 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, November 29, 2007 |
 |
|


Venezuela protesters rally against proposed constitutional reforms
Nick Fiske on November 29, 2007 6:02 PM ET

[JURIST] Thousands of protesters filled the streets of Caracas, Venezuela on Thursday to voice their opposition to 69 constitutional amendments [JURIST report] proposed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez [BBC Profile]. The proposed reforms, which will be put to a national referendum on Sunday, would extend the presidential term from six to seven years, eliminate the limit on the number of terms a president may serve, bring the currently independent Central Bank under the control of the government, and give the government greater authority to expropriate private property without court approval. Earlier this month, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved [JURIST report] the reforms by a 160-7 vote, clearing the way for the two-part national referendum on December 2.
Chavez has touted the constitutional changes as necessary to advance Venezuela's socialist revolution, and planned to lead rallies for those in favor of the amendments on Friday. Human Rights Watch has warned that the reforms would violate international law [press release] by allowing the president to suspend due process guarantees during times of emergency. Opposition politicians have accused Chavez[JURIST report] of using the constitutional reforms to consolidate his power over Venezuela. Former Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Baduel has also spoken out against the constitutional reforms [JURIST report]. AP has more. El Universal has local coverage, in Spanish.
11/30/07 - Human Rights Watch Thursday criticized the proposed constitutional amendments as threatening fundamental human rights. According to the HRW statement: The proposed changes would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process guarantees during states of emergency. They would also eliminate specific time limits on states of emergency, giving the president de facto power to suspend due process and other basic rights indefinitely. Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that these provisions could lead to suspension of fundamental rights in violation of international law, as the proposed amendments would also eliminate the requirement that such restrictions "meet the requirements, principles, and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights."


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

|

Philippines officers linked to 2003 coup take over hotel, demand Arroyo resignation
Alexis Unkovic on November 29, 2007 3:14 PM ET

[JURIST] About a dozen officers on trial in the Philippines [JURIST news archive] in connection with a failed 2003 mutiny [BBC report] Thursday walked out of court, took control of a Manila hotel, and demanded the resignation of Philippine President Gloria Arroyo [official website; BBC profile]. Philippine military and police forces subsequently regained control of the hotel after a lengthy confrontation. The military officers and several civilian sympathizers, including former Vice President Teofisto Guingona [official profile], were taken into custody. Reports indicate that courtroom security forces did not prevent the officers from leaving the court, and in fact escorted them to the hotel. After the siege, Arroyo announced a 12 to 5 am curfew in the capital city, but said she has no doubts about the loyalty of the army as a whole.
In April, a Philippine military tribunal sentenced 54 military officers [JURIST report] to seven years and six months in prison for their involvement in the 2003 coup attempt. Charges were later dismissed [JURIST report] in October against four additional military officers connected to the same mutiny. AFP has more. AP has additional coverage.


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

|

Leahy rejects White House executive privilege claim in US Attorney firings probe
Joshua Pantesco on November 29, 2007 12:00 PM ET

