 |
|

Legal news from Friday, May 5, 2006 |
 |
|


JURIST, Court TV tied for Webby lead in final hours of public voting
Bernard Hibbitts on May 5, 2006 5:39 PM ET

[JURIST] JURIST [academic website], the non-commercial legal news and research service powered by law students led by Professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law [academic website], is in a dead heat with US legal television network Court TV [corporate website] in the final hours of public polling for the annual Webby Awards "People's Voice" award for best Law website of 2006. With the poll set to close Friday at midnight Pacific Time (Saturday 3 AM ET), the last available figures provided by the Webby Awards late Wednesday afternoon put both JURIST and Court TV at 30%, followed by FindLaw [corporate website], owned by legal publishing giant Thomson Corporation, at 24 percent. New York Times-NPR collaboration Justice Learning and legal self-help site Nolo were further behind.
JURIST has been riding a wave of support from law students and law professors across the United States, joined by leading lawyers and members of the general public worldwide. Voting has been going on since the 2006 Webby nominations were announced [JURIST report] in New York on April 11. Last year over 200,000 People's Voice votes were cast.
Called the "Oscars of the Internet" by the New York Times and presented by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences [profession website], the "Webbies" are the leading international awards honoring excellence in Web design, creativity, usability and functionality. The Webby People's Voice awards run in parallel with a judges' competition; the results of both will be announced in New York on May 9.
If you're reading this before Friday midnight PST (Saturday 3 AM ET), you still have time to vote and show your support for JURIST and serious documented legal news coverage with a global perspective. Just click here for the People's Voice website, then register and vote in the Law category. And please encourage your friends and colleagues to vote!


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

|

US illegal immigrant policies less harsh than other countries: congressional report
Jaime Jansen on May 5, 2006 4:30 PM ET

[JURIST] US Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) [official website], chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report [PDF text] by the Law Library of Congress on Friday showing that several countries have harsher policies for illegal immigrants and their employers than the US. Sensenbrenner, the primary sponsor of a House-passed immigration bill [HR 4437 summary] that has sparked protests [JURIST report] across the country, noted that five out of six countries studied, including Mexico, "make illegal entry and unlawful presence a criminal offense." Likewise, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Egypt can jail employers for three months to three years for hiring illegal immigrants. The Law Library of Congress found that Brazil was the only country of the six that does not have criminal penalties for illegal immigrants.
The House bill would make being in the US illegally a felony; illegal entry and re-entering after deportation are currently misdemeanors, while illegal presence in the US is a civil offense. Although the House has passed the bill [JURIST report], the Senate has not voted on the proposal [JURIST report] yet. Immigrants across the country organized protests Monday, as part of the "Day Without Immigrants" [advocacy website] effort to influence Congress. AP has more.


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

|

Witness testimony underway in second DC sniper trial
Jaime Jansen on May 5, 2006 3:40 PM ET

[JURIST] John Allen Muhammad [BBC profile], representing himself, began questioning witnesses Friday in his second trial [JURIST report] involving the three-week shooting spree [BBC backgrounder] in the Washington, DC area in 2002. Jury selection in the trial began on Monday [JURIST report]. In his opening statement, Muhammad portrayed himself as a distraught father who was in Maryland to search for his children, who he lost in a custody dispute. Muhammad also told jurors that his evidence, relying on "quantum physics, immaterial evidence and material evidence," will show jurors that both Muhammad and accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo [BBC profile] are innocent. Muhammad has already been sentenced to death [JURIST report] for one murder in Virginia, and now faces six murder charges in Maryland. Malvo was also convicted of the Virginia murder and is serving a life sentence.
In her opening statement, Deputy State's Attorney Katherine Winfree said the prosecution's evidence would include eye witnesses and DNA evidence implicating Muhammad. The prosecution is not seeking the death penalty [JURIST report] in this case. AP has more.


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

|

Federal appeals court skeptical of FCC Internet wiretap rules during hearing
Jaime Jansen on May 5, 2006 3:01 PM ET

[JURIST] US Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards on Friday criticized new Bush administration rules that make it easier for law enforcement officials to wiretap Internet phone calls during arguments in front of the federal appeals court in Washington, DC. The Federal Communications Commission [official website] created the new rules [FCC press release, PDF] last year, which mandate standards to allow wiretaps of Internet phone calls, prompting immediate objections from Internet phone providers because the rules would require them to rewire their networks at high costs. The new rules are scheduled to take effect in May 2007. Edwards was particularly skeptical of the FCC's decision to require Internet phone service providers to ensure that their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) [text; FCC materials]. In response to the government's argument that Internet phone service could provide a "surveillance safe haven" and that Congress intended to include high speed Internet services because they are functionally equivalent to traditional telephones when it passed CALEA, Edwards told FCC lawyer Jacob Lewis that the FCC argument "makes no sense" and later called the government's courtroom arguments "gobbledygook." The court seemed to support the government's argument for Internet phone services because they are so similar to traditional telephones, but seemed to disagree with including high speed Internet access in CALEA. The FCC voted [JURIST report] on Wednesday to require [press release, PDF] Internet phone service providers to cover the cost of providing mandatory wiretap access to law enforcement.
Edwards' sharp criticism of the FCC encouraged the privacy and education groups that petitioned [JURIST report] the court, including the Center for Democracy and Technology [advocacy website] and the American Council on Education [association website]. In an unrelated case last year concerning digital television, two of the same three judges threw out [opinion text, PDF] new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices; Lewis represented the FCC in that case as well. AP has more.


