 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, September 1, 2010 |
 |
|


DOJ files criminal charges against Pakistan Taliban leader
Daniel Richey on September 1, 2010 3:31 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced [press release] Wednesday that it has charged [complaint, PDF] Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimulla Mehsud [NYT profile] in connection with the December 30 attack [WP backgrounder] on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] Afghan outpost Camp Chapman that left nine people dead. Mehsud identifies himself as the head of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) [CTC Sentinel Backgrounder], a Pakistan-based terrorist cell affiliated with the Afghan Taliban. The filing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], charges Mehsud with conspiracy to murder US citizens abroad and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against US citizens abroad. According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Mehsud met with Jordanian physician Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi in Afghanistan shortly before al-Balawi entered Camp Chapman with explosives hidden in his clothing and detonated them, killing nine people, including seven CIA agents. Following the attack, TTP released a video of Mehsud and al-Balawi claiming responsibility for the attack and explaining their motives: "We arranged this attack to let the Americans understand that belief of Allah, the iman [faith] that we hold, the taqwa [piety] that we strive for cannot be exchanged for all the wealth in the world." The men also said that the attack was executed as revenge for the death of former TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud [BBC profile], who was killed [Guardian report] by a CIA air strike last August.
Also Wednesday, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] announced that it has declared the TTP a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) [press release] under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [materials]. "Today's actions put the TTP and its sympathizers on notice that the United States will not tolerate support of this organization," said DOS Coordinator for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin. "TTP's destabilizing effect in Pakistan's tribal areas has resulted in innumerable civilian deaths and considerable property losses." The DOS also announced a $5 million bounty for information leading to the capture of Mehsud.
The DOJ says Hakimullah Mehsud is currently "a fugitive believed to be residing in the [Federally Administered Tribal Area] (FATA)" in the southern region of Pakistan. However, reports emerged in January suggesting that he had died [NYT report] from wounds sustained during a January 14 drone attack in the tribal region. Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly assumed leadership [BBC report] of the TTP after Baitullah's death. TTP has been implicated in or claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including multiple assaults on NATO supply lines in the FATA, a 2009 attack on a police station in the Bannu province and the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [JURIST report], for which Baitullah Mehsud was charged [JURIST report] in a Pakistani anti-terrorism court. According to the DOJ, the TTP is believed to have coordinated most of their efforts with other terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.


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

|

Illinois ex-governor Ryan appeals conviction following honest services ruling
Andrea Bottorff on September 1, 2010 1:24 PM ET

[JURIST] Former Illinois governor George Ryan [JURIST news archive] on Tuesday filed a motion [materials] in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website] asking the judge to vacate his prison sentence, following a recent US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] decision that allegedly set new precedent supporting Ryan's appeal. In June, the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Skilling v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the "honest services" doctrine [18 USC § 1346 text] is not unconstitutionally vague under a limited construction of the statute. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and remanded the conviction of Canadian media mogul Conrad Black [JURIST news archive] after holding in Skilling that the honest service statute was limited to bribery and kickbacks. Ryan argues that under this new "honest services" precedent, he should be released from prison and his convictions for mail fraud and for violations of the Rackteer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [18 USC § 1961 et seq.] should be thrown out. Ryan is currently serving a 6 1/2-year sentence [JURIST report] in federal prison on corruption charges and is scheduled for release in July 2013 [FBP materials].
Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich [JURIST news archive] also tried to cite Skilling in his defense against corruption charges. However, in June, the presiding judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a request [JURIST report] to delay the Blagojevich trial, holding that the Supreme Court's decision was unlikely to affect Blagojevich's case. In 2008, Ryan issued his first public apology [JURIST report] for the crimes that resulted in his imprisonment. Ryan was sentenced in 2007 and jailed [JURIST reports] on corruption charges. Ryan's trial began in 2005, and, in 2006, a jury found him guilty [JURIST reports] on multiple counts of corruption and fraud [indictment, PDF] in connection with a bribes-for-licenses scandal that occurred during Ryan's term as Illinois Secretary of State. Ryan made national headlines and won praise in some quarters in January 2003 when, just before leaving office, he commuted the executions [BBC report] of all Illinois inmates then on death row.


