 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, December 8, 2005 |
 |
|


Annan defends UN rights chief criticism of US renditions
Joshua Pantesco on December 8, 2005 6:45 PM ET

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan [official profile] Thursday defended contentious statements made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour [official profile; JURIST news archive] on US terrorist rendition practices [JURIST archive], saying through a spokesperson that she has his "full confidence" as a "highly respected jurist," and that "international civil servants should be allowed to speak freely" on their areas of expertise. Arbour Wednesday criticized US rendition practices [JURIST report] as having a "corrosive effect on the global ban on terror," before specifically condemning "the use of secret detention facilities and the seeking of diplomatic assurances to avoid what would otherwise be the total prohibition on rendering, surrendering, deporting, turning back people to countries where they may face the risk of torture." Arbour also took Washington to task for breaching the 1984 Convention Against Torture [text] it signed, which "prohibits recourse to torture, cruel degrading and other inhumane treatment at the instigation of agents of the state for the purpose of obtaining intelligence or other types of information." US ambassador to the UN John Bolton [official profile] immediately castigated Arbour after her remarks, saying it was "inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second guess the conduct of what we are engaged in the war on terror with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers." Watch recorded video of Bolton's remarks. Annan's spokesperson mentioned that Annan plans on discussing the issue with Bolton "at an early date." Aljazeera has more.


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

|

House Judiciary Committee approves border enforcement bill
Joshua Pantesco on December 8, 2005 5:55 PM ET

[JURIST] The US House Judiciary Committee [official website] approved a complex bill aimed at preventing illegal immigration in a split party 23-15 vote Thursday, allowing a full House vote on the legislation next week. The bill [text; committee press release, PDF], sponsored by committee chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) [official website], adds border patrol agents and equipment, requests millitary assistance for border surveillance, and reimburses local police for assisting in combatting illegal entry. The bill also criminalizes illegal presence in the country, now a civil offense, and increases mandatory minimum sentences for smugglers and those convicted of re-entry after removal. Committee Democrats criticized the bill's failure to include a guest worker provision, a proposal suggested by President Bush that would exempt immigrants from removal if they are working a seasonal job such as fruit and vegetable harvesting. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) [official website] said the tourism industry as well as the seasonal fruit and vegetable industries of several border states would suffer without the guest worker program. Sensenbrenner defended the current version of the bill, saying that the clear issue of border enforcement should be addressed before the more contensious issue of a guest worker program. AP has more.


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

|

Retired US judges urge Congress not to limit court review of Gitmo detentions
Greg Sampson on December 8, 2005 4:14 PM ET

[JURIST] A group of 12 retired federal judges on Thursday urged [official press release] US lawmakers not to pass legislation that would strip federal courts of the power to hear habeas corpus claims brought by detainees held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. In a letter to Congress [PDF text], the judges, mostly retired from federal courts of appeals, voiced their concern that if the law is enacted, it would sharply limit the long-established authority of federal courts to review executive detentions, and would thus seriously harm the long tradition of federal courts ensuring the rule of law under the Constitution. They wrote: We appreciate the goal of avoiding an influx of frivolous claims, but no judge has found any filing of a Guantánamo detainee to be frivolous. In any event, federal judges are well-experienced and well-equipped in the task of sifting out frivolous claims from meritorious ones. Moreover, even cursory examination of the Amendment suggests that it raises more questions than it settles, and will increase litigation rather than limiting it.
For example, in plain defiance of our long separation-of-powers tradition, the Amendment casts a cloud over ongoing cases, including Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which the Supreme Court of the United States accepted for review only weeks ago. Congress has not attempted to short-circuit Supreme Court review of a habeas case since 1867, and there is no evidence that it considered the consequences of such a momentous decision here. The Senate passed the bill, known as the Graham-Levin-Kyl Amendment [JURIST report] with very little floor debate after Democratic Senator Carl Levin brokered a compromise on an earlier stricter version, known simply as the Graham Amendment [JURIST report]. If enacted, the Graham-Levin-Kyl Amendment would allow Guantanamo detainees the ability to appeal decisions from military tribunals, but would close off all other routes to judicial review. The earlier version would have blocked all federal court review of prisoner detentions at Guantanamo.


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

|

Deal close on Patriot Act renewal, Specter says
Jeannie Shawl on December 8, 2005 11:57 AM ET

[JURIST] Leaders in the US House and Senate are still working to reach a compromise on legislation [bill summary] that would reauthorize portions of the USA PATRIOT Act [PDF text; JURIST news archive] which are set to expire at the end of this year, though officials say they are moving closer to a deal. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has said that House members have agreed to a four-year sunset clause for provisions that allow FBI access to library and business records and that authorize roving wiretaps. Specter said the White House has been pressing for House members to compromise and that Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is supporting the latest proposal. Sensenbrenner's office, however, stressed that a final deal has not yet been reached. Thursday's Washington Post has more. Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee provide background materials and Rep. John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the committee, has additional resources on Patriot Act renewal.
Previously in JURIST's Paper Chase...


