Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Nigeria authorities on Thursday charged 20 individuals in connection with the recent sectarian violence in Plateau state involving killing of Christian villagers near the city of Jos. All 20 individuals have pleaded not guilty to five counts of arson, terrorism, killing, maiming, and possession of dangerous weapons. A federal court in Jos ordered the suspects to remain in custody until their trial on April 15. More than 160 suspects have been arrested in connection with the murders and authorities have stated that several are set to face similar charges. Those convicted could face the death penalty.
Last month, 49 people, predominately Muslims, were charged with murder for the sectarian violence. The attacks were apparently in retaliation for the January violence between Muslims and Christians that left more than 300, mostly Muslims, dead. The city of Jos is located in an area of central Nigeria, which divides the predominately Muslim northern part of the country from the primarily Christian south. Authorities have indicated that the area is being patrolled by security forces to prevent further violence. In February, Human Rights Watch urged acting President Goodluck Jonathan to to “tackle the culture of impunity” in Nigeria. While HRW has called on Jonathan directly, other rights groups have petitioned international authorities to take action to prevent recurring rights abuses.

[JURIST] The UN International Labour Organization (ILO) on Wednesday reiterated its call on the international community to take a “rights based approach” to international migration. The group said that 90 percent of the migration that occurs is driven by the search for employment and that countries should seek to provide “conditions of freedom, dignity, equity and security,” to migrant workers. It said that under the right conditions migrant workers, could provide benefits to both their countries of employment and origin, but that they currently face low wages, discrimination, and a lack of social or legal protection. The group touts its 2006 Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration as a set of guidelines that governments should use to draft legislation protecting migrant workers.
A number of countries around the world are facing problems with the treatment of international migrants. Earlier Wednesday, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants Jorge Bustamante said that immigrant workers entering Japan through government-run training programs face widespread racism and discrimination, urging the country to increase immigrant protections. In January, the SOVA Center reported a recent increase in xenophobic propaganda in Russia. Earlier that month, the New York Times reported that US officials have purposefully covered-up the deaths of some immigrants held in detention facilities.

[JURIST] Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday blamed foreign officials for the extensive irregularities that occurred during last year’s disputed presidential election. Though admitting that fraud was widespread, Karzai accused UN and EU representatives, particularly former deputy head of the UN-backed mission Peter Galbraith, of attempting to influence vote counts and disseminating false information to media outlets in an effort to slander his campaign. He further alleged that electoral officials were offered bribes by embassy representatives, though he did not specify which embassies were involved. Both the UN and EU declined to comment on the accusations.
On Wednesday, the lower house of the Afghan Parliament rejected Karzai’s proposal to require that all appointees to the UN-supported Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) be of Afghan citizenship. In November, Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission (IEC) declared Karzai the winner of the election after challenger Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the runoff election due to the his belief that the upcoming vote would not be free or fair. Karzai was originally declared to have secured over half the vote, avoiding a runoff, but this was challenged by the EEC in October when it invalidated a significant portion of Karzai’s vote due to findings of fraud at 210 polling stations. Soon after the election was held in August, Abdullah alleged widespread voter fraud, filing more than 100 complaints with the ECC alleging ballot stuffing, inflated vote counts, and intimidation at the polls by Karzai supporters.

[JURIST] International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo on Thursday announced his plans to proceed with the investigation of those responsible for the violence following the 2007 Kenyan presidential election. Moreno-Ocampo previously submitted a list of 20 suspects to the ICC, including senior political and business leaders, but he stated that this list is “not binding.” The prosecutor said he expects there to be two cases, each involving one to three people whom he will determine after reviewing the evidence to be the most responsible. He called upon all Kenyans to assist in the investigation, stating:
I will engage in this process with the Kenyans, with all the communities. This Court is their Court. Kenyan leaders – women, youth, tribal, judicial, political, religious, all have a role to play. I want to understand them and analyze how my office and all Kenyans can work together to prevent of future violence. The 50th anniversary of Kenya’s independence is coming, it will be a historic opportunity to show an example of how one country overcomes violence.Moreno-Ocampo stated that he plans to travel to Kenya in May to interview witnesses and made assurances that those witnesses will be protected from being exposed. He plans to “finalize the bulk of the investigation” during the remainder of this year.On Wednesday, the ICC granted Moreno-Ocampo’s request to proceed with a formal investigation of the post-election violence. His request marked the first time Moreno-Ocampo used his proprio motu power, which allows him to initiate formal investigations upon authorization by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The allegations of fraud following the 2007 elections led to violence that caused the deaths of more than 1,000 people and displacement of 500,000 others.

