 |
|

Legal news from Sunday, July 23, 2006 |
 |
|


UN humanitarian chief touring Beirut says excessive force violates international law
Bernard Hibbitts on July 23, 2006 11:31 AM ET

[JURIST] Touring south Beirut Sunday, United Nations relief coordinator Jan Egeland [official profile; JURIST news archive] said the damage to civilian areas caused by Israeli airstrikes [JURIST news archive] was worse than he had anticipated and reemphasized that attacking civilians was illegal under intrenational norms. "It is horrific. I did not know it was block after block of houses... It seems to be an excessive use of force in an area with so many civilians," said Egeland, described by reporters as "visibly shocked." "It makes it a violation of humanitarian law." He acknowledged, however, that he did not have all the information he might want: "What we do not know, for humanitarians, what was between these buildings, what military targets? But it seems excessive."
Egeland and the UN are attempting to co-ordinate the creation of three humanitarian corridors [Reuters report] over sea to allow aid to come in to the war-torn area. Israeli air attacks on portions of Beirut and Hezbollah rocket attacks on Haifa and other areas in northern Israel continued Sunday. Reuters has more.
During a stopover in Cyprus Saturday Egeland expressed frustration with the general situation: "The whole thing has to stop. It's no natural disaster but a man-made crisis. This is a senseless war. It should never have started. It should never have been carried out like it is now." He said the Hezbollah rocket attacks were "deplorable and despicable," but added that Israel's response had been "disproportionate, when to my thinking one third of the wounded and killed are women and children, then it clearly goes far beyond responding to armed groups." Reuters has more.


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

|

US commanders authorized widespread abuse of Iraqi detainees: HRW report
Bernard Hibbitts on July 23, 2006 10:59 AM ET

[JURIST] US military commanders in Iraq regularly authorized torture and abusive interrogation practices even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal [JURIST news archive], and military lawyers brought in to brief interrogators erroneously told them that the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials] did not apply to their detainees, according to a new Human Rights Watch report [text] released Sunday. The report, based partly on interviews with US soldiers, also says that soldiers who objected to the harsh interrogation methods were regularly discouraged from making or pursuing complaints. Two US detention facilities in Iraq - an off-limits site at Baghdad airport called Camp Nama [JURIST report] whose inmates were never registered with the Red Cross, contrary to international law, and another site in Mosul - were singled out as being particularly abuse-prone.
John Sifton, who authored the HRW report, said These accounts rebut U.S. government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorized and exceptional on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used. While several enlisted soldiers were court-martialed in connection with Abu Ghraib, not one intelligence officer or commander has yet been prosecuted for detainee abuses. Responding to the report, a US military spokesman said that "The standard of treatment is and always has been humane treatment of detainees in DOD's custody." HRW has more. Reuters has additional coverage.


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

|

DOJ political appointees changing Civil Rights Division hiring, focus
Jeannie Shawl on July 23, 2006 10:34 AM ET

[JURIST] Less than half of lawyers hired to work in the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division [official website] since 2003 have a background in civil rights, according to resumes obtained by the Boston Globe through a Freedom of Information Act request. In late 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft [official profile] changed hiring procedures throughout the department, replacing traditional hiring committees consisting of veteran career lawyers with panels made up of political appointees. Subsequent to the change in hiring practices, the number of new lawyers hired with a background in civil rights law has dropped dramatically, and there has been a sharp increase in the number of new lawyers with strong conservative credentials. There has also been a shift in the types of cases the division is pursuing. The division, which was established in 1957 [DOJ historical perspective, PDF] to pursue civil rights claims against local and state governments and approve election law changes in areas with a history of voter discrimination, has been filing an increasing number of lawsuits in the past several years alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.
A DOJ spokesman defended the new hiring practices, saying the agency only hires qualified lawyers, and other supporters say that the change was necessary to bring balance to the traditionally liberal civil rights division. Meanwhile, after the Washington Post controversially reported last November that lawyers were leaving the Civil Rights division in record numbers [JURIST report; DOJ response], staffers told the Globe that morale continues to be low and that experienced attorneys are leaving the department because of the shift in agenda. Sunday's Boston Globe has more.


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

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