 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, January 18, 2006 |
 |
|


White House denies deliberate US rights abuses alleged in HRW report
James M Yoch Jr on January 18, 2006 7:56 PM ET

[JURIST] White House spokesperson Scott McClellan Wednesday dismissed findings from the latest Human Rights Watch annual report [PDF text; JURIST report] alleging that the US has made deliberate and blatant use of torture and the inhumane treatment of prisoners in its "war on terror". HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth wrote in the report's introduction: Any discussion of detainee abuse in 2005 must begin with the United States, not because it is the worst violator but because it is the most influential. New evidence demonstrated that the problem was much greater than it first appeared after the shocking revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Indeed, the sexual degradation glimpsed in the Abu Ghraib photos was so outlandish that it made it easier for the Bush administration to deny having had anything to do with itto pretend that the abuse erupted spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command and could be corrected with the prosecution of a handful of privates and sergeants...
Still, it is one thing to create an environment in which abuse of detainees flourishes, quite another to order that abuse directly. In 2005 it became disturbingly clear that the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administrations strategy for interrogating terrorist suspects. McClellan, who had not yet seen the report at the time of his press briefing, contended [press briefing text] that it was based more on a political agenda than on facts and that it should have focused more on countries denying people human dignity and violating human rights. The report [press release] also strongly criticized France, Germany and the UK for their ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the face of human rights abuse allegations in Chechnya [JURIST report], and expressed concern over the human rights situation in Asia [JURIST report]. BBC News has more.


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

|

New Saddam chief judge has Baathist ties, official says
Christopher G. Anderson on January 18, 2006 3:48 PM ET

[JURIST] The new chief judge in the Saddam Hussein trial [JURIST news archive] is a member of the banned Baath party [BBC profile] and should be replaced, Ali Faisal, executive manager of Iraq's Debaathification Commission [official website], said Wednesday. According to Faisal, the newly appointed Sayeed al-Hamashi, "is the object of a debaathification inquiry." Hamashi, picked by tribunal officials [JURIST report] to preside over the trial after the previous chief judge resigned [JURIST report] last week, has yet to comment publicly on Faisal's remarks. Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi, however, told Reuters that, "Hamashi denies having any relationship with the Baath party." The Debaathification Commission was originally set up with the approval of the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority [official website] after Saddam's overthrow in 2003 and is charged with rooting out members of the Baath party from positions of power in the Iraqi government. Meanwhile, in remarks [transcript] Wednesday after meeting victims of Saddam Hussein's regime at the White House, President Bush reiterated his faith in the Hussein trial [Reuters report], asserting that Hussein was a "butcherer" and that he would "get his due justice under rule of law." Reuters has more.


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

|

Bosnia police raid fails to find genocide suspects
Christopher G. Anderson on January 18, 2006 2:59 PM ET

[JURIST] Five hundred Bosnian police officers launched an ultimately unsuccessful operation on Wednesday near the town of Han Pijesak in an failed attempt to find and arrest either Radovan Karadzic [BBC profile] or Ratko Mladic [BBC profile], both of whom are accused of genocide [ICTY case backgrounder]. At a news conference, a spokesman for the police acknowledged that the target of the raid was either Karadzic or Mladic, but refused to specify which suspect they believed to be in the area, saying only that the "suspect we were looking for was not found." Both Karadzic, a former political leader in Bosnia, and his army chief Mladic face charges for war crimes [JURIST news archive] levied by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [official website] for their alleged role in the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the eastern enclave of Srebrenica during the siege of Sarajevo. Earlier this month, a NATO official called on Serbia and Bosnia [JURIST report] to step up their efforts to find the wanted war criminals and a European Union official confiscated funds [JURIST report] from the still active Serb Democratic Party (SDS) because Karadzic, its founder, remains at large. AP has more.


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

|

Human rights abuses problematic in Asia: HRW
Krystal MacIntyre on January 18, 2006 1:07 PM ET

[JURIST] Respect for human rights in Asia has been on a serious decline over the past year, according to a report released Wednesday by Human Rights Watch [advocacy website]. HRW says that the governments of some Asian countries, including Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and China, were behind the worst rights violations, and that government leaders use "Asian values" as an excuse for human rights violations. Government leaders in the countries implicated in the Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 [text; press release] say that universal human rights documents and treaties [OHCHR materials] do not take into account values that differ from those in Western countries and that international rights documents should reflect these differences. The HRW report also criticizes the US war on terrorism, saying that the Bush administration undermined human rights [Reuters report] by purposely using torture and inhumane treatment as part of their counterterrorism strategy, and calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate abuses. AFP has more.


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

|

White House calls NSA lawsuits 'frivolous', slams Gore remarks
Greg Sampson on January 18, 2006 11:49 AM ET

[JURIST] In response to mounting criticism of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive], White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Tuesday took time during his daily press briefing [official transcript] to react to the two lawsuits filed by civil rights organizations [JURIST report] Tuesday against the administration. Arguing that the lawsuits, which challenge the constitutionality of the surveillance program, were "frivolous," McClellan stated that the two suits did nothing to further protect the civil rights of American citizens. During his remarks, McClellan also targeted former vice president Al Gore in response to Gore's earlier harsh criticism of the administration's surveillance practices [JURIST report], arguing that the former vice president's "hypocrisy knows no bounds." McClellan noted that the Clinton administration used warrantless physical searches and that a deputy attorney general under the Clinton administration testified before Congress that the DOJ believes that the President has inherent authority "to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes". Gore reacted to the administration's criticisms and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of the NSA program by saying that the response illustrates the need for a special counsel to review the program. In a statement [text], Gore said: the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him. The Washington Post has more.


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

|

Supreme Court rules in government immunity, juror challenge cases
Jeannie Shawl on January 18, 2006 11:02 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] handed down decisions in three cases Wednesday, including a decision in Will v. Hallock [Duke Law case backgrounder], where the Court ruled that a refusal to apply the judgment bar in the Federal Tort Claims Act [text] is not open to collateral appeal. The court considered [JURIST report] the case of Susan Hallock who first sued the federal government under the FTCA for alleged constitutional violations when her husband was mistakenly targeted in a child pornography investigation. That claim was dismissed and individual governmental employees, who had been sued by Hallock in a separate action, attempted to use the FTCA's judgment bar [text] in moving for judgment in the second lawsuit. The Second Circuit upheld [ruling, PDF] the District Court's denial of the motion, but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the appeals court decision. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Souter.
In Rice v. Collins [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that the Ninth Circuit's attempt to use a set of debatable inferences to set aside a California court's conclusion does not satisfy the requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) [PDF text] for granting habeas relief. During jury selection for Collins' trial on drug charges, Collins alleged that the prosecutor improperly relied on race as a factor when using peremptory challenges. Though the trial court and state appellate court upheld Collins' convictions and accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for dismissing the jurors, the Ninth Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF] the state court, ruling that under AEDPA, the appeals court decision was based on an unreasonable factual determination. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Kennedy, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Breyer.
The final case Wednesday is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England [Duke Law backgrounder], where the Court ordered a lower court to reconsider the constitutionality [JURIST report] of a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification for teenage abortions.


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

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