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

|

UK Home Secretary sacked after deportation review blunder
Jeannie Shawl on May 5, 2006 2:57 PM ET

[JURIST] UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke [BBC profile] was dropped from Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet in a major cabinet shuffle [PM materials; BBC backgrounder] Friday and was replaced [press release] by John Reid [official profile], who formerly served as Defence Secretary. The shuffle, which also saw UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw replaced by Margaret Beckett [official profile], followed poor local election results for the Labour Party and a series of scandals that have plagued the government in recent weeks. Clarke came under fire in April after he admitted to a "shocking administrative blunder" that resulted in the release of 1023 foreign criminals [JURIST report] in the past seven years who were to have undergone deportation inquiries. Clarke had hoped to stay on to resolve the issue, but Blair said Friday that "it was very difficult, given the level of genuine public concern, for Charles to continue in this post."
In a statement [text] Friday, Clarke said: As I've sought to make the necessary changes to what are very deep-seated and long-standing problems, I have uncovered areas where still more and faster change is needed.
One such issue is how to deal with foreign national prisoners - for which I have taken overall responsibility and on which I have staked my reputation.
The prime minister, as is his right and responsibility, has made the judgement that my continued occupation of the post of home secretary is likely to stand in the way of the continued reforms which remain necessary and though I do not agree with that judgement, I entirely accept his right to make it.
However, I do not think it would be appropriate to remain in government in these circumstances and return to the backbenches, where I will be a strong and active supporter of this government and the leadership of Tony Blair for his full parliamentary term. UK rights group Liberty [advocacy website] welcomed the decision [press release] to sack Clarke, saying "Mr Clarke may feel harshly judged today but for his anti free speech and ID card laws and for instituting punishment without trial, our children may judge him even more harshly tomorrow." BBC News has more.


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

|

BREAKING NEWS ~ Porter Goss resigns as CIA director
Jeannie Shawl on May 5, 2006 1:54 PM ET

[JURIST] AP is reporting that Porter Goss [official profile], director of the US Central Intelligence Agency [official website] has resigned. Goss, a former CIA and Army intelligence officer who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence while a member of Congress, was nominated and approved by the Senate [JURIST reports] to head the CIA in 2004.
During Goss' tenure as CIA director, the intelligence agency has come under fire for using interrogation techniques that could be construed as torture when questioning detainees. Last fall, Goss insisted that the CIA does not engage in torture [JURIST report] when interrogating detainees and said that interrogators strictly obey torture laws [JURIST report] when trying to obtain information from prisoners. The CIA has also come under scrutiny for allegations [JURIST report] that it has operated secret prisons in Europe and claims that US rendition [JURIST news archive] policies allow the transfer of terror suspects to countries known to use torture. AP has more.
3:09 PM ET - Announcing the resignation Friday afternoon, Bush praised Goss as having ably led the agency, saying: He's got a five-year plan to increase the number of analysts and operatives, which is going to help make this country a safer place and help us win the war on terror. He's instilled a sense of professionalism. He honors the proud history of the CIA, an organization that is known for its secrecy and accountability. Read the full text of Bush's remarks.


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

|

US defends detainee treatment, denies torture at UN panel hearing
Jeannie Shawl on May 5, 2006 11:59 AM ET

