December 1
International law? What does that mean to us? We are Masters of the World! We are above all laws!
Washington (AP) - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if people working for the U.S. government can covertly arrest suspects in other countries....
The appeals court sided with a Mexican gynecologist who was abducted 13 years ago and brought to the United States to stand trial in the torture death of a U.S. drug agent, Enrique Camarena-Salazar. He was accused of keeping the agent alive for extended torture and questioning to find out what he knew about a drug cartel.
The doctor, who spent more than two years in prison, was acquitted and sought millions of dollars in damages from the U.S. government and five or six Mexicans hired by the government to abduct him.
Attorneys for Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain accused the government of overplaying the threat to prosecutions of terrorist suspects. ...
It is the second time the case has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. The first time, the justices ruled in 1992 that the U.S. government may kidnap people from foreign countries and prosecute them over that nation's objection without violating an extradition treaty.
Now justices will decide if Alvarez-Machain can seek damages, under several federal laws, on his claim that the government and the Mexican nationals violated international law. The Bush administration also asked the court to clarify when federal officers have the power to arrest someone in a foreign country.
The case does not deal with the president's power to order an overseas arrest but rather the authority of a federal agency like the Drug Enforcement Administration. ...
A sharply split 9th Circuit said that federal drug agents acted illegally when they ordered the kidnapping by paid bounty hunters. The appeals court upheld an award of $25,000 to the doctor with the possibility of more damages. The court said that federal law allows lawsuits for alleged violations of international law.
The appeals court said, "The notion of sneaking across the border to nab a criminal suspect surely raises more than a diplomatic eyebrow."
December 2
Another attempt to rip down the wall between church and state.
Washington (AP) - The Supreme Court justices appeared deeply divided Tuesday in a church-state case involving a college student who lost his taxpayer-funded scholarship because he chose to major in theology. ...
The scholarship was rescinded after Davey declared his major because state officials deemed it an unconstitutional blending of church and state. ...
"The Promise Scholarship program practices the plainest form of religious discrimination," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices during a lively hourlong argument session. "The clear and unmistakable message is that religion and preparation for a career in the ministry is disfavored."
Several justices seemed skeptical, suggesting that the country has long had a hands-off policy when it comes to the training of clergy and that states have considerable leeway in choosing how to spend money. ...
Davey qualified for the scholarship along with students studying other fields. Only his chosen field was excluded, his lawyers said. Davey's backers say that violated the Constitution's guarantee that people may worship freely.
Davey continued his schooling without the financial aid. So, Justice John Paul Stevens asked, how did loss of the money prevent Davey from practicing his religion?
"He practices it at a price," Olson replied.
"He practices it without a subsidy," Stevens shot back. ...
The Davey case is a follow-up to the court's major ruling last year that allowed parents to use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. A ruling in Davey's favor would make it easier to use vouchers in many states, because it could overturn provisions in state constitutions like the one at issue in Washington.
December 4
Okay, it's not all bad news.
San Francisco (AP) - A federal appeals court Wednesday overturned part of a sweeping 1996 anti-terror law that prohibits financial assistance or "material support" to organizations classified as terrorist by the State Department. ...
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that it is unconstitutional to punish people - sometimes with life in prison - for providing "training" or "personnel" to a terror group, categories the judges called overbroad.
The ruling also requires the government to prove that defendants knew their activities, such as donating money to outlawed groups, were actually contributing to acts of terror. ...
The ruling "declares unconstitutional one of the linchpins of the Ashcroft domestic anti-terrorism strategy," said Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole.
December 5
I prefer trains, anyway.
San Francisco (Reuters) - A controversial "no fly" list designed to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes is being sloppily maintained, which could make it difficult for innocent Americans to get their names cleared, the American Civil Liberties Union said on Friday.
The group, which reviewed 94 pages of documents recently declassified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said the material released offered no information on how the no fly list was compiled, how many people were on it, and whether it was possible to get on the list simply by protesting the war in Iraq.
December 5
Finishing on a hopeful note, CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says
[t]his week we may have seen the turning of the tide in the legal war on terror. For the first time since the Twin Towers fell, the federal judiciary began to push back against the executive branch along a broad range of terror-law fronts.
And for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the Administration began, grudgingly, to acknowledge some of the political and legal limitations inherent in an overall strategy (i.e., detain first, sort things out later) that is much more un-American than not.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment