Iraqi Dinar News

Trade Iraqi Dinar

Posts tagged: judge

Guatemala’s Progress Toward Rule of Law Buckles as Judge Annuls Genocide Trial

By , April 24, 2013 4:32 pm

guatemala-rios-montt-trial-perez-molina-genocideOn day 20 of testimony in the genocide trial against former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt last Thursday, Ríos Montt’s defense team, after a fierce exchange with the judge, walked out of the courtroom, proclaiming it will not be party to an illegal trial.

Hours later, in a separate hearing, a separate judge—Judge Patricia Flores, who in January 2011 issued the genocide indictment against Ríos Montt—declared the genocide trail annulled and said that the judge hearing the genocide case, Judge Yazmin Barrios, “doesn’t know the law” and had no right to hear the case to begin with. That evening Guatemala’s attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, issued a press release, calling Judge Flores’ action illegal and vowing to use every means to resume prosecuting the case.

On Friday the tribunal reconvened, with the parties on their respective sides minus lawyers for the defense, whereupon Judge Barrios announced, “We will not allow the infringement of this tribunal’s independence. We are not required to obey an order that violates this court’s jurisdiction. We obey the Constitution, and a ruling by the Constitutional Court is the only one that can annul a trial.” She then said the trial is halted pending a Constitutional Court resolution.

The contention concerned procedure on an evidence ruling. Before the trial’s start, some defense evidence had been ruled inadmissible by a preliminary judge because it was submitted in violation of evidence requirements. On defense appeal, that ruling was overturned by the Constitutional Court on April 3, with orders to not expunge evidence already heard or stop the trial. Rather than delaying the proceedings and awaiting the Constitutional Court ruling, Judge Barrios had already provisionally allowed the evidence prior to the higher court’s ruling. Judge Flores on Thursday called this act illegal, and ruled the trial annulled.

Raised Skepticism

Earlier in the week, on April 16, 12 ex-government officials, including former Guatemalan vice presidents and civil war peace negotiators, published a full-page paid advertisement in Guatemalan newspapers condemning the trial and warning that a genocide conviction would bring serious dangers for the country and widen social and political polarization—raising suspicions about the origin of last Thursday’s events.

Kate Doyle, Senior Analyst for the National Security Archive, reporting on the trial from Guatemala, called it “legal maneuvering.” Marcie Mersky, Program Office Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice, said Judge Flores’ action was the result of “very strong pressure from [Guatemala’s] elites who defend in general the Army’s action during the country’s internal conflict” and who are “unwilling to be subjected to a judge, unaccustomed to being under authority by any institution.” Naomi Roht-Arriaza, a human rights law professor and an observer at the Ríos Montt proceedings, said the defense “knew the trial would be stopped days before it happened.”

Judge Flores’ annulment order triggered complaints by plaintiff groups, among them the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH), a civil party in the case, which filed challenges to the judge’s action with the Constitutional Court.

Under Guatemalan law, its Constitutional Court, which has been recently characterized by experts as “inconsistent” and “politicized,” has 10 days to resolve the annulment dispute. “Once these things get stopped,” warned Roht-Arriaza, “they are very difficult to get going again because there are a thousand ways for the defense to divert the matter and tie this thing up in knots.”

But the court hardly needed the 10 days. On Monday, April 22, the Constitutional Court announced decisions on six of the 12 legal challenges filed by parties in the Ríos Montt trial. Most significant among the resolutions, the Court rejected CALDH’s challenge to Judge Flores’ annulment, saying that the challenge was filed improperly. Second, the Court ruled that Judge Barrios must transfer the case file to Judge Flores within two hours in order for Judge Barrios, as the “legally competent authority,” to formally rule on the defense evidence admissibility issue resolved by the Constitutional Court in April 3. Third, the Court rejected a defense motion to expand its April 3 ruling to include the annulment of all trial proceedings and return the case back to its February 4 status, when Judge Galvez’ made his defense evidence ruling.

Reached for comment in Guatemala, Francisco Dall’Anese Ruiz, head of the UN-backed International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), declined to comment on news of the Constitutional Court’s resolution, or on what action his agency might take, until he could examine the decision and evaluate “whether it is legally acceptable or not.” Last Thursday, he issued a statement, which read in part, “If the crime was committed or not committed, if the accused is guilty or not, these are the exclusive decisions of the court that hears the case. Judges must remain free from any threat, because judicial independence is a human right.” Ruiz went on to say that CICIG is concerned about “paid ads, supplements and media statements, whose sole purpose is to influence the judicial decision to achieve an acquittal.”

Efraín Ríos Montt and José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez, his top intelligence officer at the time, were on trial in Guatemala on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity for the 1982-83 killing of 1,771 Ixil Mayans during the country’s 1960-96 civil war, marking the first time in history that a former head of state has been tried for genocide by his own country.

