[JURIST] British newspapers reported Sunday that incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown [official profile] intends to reintroduce tough terrorism measures [Times report] previously rejected by parliament when he takes office later this month on the departure of current British PM Tony Blair. Brown has said that police should be able to detain terror suspects without charge for more than 28 days, and he has backed reinstatement of a clause in a terror bill outlawing "glorification of terrorism."

An initially proposed 90-day detention period for terror suspects was defeated in a House of Commons vote in November 2006, when current 28-day period was substituted [JURIST report] upping an original 14. In January 2006, the House of Lords rejected a proposed "glorification of terrorism" offense [JURIST report] in the planned Terrorism Bill, calling it unworkable and "not sufficiently legally certain." Brown also supports making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing and reviewing laws banning the use of phone tap evidence in court. AP has more.

[JURIST] Federal authorities arrested three men Saturday and are still searching for a fourth after foiling a terrorist plot to bomb John F. Kennedy International Airport [official website]. The complaint [PDF text] charging the four men claims the plot was intended to "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks," according to one of the suspects. The plot could have destroyed parts of New York's borough of Queens [official website], where an underground fuel pipeline serving the airport runs.

Authorities have been tracking the plot for more than a year. The suspects include Russell Defreitas, a US citizen native to Guyana and former JFK air cargo employee, Abdul Kadir of Guyana, Kareem Ibrahim of Trinidad, and Abdel Nur of Guyana, who is still being sought in Trinidad. Defreitas said he formed the plot more than a decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler. He said he chose the airport because its destruction would put "the whole country in mourning." AP has more.

[JURIST] The Connecticut House of Representatives approved a bill [materials] Saturday night that prohibits the state from from taking property solely to boost property taxes. The measure, approved by the state Senate last week, reflects a compromise between the state and its homeowners after a years-long property rights battle. In June 2005, Susan Kelo took her eminent domain [JURIST news archive] case to the US Supreme Court [official website] after the Connecticut city of New London seized her property for private redevelopment. The Court ruled [opinion text] in favor of New London, holding that the city could expropriate private property for private redevelopment [JURIST report] when the taking would economically benefit the community.

Voters in nine US states [JURIST report] reacted strongly against the Supreme Court's decision by approving ballot initiatives in last year's mid-term elections that restrict the use of eminent domain. The Connecticut measure requires a public hearing and the approval of the municipal legislative body before the taking of private property can occur. It also requires that homeowners be compensated for 125 percent of the average value of the property. AP has more.