[JURIST] US Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on Thursday rejected White House assertions of executive privilege in the ongoing congressional investigations into the US Attorneys firing scandal [JURIST news archive]. Leahy issued a ruling [text and press release] in which he directed the White House to comply with formal committee subpoenas [JURIST report] for documents and the testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, former White House political director Sara M. Taylor, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and White House deputy political director J. Scott Jennings. The subpoenas were issued over the summer in connection with the committee's investigation into the "politization of the White House, particularly in the hirings and firings of US Attorneys." In response, the Bush Administration has asserted claims of executive privilege [JURIST report] and immunity from the subpoenas. Leahy's ruling said: That [White House counsel Fred] Fielding asserts executive privilege on behalf of the President is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the President had no involvement in these firings. To date, the President has not taken responsibility for the firings and his own statements regarding the firings refer to others making the decisions. The Attorney General's former chief of staff, the former political director at the White House and the Attorney General himself have testified under oath that they did not talk to the President about these firings. Courts analyzing executive privilege claims have made clear that the purpose of the privilege is to protect the President's ability to receive candid advice. The President's lack of involvement in these firings - by his own account and that of many others - calls into question any claim of executive privilege. Leahy also dismissed the Administration's claim of immunity from the subpoenas as unsupported by any judicial precedent.
It is unclear how the Bush Administration will respond to Leahy's ruling. The ruling allows the committee to vote on contempt citations if the Administration continues to stonewall the subpoena. Taylor and Jennings have testified before the Senate committee, but repeatedly refused to answer questions [JURIST report], citing executive privilege. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers face possible contempt charges [JURIST report] for refusing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee or produce documents relating to the US Attorney firings. The House panel voted [JURIST report] in July to issue contempt of Congress citations [backgrounder; 2 USC Sec. 192] against Bolten and Miers and the full House will soon decide whether to sanction the two for their refusal to comply with the subpoenas.
The House and Senate investigations, according to Leahy's ruling, have accumulated substantial evidence from the Department of Justice showing that "the list for firings was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Karl Rove. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is now apparent that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up." AP has more.


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

|

UK Enron bankers plead guilty in fraud case
Joshua Pantesco on November 29, 2007 10:52 AM ET

[JURIST] The three British bankers known as the NatWest three [JURIST news archive] pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of wire fraud as part of a plea deal with prosecutors. David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary had been indicted on seven counts of wire fraud [indictment, PDF] for allegedly entering into a secret agreement with former Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow [Chronicle profile] to defraud National Westminster Bank of $19 million while keeping $7 million for themselves. The trial was scheduled to begin in January. The judge has discretion to accept or deny the plea deal, under which the three former bankers agreed to serve a 37-month sentence, repay the $7.3 million they are believed to have fraudulently earned from the deal, and subject themselves to a civil suit in Britain brought by their former employer. The Independent has more. AP has additional coverage.
The three were extradited to the US [JURIST report] pursuant to an extradition treaty that subsequently came under heavy criticism [JURIST report] in the UK Parliament as "lopsided." The 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty [text, PDF; Statewatch backgrounder], incorporated into UK law through the Extradition Act [text], requires only a showing of prima facie evidence by the requesting country, a lower evidentiary standard than probable cause. In July, UK lawmakers also pushed for the treaty to include a presumption that British citizens accused of committing crimes in the UK should be tried there.


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

|

Civilian Musharraf takes presidential oath as Pakistan lawyers protest
Joshua Pantesco on November 29, 2007 9:00 AM ET

[JURIST] Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was sworn in to a new five-year term as the country's civilian president Thursday, taking the oath of office [text] under the 1973 Constitution a day after stepping down as chief of the army [JURIST report]. Delivering his inaugural address [APP report], Musharraf defended his decision to declare a state of emergency [PDF text; JURIST news archive] earlier this month, saying it was necessary to preserve democracy in Pakistan: "we want democracy, we want human rights, we want stability, but we will do it in our own way." Musharraf's role as army chief complicated his recent bid for re-election as president, with several legal challenges filed against him in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court, reconstituted with Musharraf loyalists after the state of emergency was put in place November 3, dismissed all legal challenges [JURIST report] to Musharraf's re-election last week. AP has more.
As Musharraf was being sworn in, several hundred Pakistani lawyers gathered in the streets of Lahore to protest. The local bar association president said that between 12 and 15 lawyers were injured and seven were arrested as police used batons to beat and drive back the protesters. A police spokesperson denied that any arrests had been made and said the crackdown was legal under the declaration of emergency law, which remains in effect. AFP has more.
10:40 AM ET - Musharraf said Thursday evening in an address on state television that emergency rule would be lifted on December 16, several weeks before general elections are scheduled to take place in early January. BBC News has more.
11/30/07 - At least 10 protesters were injured during the demonstration in Lahore and police cited approximately 150 lawyers with violations of Pakistan's anti-terror and public order laws. Dawn has local coverage.


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

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