicated the Obama administration's plans to move Guantanamo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Facility, a maximum security prison in Northwestern Illinois. The proposed measure was also seen as a hindrance to President Obama's administration plans to try suspected terrorists in civilian courts in New York City. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the government will pursue federal charges in a Manhattan district court against five men accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Earlier this month, the US Senate voted 54-45 to defeat an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have prevented Guantanamo detainees accused of involvement in 9/11 from being tried in federal courts. In October, US President Barack Obama signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010 which allows for Guantanamo Bay detainees to be transferred to the US for prosecution. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/senate-defeats-amendment-to-block-funds.php [JURIST] Iraqi Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on Wednesday announced his veto of the first article of the recently passed election law at a press conference in Baghdad. Hashemi said further amendments are necessary before the law will be acceptable, specifically calling for increased representation for Iraqis living abroad. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis live outside the country, and many are thought to be Sunnis who fled after Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime fell. Hashemi is one of two Iraqi vice presidents who serve with the president on the Presidency Council. The Iraqi Constitution requires that the Presidency Council unanimously approve legislation. The constitution also requires that the election law be approved by the Presidency Council within 60 days of the election, which was scheduled for January 18 of next year. After Hashemi's announcement, the Independent High Election Commission suspended their preparations for the election. Further debate on the proposed law will likely delay the elections, which may affect the planned withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. The elections may also include a referendum on the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which allows US troops to remain in the country until the end of 2011. A draft bill requiring the referendum was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in August. If the SOFA were rejected by Iraqi voters, US troops would have only one year to withdraw, which would result in a January 2011 withdrawal - nearly a year ahead of schedule. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-3386171893807900282 2009-11-18T11:28:00.001-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/Q84DYMa5iD0/iraq-election-law-vetoed-by-sunni-vice.phpnoreply@blogger.comDavid Manes JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] Iraqi Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on Wednesday announced his veto of the first article of the recently passed election law at a press conference in Baghdad. Hashemi said further amendments are necessary before the law will be acceptable, specifically calling for increased representation for Iraqis living abroad. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis live outside the country, and many are thought to be Sunnis who fled after Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime fell. Hashemi is one of two Iraqi vice presidents who serve with the president on the Presidency Council. The Iraqi Constitution requires that the Presidency Council unanimously approve legislation. The constitution also requires that the election law be approved by the Presidency Council within 60 days of the election, which was scheduled for January 18 of next year. After Hashemi's announcement, the Independent High Election Commission suspended their preparations for the election. Further debate on the proposed law will likely delay the elections, which may affect the planned withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. The elections may also include a referendum on the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which allows US troops to remain in the country until the end of 2011. A draft bill requiring the referendum was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in August. If the SOFA were rejected by Iraqi voters, US troops would have only one year to withdraw, which would result in a January 2011 withdrawal - nearly a year ahead of schedule. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/iraq-election-law-vetoed-by-sunni-vice.php [JURIST] Virginia authorities on Tuesday executed a prisoner by electric chair, conducting the country's first execution by electrocution in over a year. Former Army counterintelligence worker Larry Bill Elliott, who was convicted of a 2001 double murder, was executed Tuesday night after Virginia Governor Tim Kaine declined to intervene. The US Supreme Court had denied a request for a stay on Monday. Virginia law allows condemned prisoners to choose lethal injection or electrocution. The country's last execution by electric chair took place in South Carolina in June 2008. Virginia last executed a prisoner by electrocution in 2006. In 2008, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that execution by electric chair is "cruel and unusual punishment" and is therefore unconstitutional. The electric chair remains an option in seven states, with two more allowing it only if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional. tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-8335384264869657352 2009-11-18T10:40:00.003-05:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pitt/vLdl/~3/a2NXnjuKtC8/virginia-conducts-first-us-electric.phpnoreply@blogger.comJaclyn Belczyk JURIST - Paper Chase [JURIST] Virginia authorities on Tuesday executed a prisoner by electric chair, conducting the country's first execution by electrocution in over a year. Former Army counterintelligence worker Larry Bill Elliott, who was convicted of a 2001 double murder, was executed Tuesday night after Virginia Governor Tim Kaine declined to intervene. The US Supreme Court had denied a request for a stay on Monday. Virginia law allows condemned prisoners to choose lethal injection or electrocution. The country's last execution by electric chair took place in South Carolina in June 2008. Virginia last executed a prisoner by electrocution in 2006. In 2008, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that execution by electric chair is "cruel and unusual punishment" and is therefore unconstitutional. The electric chair remains an option in seven states, with two more allowing it only if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/11/virginia-conducts-first-us-electric.php Blogger v7.00 (http://www.blogger.com) + Atom 1.0 XSLT Transform v1 (http://atom.geekhood.net)