Standing President Implicated

Trial testimony over the past four weeks had detailed a pattern of deliberate killing. Some 100 prosecution eyewitnesses recounted family members who were shot at close range, hacked to death with machetes, bludgeoned with rocks and knives, strangled to death, burned alive, raped, and played with like toys and animals. Witnesses described the burning of houses and villages, and the destruction of crops and animals in an effort, they said, to wipe out all forms of life in Ixil villages. “They ended our culture,” said one witness about the military’s so-called scorched earth campaign.

Prosecution expert witnesses who have studied Guatemala’s civil war testified that civilians died in a defenseless state, that the Army’s kill-rate during the time in question was consistent with execution-style killing, and that the number of indigenous killed was eight times higher than that of non-indigenous.

As of last Friday, the defense, which had repeatedly protested the trial’s validity and complained about Judge Barrios, had yet to present 10 of the 12 witnesses it said it would present. “There’s been a lot of pressure from the defense, saying that the trial isn’t fair,” Roht-Arriaza said in an April 16 video statement from Guatemala. “The sense that I’ve got is that the trial is basically fair, the problem is that the defense isn’t doing a very good job defending, and I think that part of that is because they never thought this was going to come to trial, and so they really didn’t prepare very well.”

In a bit of prescience, she continued, “Really, [the defense’s] strategy is about delay. Their strategy is about either trying to get the Constitutional Court or the political process to halt this thing, rather than to carry out a defense.”

Political antagonism toward the trial seemed to ramp up after day 10 of proceedings, when eyewitness testimony placed Guatemala’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, at the scene of massacres in the Ixil region in 1982. Pérez Molina was a Major during the Army’s 1982-83 counterinsurgency occupation in the region and has repeatedly rejected the notions that genocide took place, that massacres occurred, or that he was responsible for the killing.

But a former Army specialist testified on April 5 that Pérez Molina, his then-superior, commanded the Army’s rounding up of villagers for transport to military outposts, where they were then executed. “The soldiers, on orders from Major ‘Tito Arias,’ better known as Otto Pérez Molina,” Hugo Ramiro Leonardo Reyes told the court, “coordinated the burning and looting, in order to later execute people.” He said that villagers brought to military installations to be killed had come “beaten, tortured, their tongues cut out, their fingernails pulled out.” Reyes also named other Army officials in command at other Ixil region military installations where tortures and executions occurred. “As far as I could tell, the order was ‘Indian seen, Indian dead,’” Reyes said. He gave his testimony via videoconference from an undisclosed location under a witness protection program provided by prosecutors.

A spokesman for the president dismissed the Reyes allegation and said the testimony was politically motivated. “I recognize that there is freedom of expression, but President Pérez never participated in these acts. It has never been documented,” Francisco Cuevas said, adding that the president would not comment on the issue.

But the president did comment. On the day after Reyes’ testimony, Pérez Molina, to a mixed reception, traveled to Guatemala’s Ixil region and, dressed in Ixil clothing, distributed bags of food to peasants. “It is my joy and pleasure that the president visits us. He has done a lot for us,” said one. “He is one who kills and then goes to the funeral,” said another.

“I have nothing to hide,” Pérez Molina told reporters. “I did not participate in a single situation where someone died that was my responsibility. I’m not going to deny that I was in [the Ixil region at that time]. It’s true. But I was there to rescue the civilians, combat the armed guerillas and help the civilians.”

Ríos Montt had made similar claims before he was indicted for genocide in January 2012, declaring that his “intention was only to restore order and cooperation among the Mayan-Ixil.”

President Pérez Molina, who took office on January 14, 2012, was lauded for his initial support of the trial process. But on March 13 he stated publicly, “In Guatemala, there was no genocide,” and he repeated that statement on the trial’s start date. On April 17, Pérez Molina told reporters he not only supported the April 16 statement published by ex-leaders condemning the trial, but that he joined it. Last June his administration announced the termination of the country’s Peace Archives, an agency founded in 2008 to digitize documents related to Guatemala’s armed conflict, and earlier this year his government announced it would no longer recognize rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on crimes that occurred before 1987.

Pérez Molina is shielded from prosecution by Guatemalan law that exempts presidents and members of Parliament from criminal responsibility.

Guatemala’s 36-year civil war was the result of a seething anti-government solidarity among the country’s marginalized poor in the 1950s, which produced reform factions and eventually an armed insurrection. The government’s response, guided by U.S. counterinsurgency training, was swift and harsh. The repression’s bloodiest period came in the 14 months that Ríos Montt held power. Though he was one of 12 Guatemalan leaders who presided over the country’s “whirlwind of death,” Ríos Montt brought a precision and discipline to group slaying. In the end, 250,000 Guatemalan citizens were slaughtered or disappeared in the conflict.