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

|

Trial next year for UK officer who opposed legality of Iraq war
Jeannie Shawl on December 8, 2005 11:33 AM ET

[JURIST] Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an officer in Britain's Royal Air Force [official website], will face a court-martial next year on five counts of disobeying a lawful command and could be jailed for refusing to serve in Iraq. Earlier this year, Kendall-Smith refused to attend preliminary training and briefings in preparation for his posting to Basra because, after studying the UK government's legal case for the Iraq war [PDF text], he concluded that the war was illegal. His military trial will begin March 15, and Kendall-Smith is expected to argue that under an RAF manual, a serving officer is justified in refusing to obey a command if the command is illegal. Kendall-Smith, who was suspended in June and charged [JURIST report] in October, is the first British officer to face criminal charges after challenging the conflict's legality. Thursday's Telegraph has more.


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

|

China to open death penalty appeals to public
Holly Manges Jones on December 8, 2005 9:09 AM ET

[JURIST] The Chinese government said Thursday that it will make court proceedings on death penalty appeals open to the public to "improve human rights protection" following a notice [press release, in Chinese] from the Supreme Court of China [official website, in Chinese]. On January 1, the public will have access to death sentence cases involving "major controversy," and on July 1, the public will be allowed to attend all death sentence appeals. The new regulation is being implemented in an effort to prevent wrongful death sentences, which human rights groups have continually criticized in China [JURIST news archive]. The rights groups call China's use of the death penalty "arbitrary" and claim the country carried out 3,400 executions in 2004 alone, making up almost 90 percent of the world's total. Earlier this year, the Chinese high court removed the lower courts' authority to review death sentences [JURIST report]. AP has more.


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

|

House, Senate continue talks on torture amendment to defense bill
Chris Buell on December 8, 2005 8:30 AM ET

[JURIST] House and Senate negotiators are continuing talks to reconcile versions of a defense appropriation bill, with both sides largely agreeing to a torture ban [JURIST document] proposed by Sen. John McCain [official website], but with other provisions remaining in dispute. Negotiators hoped to reach a final bill by the end of this week, but additional provisions dealing with detainees held by the US have held up an agreement. Although initially opposed to a ban on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the Senate version, House negotiators have apparently accepted that provision, with Rep. Duncan Hunter [official website] saying the final version will likely contain the ban [JURIST report]. The White House has threatened a veto [policy statement] over the McCain amendment, although it has remained in negotiations with Senate and House members on the legislation. The McCain amendment was backed by a 90-9 vote [JURIST report] in the Senate. Comments made Wednesday by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled a shift in policy [JURIST report], however, with Rice saying the US would ban its interrogators from treating detainees inhumanely. Reuters has more.


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

|

UK law lords rule against use of torture evidence
D. Wes Rist on December 8, 2005 7:09 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] The UK House of Lords [official website], the country's highest judicial body, ruled against the government Thursday in a case involving the use of evidence that may have been obtained through torture. The ruling prohibits the UK courts, and especially the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, from using evidence that may have been obtained through torture; it spells out the need for the government to indicate where its evidence against suspected terrorists has been obtained, and if it cannot reveal that source for national security reasons, requires it to produce other evidence sufficient to lead to a criminal conviction. The ruling will require Home Secretary Charles Clarke [official profile] to review all other cases where evidence used to convict terror suspects was obtained from sources kept secret. The case was brought on the behalf of eight men held by the UK government without charge while it tried to find other evidence it could use against them. The court's ruling will require that instead of merely demonstrating that the UK government had no active involvement in using torture to obtain the information, prosecutors must demonstrate that improper methods were not used in any step of the information procurement. Read the House of Lords judgment [official PDF text]. BBC News has local coverage.
4:56 PM ET - Reacting to the Law Lords' decision Thursday, Amnesty International UK [advocacy website] called the ruling "momentous" and praised the court [press release] for overturning "the tacit belief that torture can be condoned under certain circumstances". Echoing views articulated in October [JURIST report] by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak, Amnesty also called for the British government to drop Memoranda of Understanding [JURIST report] that have recently been entered into with countries known to torture. Under the agreements, the UK will deport terror suspects to those countries with assurances that the deportees will not be mistreated. Earlier this week, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists called on Council of Europe member states to reject any proposals [joint submission; press release] that would establish standards for the use of diplomatic assurances when transferring people to countries where there is a risk of torture. Government representatives are meeting in Strasbourg this week to consider whether to put forth minimum requirements for reliance on diplomatic assurances. Liberty UK [advocacy website] also welcomed Thursday's decision [press release], saying that "Confessions extracted through beatings, electric shocks and pulled fingernails have no place in the UK legal system." BBC News offers an analysis of the ruling and its international impact.
D. Wes Rist is Bureau Chief for JURIST Europe, reporting European legal news from a European perspective. He is based in the UK.


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

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