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

|

Texas appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban
Dwyer Arce on September 1, 2010 1:05 PM ET

[JURIST] The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that the state ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] does not violate the US Constitution. The court also held that state trial courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the divorce of same-sex couples married in another state, overturning a 2009 ruling in which the 302nd Family District Court [official website] held that it had jurisdiction [JURIST report] over same-sex divorces and that the same-sex marriage ban violates the Equal Protection Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] of the US Constitution. The appeals court found that the family court did not have jurisdiction because allowing subject matter jurisdiction in the case would violate a state law preventing the state from "confer[ring] the legal status of marriage upon any relationship besides the union of one man and one woman." Addressing equal protection, the court found that the case of Baker v. Nelson [text], in which the US Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a Minnesota same-sex marriage ban "for want of a substantial federal question," was not determinative. The court found that the standard of review in the case is rational basis because homosexuals are not a suspect class in equal protection analysis:The persons singled out and favored by Texas's marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate. The state's interest in "fostering relationships that will serve children best" is a legitimate interest within the state's authority to regulate. Thus, although a person's sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society in general, it does bear on whether he or she will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation and thus trigger the state's legitimate interest in child-rearing. Accordingly, [precedent] does not support appellee's contention that homosexuals are a suspect class.We conclude that homosexuals are not a suspect class, that persons who choose to marry persons of the same sex are not a suspect class, and that the Texas law at issue in this case does not discriminate against a suspect class. In applying rational basis, the court found that the ban met this standard because of the state's "legitimate interest in promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting. ... The legislature could reasonably conclude that the institution of civil marriage as it has existed in this country from the beginning has successfully provided this desirable social structure and should be preserved."
The Texas ruling stands in contrast to the decision handed down last month by a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], finding that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. In the ruling, the court found that even though homosexuals should be treated as a suspect class, it was unnecessary because the ban failed to satisfy even rational basis review. Citing the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans [text], the court held that "moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a women is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, ... is not a proper basis on which to legislate." The case is currently being appealed [JURIST report] to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage, including the District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts [JURIST reports] and the Coquille Indian Tribe [OregonLive report].


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

|

Federal judge dismisses police officer suit against Arizona immigration law
Ann Riley on September 1, 2010 9:53 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] on Tuesday granted a motion to dismiss [order, PDF] a police officer's suit [JURIST report] challenging Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials, JURIST news archive]. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] filed a motion to dismiss the challenge made by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar arguing that the new immigration law would force him to violate Latinos' civil rights and subject him to legal action. Judge Susan Bolton accepted Brewer's argument that Escobar lacks standing to bring the suit and that he did not sufficiently show that, under the law, he would suffer direct and immediate harm entitling him to relief. Bolton noted that, while agencies and governments would be liable for not enforcing the law, it "does not appear to impose liability on individual law enforcement officers." Escobar v. Brewer is the second SB 1070-related lawsuit to be dismissed. Last week, Bolton dismissed a lawsuit [Arizona Capitol Times report] filed by Roberto Frisancho, challenging that the law would prohibit him from traveling to Arizona to conduct research on illegal immigrants.
Also last week, Brewer filed the state's opening brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website], asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction blocking Arizona's immigration law from taking full effect. In the brief, Arizona argued that the preliminary injunction should be vacated because Bolton applied the wrong legal standard in issuing the preliminary injunction. Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for expedited appeal [JURIST reports]. The preliminary injunction [JURIST report] came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] in July. Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling. The American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website].


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

|

UN official calls for DRC militias to face war crimes for mass rapes
Ann Riley on September 1, 2010 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict Margot Wallstrom [EU profile] on Tuesday called for an end to impunity for leaders of militias and armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] for conducting mass rapes, saying that perpetrators would face war crimes charges [UN News Centre report]. UN representatives allege that Congolese rebel groups Mai Mai and the Democratic Liberation Force of Rwanda (FDLR) [GlobalSecurity backgrounders] raped between 150 and 200 women and children [NYT report] in a small cluster of villages in eastern DRC between July 30 and August 3 of this year. The attackers allegedly blocked all communication [BBC report] from the villages, preventing villagers from alerting UN peacekeepers stationed nearby. Wallstrom noted that stability in the DRC cannot be achieved unless the security of its women is ensured, saying [video]:So long as rapists remain at large, they hold the whole reputation of the Congo hostage...The time when sexual violence is tolerated and sidelined as a product of war is over...[Y]ou cannot have a policy of zero tolerance backed by zero consequences. Wallstrom outlined a two-pronged approach for responding to the sexual violence in the DRC; first elevating sexual violence on the agendas of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council [official websites] and then improving UN response and enhancing the joint DRC Government and UN strategy to combating sexual violence [text, PDF].
Last week, members of the Security Council expressed "outrage" [JURIST report] over the recent mass rape in the DRC calling for justice for the victims. Human rights have long been a major concern in the DRC. In June, national police chief John Numbi was suspended [JURIST report] as part of the ongoing investigation into the murder of human rights activist Floribert Chebeya. In December, HRW urged the UN Organization Mission in DR Congo (MUNOC) [official website] to stop funding military groups [JURIST report] in the country that are committing human rights abuses. In December 2008, AI reported that rape and sexual warfare have been employed [JURIST report] by both the DRC military and by rebel forces. In November 2008, MUNOC head Alan Doss [appointment release] condemned [JURIST report] the killing of civilians by militias in the country as war crimes. MONUC has been operating in DRC since 1999. The conflict in the DRC has claimed more than four million lives and has been ongoing since 1983. MONUC has overseen elections and continues to provide armed protection for civilians in certain areas, particularly the North and South Kivus provinces.