[JURIST] The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Wednesday denied an appeal by former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to postpone his war crimes trial. Karadzic appealed the trial date last month, claiming a February court ruling that increased the remuneration for his defense lawyers also gave him extra time to prepare for his case. Karadzic had claimed that he needed more time to read through more than 400,000 pages of documents turned over by the prosecution. In rejecting his argument, the appeals chamber of the ICTY said: are satisfied that the trial chamber took into account all the relevant factors including the February 2010 decision on the staffing of Karadzic’s defense team and possible remedies for the period when his team was understaffed. As a result, the Trial Chamber made no error in assessing that further postponement of the trial was not justified. Karadzic has failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chambers abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion.The Appeals Chamber ordered that the trial resume on April 13, while Karadzic had requested that proceedings be delayed until June 17.The ICTY recently heard opening statements in Karadzic’s war crimes trial on charges related to crimes committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. Karadzic claims that attacks against Bosnian Muslims were “staged,” denying any involvement in war crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. In February, Karadzic appeared before the ICTY seeking access to documents he claimed showed evidence of weapons smuggling to Bosnian Muslims. Also in February, the ICTY rejected Karadzic’s imposition of a court-appointed defense lawyer, claiming the right to legal assistance of his own choosing. Karadzic is defending himself against 11 counts, including genocide and murder.