Past efforts to prosecute Ríos Montt, now 86, for human rights violations had been hindered by a slow and malleable court system, by government agencies still loyal to the former dictator, and by his former status as a Guatemalan lawmaker and the same exemption law that protects Pérez Molina.

In 2012, after his parliament term expired and he failed to win reelection, Ríos Montt was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity in the Army’s “scorched earth” massacres against Ixil Maya in Guatemala’s El Quiché region. Four months later, in May 2012, Ríos Montt was indicted on a second and separate charge of genocide and crimes against humanity when a judge found sufficient evidence that Ríos Montt “knew of, controlled, coordinated and supervised the Army’s plans” during the 1982 3-day massacre of Dos Erres Mayans.

In January, after a year of delays brought by defense motions and appeals, a judge reactivated the Ixil case, rejecting defense protests that Ríos Montt is amnestied through the country’s National Reconciliation Act.

FPIF Latest Content

‘Not a crime to make known crime of a state’: Senior Swedish judge backs Assange

By , April 6, 2013 1:50 pm

‘Not a crime to make known crime of a state’: Senior Swedish judge backs Assange
By: Bulov on: 06.04.2013 [01:36 ] (111 reads)

‘Not a crime to make known crime of a state’: Senior Swedish judge backs Assange
http://rt.com/news/assange-wikileaks-swedish-judge-278/

Get short URL
Published time: April 03, 2013 14:57
Edited time: April 04, 2013 14:19

A sign reading “Free Assange” is tied to a barrier across from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London August 14 2012. (Reuters)
Share on Tumblr
Tags
Assange, Court, Politics, Scandal, Security, USA, WikiLeaks
A top Swedish judge has defended the release of classified information by WikiLeaks, pointing out the case against Assange has turned into a legal “mess.”

“It should never be a crime to make known crime of a state,” Stefan Lindskog told the audience at a public lecture he gave at Adelaide University, according to Australian Associated Press.

The judge, who is one of the 16 justices working for the Supreme Court of Sweden, revealed an extraordinary amount of detail on Assange’s sexual assault case, despite not sitting on it.

The official also indicated that the courts may rule against sending the WikiLeaks founder to the US due to some conditions of the existing extradition treaty between the two countries.

“Extradition shall not be granted when alleged crimes are military or political in nature,” Lindskog stressed.

Moreover, according to the judge, it was debatable whether Assange would have committed a crime under Swedish law.

“What is classified under US law is probably not classified under Swedish law, and enemies to the US may not be enemies to Sweden,” AAP quoted the official as saying.

Lindskog added that extensive media coverage of the case has entailed the public distrust in the legal system.

“I think it is a mess,” he said.

Finally, the judge supported the American soldier Bradley Manning, who provided some of the classified information to WikiLeaks. Lindskog said he hoped Manning would go through a fair trial, saying that the release of classified information was for the benefit of mankind.

Prior to the speech, Assange condemned Lindskog’s decision to speak in Australia, calling it “absolutely outrageous.”

The 41-year-old whistleblower, an Australian citizen, has spent nine months in London’s Ecuadorian embassy, after claiming asylum to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual assault allegations.

Assange fears that once in Sweden, he could be extradited to America where, according to his lawyers, he is most likely to face trial and possibly even the death penalty for the release of thousands of classified US diplomatic cables, some of them about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You

By , March 21, 2013 5:59 am

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
By: Bulov on: 21.03.2013 [02:16 ] (63 reads)

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2588

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DgFmxcDKqUw

Published on Mar 18, 2013
The fiercely libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano talks with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his latest book, Lies The Government Told You, and his new show on Fox Business, which debuts Saturday, June 12, at 10 A.M. ET.

NOTE: This video was originally posted on June 11, 2010 by http://youtube.com/ReasonTV

NOTE: This video may be reproduced for non-profit, educational purposes ONLY.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

DISCLAIMER: This channel is in no way affiliated with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox Business Network, Newscorp or any of its subsidiaries or employees. The contents of this channel reflect the views of its owner, only. Videos made by various authors of various topics should not be construed to represent the views of the other authors also uploaded on this channel. Each video is representative of its creators only.
• Category
News & Politics
• License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You

By , March 21, 2013 3:16 am

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
By: Bulov on: 21.03.2013 [02:16 ] (48 reads)

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2588

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DgFmxcDKqUw

Published on Mar 18, 2013
The fiercely libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano talks with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his latest book, Lies The Government Told You, and his new show on Fox Business, which debuts Saturday, June 12, at 10 A.M. ET.