[JURIST] US Department of State legal adviser John Bellinger [official profile] defended US policies on the treatment of detainees as the UN Committee against Torture [official website] began its review Friday of US compliance with the Convention against Torture [text]. During the first of two days of hearings, the committee focused their questions [issue list, PDF] on whether the US has established criminal responsibility up the chain of command for acts of torture [JURIST news archive] by US forces and allegations that the US has used extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] to transfer terror suspects to countries that have been known to use torture. Bellinger said that the US is "absolutely committed to uphold its national and international obligations to eradicate torture" and that "there are no exceptions to this prohibition." Addressing reporters after the hearing concluded, Bellinger said that provisions in the torture convention that prohibit transferring detainees to countries where they could be tortured do not apply to detainee "transfers that take place outside of the United States." Bellinger did add, however, that the US has "as a policy matter, applied exactly the same standards" to such transfers.
Members of the US delegation also emphasized that there have been "relatively few actual cases of abuse" of terror detainees and Bellinger said that some allegations have been widely exaggerated. Deputy US Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Stimson told the UN panel that of the 120 detainee deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, abuse was suspected in only 29 cases. He said that the deaths had been investigated and appropriate action taken. Stimson also said that no detainees have died at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. The US will continue to defend its record when the committee reconvenes Monday afternoon. Reuters has more.
Bellinger and Stimson's testimony comes a day after two US-based human rights groups released shadow reports highly critical of US compliance with the torture convention. The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch [advocacy websites] each submitted reports to the UN committee; the HRW Supplemental Submission to the Committee Against Torture [text] outlines "new laws, policies, and practices that reflect the continuing failure of the U.S. to fully accept its obligations under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." The ACLU submitted a 343-page report [PDF text; additional materials] concluding that "The U.S. government is in clear and unequivocal violation of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture." Reuters has more.


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

|

International brief ~ Nepal forms judicial commission to investigate protest deaths
D. Wes Rist on May 5, 2006 9:38 AM ET

[JURIST] Leading Friday's international brief, the newly formed political cabinet [JURIST report] in Nepal has agreed on the membership of a judicial commission that will investigate state police and security force actions during pro-democracy protests [JURIST news archive] last month that led to the capitulation of King Gyanendra [official profile], allowing the formation of a new democratic government in Nepal. Former Nepal Supreme Court Justice Krishna Jung Raymajhi will head the commission, which will have the power to investigate individuals suspected of contributing to the 19 deaths and hundreds of injuries that occurred during the protests. The new government has already vowed to pursue criminal prosecution of individuals alleged to have suppressed the protests. eKantipur.com has local coverage.
In other international legal news ... - A deputy to one of the first individuals ever indicted by the International Criminal Court [official website] and an acknowledged perpetrator of crimes against humanity while serving in the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) [MIPT backgrounder] was called as a state witness by the prosecution in the Ugandan criminal trial of opposition leader Kizza Besigye [JURIST news archive]. Alfred Onen Kamdulu, a deputy to ICC indictee Joseph Kony [ICC arrest warrant, PDF], and a mastermind behind the death of thousands of Ugandans and the kidnapping of thousands of children for the LRA's "child army," was called as a prosecution witness who would allegedly link Besigye to the rebel LRA group and help the state prove charges of treason. Defense lawyers for Besigye and the other 22 defendants objected to Kamdulu's status as a witness and asked the court to disallow the prosecution the right to call Kamdulu as a witness, warning that permitting his testimony would set legal precedent for the state granting impunity to those alleged to have committed crimes against humanity. Public prosecutors asked for a recess to prepare a response and the court has adjourned until Tuesday. Uganda's Daily Monitor has local coverage.
- Three Indonesian judges who walked out of a bribery investigation into judicial officials as a sign of protest will have to appear before Indonesia's Judicial Commission and face possible punishment if their actions are determined to have been a violation of the judicial code of ethics or an act of contempt of court. The judges left after the presiding judge refused to call Indonesia's chief judicial official, Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan, to answer questions concerning evidence that implicates him in a judicial bribery scandal. All three judges are special appointees from universities, supposedly included on the investigation panel to give legitimacy to a review of judicial officials by judicial officials. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Indonesia [JURIST news archive]. The Jakarta Post has local coverage.
- The UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) [official website] announced on Thursday that it would be sending expert representatives to assist [press release] an ongoing African Union [official website] investigation into allegations of sexual abuse [JURIST report] by AU peacekeepers in the Darfur region [JURIST news archive] of Sudan. The AU opened a Committee of Inquiry [AU press release, PDF] to investigate whether allegations of sexual abuse by AU peacekeepers were valid and to ensure proper prosecution of those accused, if the allegations are confirmed. UNIFEM has praised the AU for its prompt response to the initial allegations. The Sudan Tribune has local coverage.


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

|

Senate panel OKs demand for legal opinion on interrogation methods
Jeannie Shawl on May 5, 2006 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] on Thursday added a provision to the 2007 defense spending bill which would require the Bush administration to provide "a US government coordinated legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005." The provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [S 2507 summary] as the committee completed markup [press release, PDF] of the bill. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [JURIST document], passed as part of the 2006 military spending bill, prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government," but clear rules defining these terms have yet to be provided to military interrogators. US Defense Department [official website] officials have been updating the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] to provide clearer guidelines, but the revised manual has not yet been released [JURIST report], supposedly due to debate on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. The Defense Department's draft would keep secret specific descriptions of what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, but Armed Services Committee members have raised concerns that by keeping this information classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law.
The US House is set to vote on its defense spending bill next week, and the full Senate could begin debate on the Senate version by the end of the month. The interrogation opinion provision will become law only if it is still included in the reconciled version of the spending bill eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. AP has more.


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

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