[JURIST] A UN rights official said Wednesday that immigrant workers entering Japan through government-run training programs face widespread racism and discrimination, urging the country to increase immigrant protections. Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants Jorge Bustamante interviewed immigrants, civil servants, and academics in the country during an investigation that uncovered ongoing social and work-related discrimination against non-Japanese workers. The government-created Japan International Training Cooperation Organization (JITCO), which supervises multiple training programs, has brought in more than 400,000 unskilled workers from 15 developing nations to train the workers so they can return to their countries with work-related skills. Yet many of the migrants, who are mostly Asian, enter Japan and face exploitation in wages, health care, working conditions and child care. Opponents of the training programs urge the Japanese government to sign the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and to create laws to protect the human rights of immigrants in Japan. Bustamante will submit a report of his findings to the UN Human Rights Council later this year.
Japan’s human rights record received international attention earlier this year when ambassadors from eight countries met with Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada to urge Japan to sign an international treaty that would help prevent parental child abductions across borders. Japan is the only G-7 country that has not signed the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which requires a country to return a child who has been “wrongfully removed” from his or her country of habitual residence. According to human rights groups, nearly 160,000 divorced or separated foreign and Japanese parents in Japan are not allowed to see their children under the current child custody laws.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment Wednesday in favor of an Islamic charity that claimed the federal government illegally wiretapped its conversations without a warrant. In its suit, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation asked the court to admit a confidential National Security Agency (NSA) document accidentally sent to its lawyers to show that the government had illegally spied on the group. Judge Vaughn Walker denied this request and ruled instead that non-confidential information established that the government had illegally wiretapped conversations between the group and overseas parties in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court held that the government could not use the state secrets privilege to refuse to answer whether it had recorded conversations without a FISA warrant. The court gave the charity until April 16 to decide whether it wants to proceed with or dismiss remaining claims against the government.
Al-Haramain filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the FISA claim last July. In February 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling denying a government appeal to keep the NSA call log secret, despite its accidental release to Al-Haramain in 2004. The call log had been deemed a state secret, but the decision required the government to allow the foundation to view the document. JURIST contributor Victor Comras said that Walker had done a “truly remarkable job” balancing national security and due process in the case. Walker had previously dismissed the suit, finding that Al-Haramain lacked a cause of action because the state secrets privilege trumped procedural requirements under FISA.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a comprehensive energy plan Wednesday that would introduce regulations to increase offshore drilling while tightening emissions and mileage standards on vehicles. The plan would allow exploration off the coasts of the mid-Atlantic and southeastern states and development in previously closed areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Obama stated:
I want to emphasize that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, opposed the plan, arguing that “nabling more drilling, when these sources have yet to be exhausted, only feeds our economic dependence on fossil fuels when we should be moving more aggressively to cleaner, sustainable sources of energy.”Last year, a panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a Bush-era program that would have allowed drilling off the coast of Alaska because the Department of the Interior (DOI) had failed to carry out required studies. The ruling followed plans by the Obama administration to reverse offshore drilling policies established by former president George W. Bush at the end of his presidency. The Obama administration planned to extend the public comment period on the proposed five-year plan for offshore oil and gas development by 180 days, assembling a detailed report from DOI agencies on conventional and renewable offshore energy resources, holding four regional conferences to review these findings, and expediting renewable energy rule making.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the court heard arguments on whether a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession (a federal law misdemeanor) has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” on the theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist simple possession (a federal law felony), even though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction in his prosecution for possession. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a lawful permanent resident who has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” is ineligible to seek cancellation of removal. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a state law conviction for simple drug possession could be an “aggravated felony” if the defendant could have been charged with a felony, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Counsel for the petitioner, Carachuri-Rosendo argued that, “ndividuals, such as Petitioner, who have been convicted of drug possession but as to whom there has been no finding of recidivism, have been convicted of a misdemeanor punishable under the Controlled Substances Act rather than a felony.” Counsel for the US government argued that, “Congress’s judgment here was that all aliens who engage in the same serious conduct would be treated the same for immigration purposes.”
In Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, the court heard arguments on whether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the US. Counsel for the petitioner, John Robertson, argued:The United States now agrees that the fact that a criminal offense may only be prosecuted by the sovereign is a foundational premise of our Constitution. Because Mr. Robertson was prosecuted for criminal contempt in a private right of action, his prosecution was unconstitutional, a nullity in our view, and his convictions must be vacated.Counsel for US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of respondent that:when a single US Attorney’s Office says that the government will decide to drop a certain set of charges, that US Attorney’s Office we believe is – is speaking for itself, unless there is some indication that it is speaking more widely in such a way that will bind other parts of the government.

[JURIST] Executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Yvo de Boer said Wednesday that it is unlikely a new climate change treaty will be concluded until 2011. After the Copenhagen summit (COP15) in December failed to produce a binding agreement, de Boer expressed hope that the next annual meeting in November in Cancun, Mexico will get negotiations back on track. The UNFCCC announced that 111 countries and the European Union (EU) have expressed support for the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, which calls for self-imposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the UNFCCC received 75 national pledges, from nations that account for more than 80 percent of global emissions from energy use, to cut or limit emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020. De Boer noted these pledges will not suffice to meet the Copenhagen Accord’s goal of limiting global temperatures to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Earlier this month, China and India, among the world’s largest and most quickly growing producers of greenhouse gas emissions, agreed to endorse the Copenhagen Accord. The UNFCCC announced in February that another round of formal climate talks will be held April 9-11 in Bonn, Germany, to follow up on the recent Copenhagen conference. While no legally-binding agreement was reached at the conclusion of the COP15 in December, 192 UN member countries agreed to take note of the non-binding accord developed by leaders from the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. In January, more than 50 countries, including the US, China, and EU member states, submitted plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the UNFCCC. Relative to 2005 levels, the US has pledged to reduce emissions to 17 percent, while China has targeted a 40 to 45 percent reduction per GDP unit. EU members pledged a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels.

