 |
|
 Legal news from Sunday, May 27, 2012 |
|
|
US prosecutors ask judge to reverse ruling blocking anti-terrorism law
Jaimie Cremeans on May 27, 2012 2:54 PM ET
[JURIST] Federal prosecutors on Friday asked Judge Katherine Forrest of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] to lift an injunction [opinion, PDF] she placed earlier this month on sections of the National Defense Authorization Act [text, PDF] that allow for the indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists. Forrest agreed [JURIST report] with a group of reporters who claimed that the law was vague and violated their First Amendment [text] rights to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment [text] due process rights. The prosecutors urge that indefinite military detention is necessary in some cases. Plaintiff Chris Hedges, a prize-winning journalist, however, said the law went too far and Forrest was correct [Truthdig report] to grant an injunction against it. He said the law was not about foreign terrorism but was an attack on domestic disagreement with the government that could have been used against any group of protesters, such as the Occupy movement, if the government could show some link to terrorism.
Since 2001, anti-terrorism laws and military detentions in the US have been the subject of much controversy and litigation. Last month a convicted terrorist appealed dismissal of his case [JURIST report] challenging alleged unlawful detention in a military court in South Carolina as an "enemy combatant" to the Supreme Court. Last year President Barack Obama signed an extension [JURIST report] of the controversial Patriot Act [JURIST news archive], which allows the government to use means such as wiretapping and other electronic devices to obtain materials relevant to terrorism investigations, through 2015. In 2010 a federal court upheld [JURIST report] the government's indefinite detention of an Afghan detainee at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder].
Link |
|
subscribe |
 |
latest newscast |
archive |
 Facebook page
|
Kansas governor signs law prohibiting use of foreign law
Jaimie Cremeans on May 27, 2012 1:49 PM ET
[JURIST] Kansas Governor Sam Brownback [official website] on Friday signed a bill [HB 2087, PDF] into law that prohibits state courts, tribunals and agencies from basing any decisions "in whole or in part" on foreign or religious law. The law also prohibits enforcement of any contract made between two parties that is grounded in foreign or religious law and fails to provide either party with the same rights granted under the US or Kansas Constitutions. Supporters of the law, including Brownback, say it is not discriminatory [AP report] but simply protects citizens from being held to standards of foreign law. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) [official website] National Executive Director Nihad Awad had urged the governor not to sign the bill and claims it is unconstitutional discrimination [CAIR news report] against Muslims. The law does not specifically single out Sharia, but it is suspected that banning the use of Sharia was its main purpose. The law will take effect on July 1.
The Kansas Senate approved the bill [JURIST report] last week after it was approved unanimously by the Kansas House of Representatives. Similar laws have been passed in other states, sparking controversy. In March, the Florida House of Representatives passed a law [JURIST report] prohibiting the use of foreign or religious law in state court decisions. Tennessee, Louisiana and Oklahoma have all also passed similar laws. Oklahoma's bill, however, was blocked [JURIST report] by a federal appeals court for specifically mentioning Sharia.
Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page
|
Spain doctor ordered to compensate woman for unsuccessful abortion
Keith Herting on May 27, 2012 12:25 PM ET
[JURIST] A Spanish doctor has been ordered to pay child support for a baby who survived a botched abortion [JURIST backgrounder], a court in Palma de Mallorca announced on Wednesday. In April 2010 the mother went to a clinic in Palma de Mallorca and underwent an abortion procedure. Two weeks later the same physician performed a review and said that everything had gone well. The woman returned to the clinic three months later thinking she was pregnant again, but physicians realized the initial procedure had failed and that she was then seven-months pregnant. By the time it was realized the procedure had failed, the mother was beyond the 22-week window permitted by Spanish law for an abortion. Judge Francisco Perez found that the ultrascan review was conducted negligently and ordered [NY Daily News report] the doctor and the clinic to pay USD $1,300 a month to the child until his 26th birthday and an additional $189,000 for "moral damages" suffered by the 24-year-old mother in this unique case.
In 2010 Spain amended its abortion laws [JURIST report] for the first time since 1985. Under the new law, abortions performed in the first 14 weeks of gestation are declared a right and abortions are allowed until 22 weeks if the mother's life is in danger. The previous law had allowed abortions only in the case of rape, up to 12 weeks, severe fetal malformation, up to 22 weeks, or if the woman's physical or mental health was in danger. The changes were proposed [JURIST report] in 2009 by a panel of legal and medical experts, eliciting widespread protests [JURIST report] throughout Spain. The panel was formed [JURIST report] in September 2008 at the request of then-prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage [JURIST report] and streamlined divorce proceedings.
Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page
|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|