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

|

Obama administration appeals stem cell research block
Daniel Richey on September 1, 2010 8:06 AM ET

[JURIST] The Obama administration on Tuesday appealed [notice of appeal, PDF; motion to stay, PDF] last week's ruling by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] that granted a preliminary injunction [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research [JURIST news archive]. The administration argues that Judge Royce Lamberth's holding is overbroad, endangering an array of research across multiple programs and centers while only serving a very attenuated economic interest of the plaintiffs in the case. According to the filing, the injunction threatens 24 research projects, more than 1,300 jobs and $64 million in funding, as well as potentially millions of Americans who may benefit from medical advances in the field of stem cell research. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has asked the court to rule on the appeal by September 7. Meanwhile, in response to last week's ruling, Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) [official website] has called for new legislation [press release] to reform embryonic stem cell research restrictions.
Lamberth granted the injunction on the basis that the federal funding violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a provision at Division F, Section 509 of the annual Omnibus Appropriations Act [2009 edition materials], which prohibits appropriated funds from financing research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused similar changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S 5 materials], which was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos. In 2006, Bush vetoed a previous version [JURIST report] of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Senate to remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying he would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because many consider the destruction of embryos to be murder.


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

|

Europe rights court reviewing Russia freedom of assembly complaint
Sarah Paulsworth on September 1, 2010 7:50 AM ET

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] has begun considering a lawsuit filed by three Russian activists alleging their right to freedom of assembly has been violated, their lawyer said Tuesday. The court is reportedly deciding whether the case merits priority consideration [RIA Novosti]. The lawsuit stems from Russian law enforcement officials' suppression of protests [FH statement] being carried out by political and human rights activists. The three plaintiffs, chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Other Russia opposition party leader Eduard Limonov, and Left Front opposition movement member Konstantin Kosyakin, are seeking USD $127,000 in damages for alleged violations of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights [materials], which envisages Right to Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association. Russian activists have been holding protests at the end of all of the months that have 31 days to call attention to Article 31 of the Russian Constitution [text], which provides for freedom of assembly. Their most recent protest [Moscow Times report], during which they were joined by members of the European Parliament, was held on Tuesday. During the protests, dozens of protesters were detained but later released [Echo Moskovsy report; in Russian].
The US State Department (DOS) [official website] criticized Russia [JURIST report] in its 2009 report on Human Rights Practices [text], writing that "[t]he government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest." In a January 31 protest, more than 100 protesters were arrested [JURIST report]. According to statistics [chart; PDF] from the ECHR, Russia has more complaints than any other country pending before the court. The ECHR has recently issued several high-profile decisions related to Russia, including a ruling [JURIST report] in March that Russia was responsible for disappearances in Chechnya.


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

|

DC Circuit denies rehearing for Yemeni Guantanamo detainee
Daniel Richey on September 1, 2010 7:11 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Tuesday denied [order, PDF] a request for an en banc rehearing of the case of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Gahleb Nassar Al-Bihani [NYT materials]. In January, the court found [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] Al-Bihani "was both part of and substantially supported enemy forces" and held that his detention was authorized by domestic law. Al-Bihani's petition asked the court to rehear the case in order to resolve another issueits additional finding in the January decision that the president's detention authority is not constrained by international law. In a statement by Chief Judge David Sentelle, joined by a majority of the court, the panel said it denied the appeal on the grounds that the issue of international law of war was "not necessary to the disposition of the merits."
January's ruling was the DC Circuit's first Guantanamo habeas corpus ruling since the US Supreme Court decided Boumedine v. Bush [opinion text; JURIST report] in 2008. While all three members of the panel concurred in the result, one member wrote separately to question the conclusion that international laws of war have no bearing on the president's detention authority. In July, the DC Circuit ruled in Bensaya v. Obama [opinion, PDF] that the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that an enemy combatant is "part of" a terrorist group [JURIST report]. The circuit court held that the government's authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [text, PDF] only extends to the detention of individuals who are "functionally part of" a terrorist organization. Bensayah was the only one of the six petitioners from Boumediene who was not granted habeas relief after the Supreme Court remanded the case for further review of evidence.


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

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