[JURIST] A Belgian parliamentary committee voted unanimously Wednesday to ban the Islamic burqa and other “full veils” from being worn in public. The proposed legislation applies to areas “accessible to the public” or areas meant for “public use or to provide public services.” Violators could face a penalty of up to seven days in jail or a fine of 15 to 25 euros. The proposed law does not impose restrictions on traditional Muslim headscarves, and it provides for groups to apply for a temporary exemption for festivals or other events. The proposed ban has ignited concern among some who view it as an “attack on civil liberties.” If approved by Parliament, Belgium will be the first European nation to impose a nationwide restriction on traditional face-covering veils. The lower house of parliament is scheduled to vote on the bill on April 22.
France has also been pressing for a ban on the burqa. Earlier this week, the French Council of State advised the French government that a complete ban on full Islamic veils risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Last week, French President Nicholas Sarkozy announced that the government will introduce legislation to ban traditional Muslim face veils in public places. Sarkozy’s announcement came just weeks after a French parliamentary commission charged with investigating whether to enact laws banning the wearing of burqas released its report calling for a partial ban that would apply in public facilities, including hospitals, schools, and public transportation, and to any individual attempting to receive public services. Also last week, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill that would ban women wearing full face veils from public services, such as receiving care at a hospital or going to a public university.

[JURIST] An Indian court on Wednesday heard final arguments in the trial of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, accused of participating in the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, bringing the yearlong proceedings to a close. The court heard from more than 600 prosecution witnesses and two members of the National Security Guard who responded to the attack. Prosecutors accuse Kasab of being one of the gunmen photographed during the attacks, which were allegedly coordinated by Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Kasab claims that he confessed to the crimes in February 2009 after being tortured by police. Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam praised the speed with which the trial was conducted. Judge ML Tahiliyani, specially appointed in January 2009 to preside over the trial of three suspects detained after the attacks, reserved judgment until May 3.
The lawyer for the accused gunman faced several setbacks during the trial, including a failed change of venue to a juvenile court and the introduction of the disputed confession. Kasab’s first defense lawyer was removed last year because she had agreed to represent a victim of the attacks in a civil suit. Kasab first appeared before Tahiliyani in March 2009 via video. In February 2009, Pakistan officials conceded that the attacks were partially planned in their country and that the perpetrators traveled by ship from southern Pakistan to Mumbai. One scholar had suggested that an international tribunal be formed in order to avoid further complications between Pakistan and India. The attacks in Mumbai, which claimed at least 170 lives, were carried out at 10 locations across the city including the landmark Taj Mahal Palace hotel where nine of the 10 gunmen were killed.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday granted the request of chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to investigate the deadly violence perpetrated after the 2007 Kenyan presidential election. Earlier this month, Ocampo submitted the names of 20 senior political and business leaders who allegedly “bear the gravest responsibility” for the post-election violence. The ICC’s decision to authorize the prosecutor’s investigation means that Kenyan leaders may be called before the court. Summarizing the decision, the court explained:
upon examination of the available information, bearing in mind the nature of the proceedings under article 15 of the Statute, the low threshold applicable at this stage, as well as the object and purpose of this decision, the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed on Kenyan territory. The majority moreover found that all criteria for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction were satisfied, to the standard of proof applicable at this stage. The prosecutor will outline the next steps for the investigation in a press conference on Thursday. Ocampo provided the list of 20 names after ICC judges requested last month that he provide additional information regarding his request to open a formal investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity. Ocampo’s submission to investigate the Kenyan situation is historic, in that it is the first time he has used his proprio motu power, which allows him to initiate formal investigations upon authorization by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The allegations of fraud following the 2007 elections led to violence that caused the deaths of more than 1,000 people and displacement of 500,000 others.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 7-2 in Padilla v. Kentucky that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defense lawyer to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation. The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled that a guilty plea induced by bad advice does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and does not warrant setting aside the guilty plea. In reversing the decision below, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:
We granted certiorari to decide whether, as a matter of federal law, Padilla’s counsel had an obligation to advise him that the offense to which he was pleading guilty would result in his removal from this country. We agree with Padilla that constitutionally competent counsel would have advised him that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter that we do not address.Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.Honduras native Jose Padilla has been a lawful permanent resident of the US for more than 40 years. He pleaded guilty to transporting a large amount of marijuana, making him subject to deportation proceedings. Padilla claims that he would not have pleaded guilty had his lawyer informed him that he would risk deportation. Padilla shares the same name as convicted terrorist Jose Padilla, currently serving a 17-year sentence, but is of no relation.

