First of all, because Congress didn't use the term "cocaine," which is used elsewhere in the provision, it clearly meant a subset. It didn't mean all of the substances with the chemical formula that satisfies the chemical term "cocaine." Second of all, the statute shows just by the 100-to-1 ratio that Congress was focused on something that was especially dangerous, much more dangerous than powder. Third, the legislative context was, as the Court said in Kimbrough, that this was a statute that was enacted in response to a particular problem, and I think the question we're debating is: Would Congress have said, when it defined the term "cocaine base" ... that was used at the time to describe these categories of substances.

In Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems [oral arguments transcript; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether the rights of universities under the Bayh-Dole Act [35 USC §§ 200-212] to inventions arising from federally funded research can be terminated by the individual inventors through separate agreements assigning the inventor's rights to a third party. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Roche possesses an ownership interest in the patents at issue, depriving Stanford's standing to sue. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

The inventor, because he is working here at the time of the assignment on a Federally funded project as an employee of Stanford University, is essentially working on something covered by Bayh-Dole; and being covered by Bayh-Dole means that he lacks the power to transfer title to his future invention to someone else because the statute has already spoken for it. ... [The general rule is] that inventors receive title. However ... the array of so-called vesting statutes that predicated the Bayh-Dole Act throughout the 30 years in between are statutes that specifically, in most instances without any discussion of an assignment, simply vested title directly in the United States. ... Congress clearly had the power to do that, and they did it, and no one ever seriously argued that they couldn't.

While awaiting his tax fraud trial, Berlusconi first faces trial for underage prostitution [JURIST report] on April 6. Earlier this month, an Italian judge ordered Berlusconi to stand trial on charges of paying for sex with a minor and abuse of power. Berlusconi allegedly paid 7,000 euros to then 17-year-old dancer, Karima El Mahroug, for sex and later called police to secure her release [BBC report] while she was detained on an unrelated suspicion of theft. The scandal has made Berlusconi the subject of protests [Reuters] by hundreds of thousands of women, calling for his resignation over his recent sex scandal. Berlusconi, however, has refused to step down. Last week, Berlusconi solidified his intentions to remain in office by pledging judicial reform [JURIST report] and several other improvement he plans to make in Italy.

An objective analysis of the circumstances of an encounter and the statements and actions of the parties to it provides the most accurate assessment of the "primary purpose of the interrogation." The circumstances in which an encounter occurs—e.g., at or near the scene of the crime versus at a police station, during an ongoing emergency or afterwards—are clearly matters of objective fact. The statements and actions of the parties must also be objectively evaluated. That is, the relevant inquiry is not the subjective or actual purpose of the individuals involved in a particular encounter, but rather the purpose that reasonable participants would have had, as ascertained from the individuals' statements and actions and the circumstances in which the encounter occurred.

In 2009, the court ruled on another Confrontation Clause issue in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts [JURIST report], where it held that a forensic analyst's laboratory report is testimonial evidence under the Confrontation Clause, giving criminal defendants a right to cross-examine the analysts. One week after the Melendez-Diaz ruling, the court granted certiorari in Briscoe v. Virginia [JURIST report], to consider whether, if a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, the state avoids violating the Confrontation Clause by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness. The court issued a decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in January 2010 stating that the admission of the report without testimony was unconstitutional.

If G4S had done the proper checks and risk assessments when Danny applied to work with them, they would have quickly seen that he was suffering from serious PTSD, a consequence of loyally serving his country. Instead they conducted minimal checks and sent him off to Iraq. Now Danny could spend the rest of his life in a hostile prison hundreds of miles from home, when he should be receiving psychiatric treatment.

Behavior of military contractors has been an ongoing issue abroad. In September, a report presented by the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries [official website] urged the US [JURIST report] to increase regulation of military contractors [text, PDF] employed worldwide, citing alleged human rights abuses and the contractors' lack of transparency and accountability. The UN Working Group met with US officials last summer to discuss the actions of US private military and security companies (PMSCs) and to make recommendations on its findings. The report proposed that the US amend the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act [text] to extend the country's criminal jurisdiction to PMSCs abroad, eliminate judicial immunity for PMSCs, pursue investigations into possible human rights abuses and enact the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act [materials] currently before Congress, which would gradually discontinue the use of PMSCs. According to the report, the predominately American PMSC industry generates up to $100 billion per year, constitutes about half of the US military forces sent to Iraq and Afghanistan and needs continued reform.

Let me reiterate, that the illegal and excessively heavy-handed response of a number governments is unacceptable. Repression of peaceful expression of dissent is also intolerable. I remind all those concerned that widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population may amount to crimes under international law. Attacks must be independently investigated and those responsible for them must be held to account.

Last week, Pillay called on the Libyan government to stop the violence directed at protesters [JURIST report] within that nation. Pillay's statement, directed at Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], reminded the UNHRC of the repeated calls by numerous nations for Gaddafi to renounce the use of violence. The situation in Libya escalated last week over days of continued protests and violent suppression by security forces. Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] said that the ICC cannot investigate possible crimes in Libya [JURIST report] because the country is not a party to the Rome Statute [materials]. The statement came after Pillay said earlier that the Libyan government's response to recent protests may amount to crimes against humanity [JURIST report]. The protests began after protests throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], resulting in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports]. Protesters have demanded Gaddafi's resignation and government reform.

The Founding Fathers of our Constitution were themselves freedom fighters who had seen civil liberties of our people trampled under foreign rule, and who had themselves been incarcerated for long period under the formula "Na vakeel, na daleel, na appeal" (No lawyer, no hearing, no appeal). Many of them were lawyers by profession, and knew the importance of counsel, particularly in criminal cases. It was for this reason that they provided for assistance by counsel under Article 22 (1), and that provision must be given the widest construction to effectuate the intention of the Founding Fathers.

The right to counsel has been the subject of numerous court cases worldwide in recent years. In October, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Scottish police could no longer question a suspect in custody [JURIST report] without the presence of a lawyer. The court found that the previous law, which permitted interrogation of suspects without a lawyer for up to six hours, violated the Article 6 right to a fair trial of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. The week prior, the French Court of Cassation had ruled that all persons in custody of French law enforcement, including terrorism suspects, are entitled to consult with lawyers [JURIST report] from the outset of criminal proceedings. Also in October, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canadians do not have the right to have counsel [JURIST report] present during custodial interrogations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text]. In May 2009, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment did not require police to cease interrogations [JURIST report] after a suspect had invoked his right to counsel, ruling that the Fifth Amendment provides adequate protection.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] on Friday adopted a resolution [text, DOC] condemning the recent violence in Libya and ordering an international inquiry [JURIST report] into alleged abuses. During a special session, the 47-member council unanimously adopted the resolution, which also calls upon the Libyan government to protect its population and respect the will of its people. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] spoke to the UNHRC [JURIST report] earlier Friday, calling for the Libyan government to stop the violence directed at protesters [transcript] and for the Council to rise to action. The protests began last week following those that have occurred throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], resulting in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports]. Protesters have demanded Gaddafi's resignation and government reform.