[JURIST] The Serbian Parliament adopted a declaration early Wednesday morning condemning the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which 8,000 Muslims were killed. After a day-long debate, “The Declaration of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Condemning the Crime in Srebrenica” was passed by a narrow margin, with 127 out 250 members voting in its favor. The parliament also called upon other former Yugoslavian countries to issue similar declarations. Head of the Deputy Group for European Serbia Nada Kolundzija stated that “passing the declaration is in the Serbian people’s best interest and it is its moral duty to distance itself from the crime.” The declaration was also met with criticism from some members of parliament. MP Dragan Todorovic told Serbia’s Radio Srbija that the declaration should be withdrawn because of the negative light it will cast on the nation. Other criticisms are that the declaration did not call the massacre a genocide and that the declaration did not condemn all of the crimes that occurred in Yugoslavia from 1991-1995.
On Tuesday, The Hague Appeals Court upheld UN immunity from prosecution in claims brought by relatives of victims of the Srebrenica massacre. The group, known as the Mothers of Srebrenica, alleged that the Netherlands should be held liable for Dutch soldiers negligently failing to protect civilians during the Bosnian conflict by forcing them out of a UN-designated “safe area.” The court found that immunity is essential to the UN being able to carry out its duties and that the Dutch soldiers could not be held responsible in their capacity as UN peacekeepers. Earlier this month, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic made his opening statement before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, where he is being tried for war crimes. He is defending himself against 11 counts, including genocide and murder. Karadzic has called the massacre a farce promulgated by Bosnian Muslims to incite hatred against Serbian forces. He could face life in prison if convicted.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 5-4 in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. that a state legislature cannot prohibit the federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the state law was substantive and could be applied in federal court, upholding a lower court’s dismissal of the suit. In reversing the decision below, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a divided court:The short of the matter is that a Federal Rule governing procedure is valid whether or not it alters the outcome of the case in a way that induces forum shopping. To hold otherwise would be to “disembowel either the Constitution’s grant of power over federal procedure” or Congress’s exercise of it.Justice John Paul Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito joined.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates filed a class action lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Co. in federal court. The issue was whether a New York state law, which prohibits a lawsuit seeking a statutory penalty from being brought as a class action, is substantive or procedural under the Erie doctrine.

[JURIST] Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Wednesday asked Swiss officials to reopen a corruption investigation against Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. The request was made in a letter from the NAB, the country’s chief anti-corruption body, to Swiss officials, but the Swiss Federal Department of Justice has not confirmed receipt of the request. Zardari was previously convicted of money laundering in Switzerland in 2003, but that conviction was later overturned, and subsequent attempts by the Swiss to convict him were unsuccessful. Aides to Zardari believe that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, even after Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned an amnesty law implemented by former president Pervez Musharaff. However, Zardari may face attacks on his eligibility to have been elected president in 2008, since prior allegations of corruption may have rendered him ineligible for office.
The request by the NAB comes one day after the Supreme Court ordered the bureau to reopen all corruption investigations within 24 hours. That order was accompanied by a contempt of court notice for the bureau’s chairman, Naveed Ahsan. The Supreme Court’s order is likely to increase tensions between the president and the judiciary, which have recently clashed over court appointments. The same day as the Supreme Court’s order to the NAB, Pakistani police detained Ahmed Riaz Sheikh, Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency, in the first arrest of a government official since amnesty was rescinded. In December, a Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant for Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who is accused of corruption.11:00 AM ET – Swiss authorities have refused to reopen the corruption investigation, claiming Zardari still has legal immunity.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia criticized the government Tuesday for a lack of accountability, despite granting approval to a $3 million settlement agreement in a civil suit brought by former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent Richard Horn. The government evoked the state secrets privilege to prevent documents from being made public in the case in which Horn accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of spying on him. Despite granting the approval, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth expressed his displeasure with the government for what he believed was a lack of accountability to the taxpayers. He wrote:However, it is not without some misgiving that the Court reaches this decision. Another member of this Court last year approved the settlement of another case (involving the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax mailings in late 2001) which involved payment to an individual plaintiff of almost $6,000,000 by the United States. It does not appear that any government official was ever held accountable this huge loss to the taxpayer.
Now this Court is called upon to approve a $3,000,000 payment to an individual plaintiff by the United States, and again it does not appear that any government officials have held accountable for this loss to the taxpayer. This is troubling to the the Court.Lamberth asked US Attorney General Eric Holder if there was an internal investigation regarding who committed the wrong-doing.Horn, a former agent in Myanmar, is suing Franklin Huddle, the Chief of the Mission of the American Embassy in Myanmar, and Arthur Brown, a CIA agent stationed there, for violating his civil rights and anti-wiretapping laws during 1992 and 1993. Huddle and Brown are alleged to have intercepted communications intended for Horn and to have conspired to have him removed from his position. In August, Lamberth ordered the government to grant security clearance to lawyers on both sides of the civil suit. In late July, Lamberth ordered that documents relating to the case be unsealed, and charged that the CIA committed fraud in keeping the documents secret.

[JURIST] The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed suit on Tuesday challenging the strict visitation and communication restrictions at two experimental federal prison units called “Communications Management Units” (CMUs). The complaint alleges that the prisoners have suffered “severe and unjustifiable emotional distress” as a result of being deprived of fundamental constitutional rights. Prisoners at the CMUs are forbidden from hugging, touching, or embracing their children or spouses during visits. Transfers to the CMUs are not explained and cannot be appealed to a review board. CCR attorneys also claim that the CMUs have perpetuated a “pattern of religious and political discrimination and retaliation” because the vast majority of CMU prisoners are Muslim. CCR Attorney Alexis Agathocleous claims that the CMUs are an “experiment in social isolation” that has dispensed with due process and created a situation “ripe for abuse.” On behalf of the prisoners, CCR is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. If granted, the injunction would place the prisoners in the general population of a less restrictive facility.
The CMUs, located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and Marion, Illinois, were secretly opened during the George W. Bush administration. The facilities were created in response to criticism that the prison bureau had failed to adequately monitor terrorist inmates’ communications. The CMUs allow prison officials to closely monitor and control the communications of certain prisoners and to isolate them from other prisoners and the outside world. Concerns about the restraints placed on inmate communication and the racial composition of the inmate population were voiced when the facilities were opened.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed into law the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which represents a group of amendments to the recently approved health care legislation and also provides changes to the administration of the federal student loan program. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a rider attached to the main bill, will remove banks and private lenders as providers for federal student loans and place that responsibility with the government. The health care amendments addressed concerns in the original bill raised by Republicans, including provisions to help uninsured Americans pay for coverage, concerns over the effects to Medicare, and lowering the penalty for not buying insurance. In his remarks, Obama lauded the changes made to the student loan program and the final passage of health care reform:he health insurance reform bill I signed won’t fix every problem in our health care system in one fell swoop. But it does represent some of the toughest insurance reforms in history. It represents a major step forward towards giving Americans with insurance – and those without – a sense of security when it comes to their health care. It enshrines the principle that when you get sick, you’ve got a society there, a community, that is going to help you get back on your feet.
For a long time, our student loan system has worked for banks and financial institutions. Today, we’re finally making our student loan system work for students and our families. But we’re also doing something more. From the moment I was sworn into office, I’ve spoken about the urgent need for us to lay a new foundation for our economy and for our future. And two pillars of that foundation are health care and education, and each has long suffered from problems that we chose to kick down the road.Republicans have criticized both bills as harmful to the economy.Obama signed the original health care bill into law last week after it was passed by the House by a vote of 219 – 212. Following that, he signed an executive order continuing a prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where a woman’s life would be endangered, as part of a compromise with conservative Democrats. The same day that the original bill was signed into law, the attorneys general for 13 states filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.