NOTE: This video was originally posted on June 11, 2010 by http://youtube.com/ReasonTV

NOTE: This video may be reproduced for non-profit, educational purposes ONLY.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

DISCLAIMER: This channel is in no way affiliated with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox Business Network, Newscorp or any of its subsidiaries or employees. The contents of this channel reflect the views of its owner, only. Videos made by various authors of various topics should not be construed to represent the views of the other authors also uploaded on this channel. Each video is representative of its creators only.
• Category
News & Politics
• License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

iraqwar.mirror-world.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You

By , March 21, 2013 12:33 am

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
By: Bulov on: 21.03.2013 [02:16 ] (35 reads)

Judge Napolitano: Lies The US Government Told You
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2588

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DgFmxcDKqUw

Published on Mar 18, 2013
The fiercely libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano talks with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his latest book, Lies The Government Told You, and his new show on Fox Business, which debuts Saturday, June 12, at 10 A.M. ET.

NOTE: This video was originally posted on June 11, 2010 by http://youtube.com/ReasonTV

NOTE: This video may be reproduced for non-profit, educational purposes ONLY.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

DISCLAIMER: This channel is in no way affiliated with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox Business Network, Newscorp or any of its subsidiaries or employees. The contents of this channel reflect the views of its owner, only. Videos made by various authors of various topics should not be construed to represent the views of the other authors also uploaded on this channel. Each video is representative of its creators only.
• Category
News & Politics
• License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Administration Appoints Itself Judge and Jury on Death by Drone

By , February 8, 2013 3:09 pm

Not to mention executioner.

A Department of Justice memorandum leaked by NBC News has garnered considerable controversy this week, renewing the ongoing discussion over the legality—and morality—of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program. The disclosure comes as John Brennan goes before the Senate as President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA.

The sixteen-page legal memo—a white paper composed by the DOJ for Congress—outlines the supposedly “lawful” justifications for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens: reasons which, as many commentators have observed, are disturbingly vague. The memo states that first, the citizen must be a senior member of Al-Qaeda; second, that this person must pose an “imminent threat” to the U.S.; and third, that the capture of the individual in question must be “infeasible.”

However, as Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian aptly observes:

The most vital fact to note about this memorandum is that it is not purporting to impose requirements on the president’s power to assassinate US citizens. When it concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida” who “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US” where capture is “infeasible”, it is not concluding that assassinations are permissible only in those circumstances.

Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor elaborates on this problem:

All that’s required, under the memo’s wording, is for a well-informed top official of the US government to decide that the person in question is a top terrorist. As for “imminent,” that does not mean “about to happen” in this case. It means only that the alleged terrorist must have recently been involved in activities posing a threat of violent attack and that there is no evidence they’ve renounced those activities.

Other criticisms of the memo have primarily repeated the unlawful and immoral nature of the drone strike program in general, namely that there is no judicial process involved for the target; that the president acts as judge, jury, and executioner in this matter; that such strikes completely violate sovereignty and international law; and that the very notion of drone strike killings, for many of the reasons above, is forthrightly unconstitutional.

Essentially, as Juan Cole explains on his blog Informed Consent, the president derives the power for the drone strike program from a 2001 legislative act, specifically the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF.) However, Cole asserts that this act fits the description of a “bill of attainder,” which is a “legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.” The framers of the Constitution rather smartly decided to forbid bills of attainder for this very reason in Article I, Section 9, paragraph three of the Constitution, which states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

Thus, the AUMF “in singling out all members of al-Qaeda wherever they are and regardless of nationality or of actual criminal action, as objects of legitimate lethal force,” Cole explains, makes it precisely a bill of attainder—and therefore, explicitly unconstitutional.

The leaked memo, in the very least, has placed more public pressure on the Obama administration to address the drone strike program transparently, an issue it has so far avoided or ignored. Yet the administration cannot hope to conceal the program indefinitely: already, the United Nations is conducting an inquiry into both the U.S. and U.K. drone programs, and—since the release of the leaked DOJ memo—President Obama’s nominee for the CIA director, John Brennan, will likely be grilled on the subject as well in his confirmation hearing.

One can only hope that holding the administration’s feet to the fire on this issue will prompt meaningful, lawful change to the drone strike program—yet the United States’ poor track record of respecting the judicial process and international law perhaps makes such expectations altogether too optimistic to hold.

Leslie Garvey is an intern at Foreign Policy in Focus.

FPIF Latest Content

Illusion of Choice By George Carlin, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano- Video to save for posterity

By , January 29, 2013 5:29 am

Illusion of Choice By George Carlin, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano- Video to save for posterity
By: Bulov on: 29.01.2013 [00:24 ] (126 reads)

Illusion of Choice By George Carlin, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano- Video to save for posterity

http://xrepublic.tv/node/1716
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KUCf0aNpWUc

The best way to keep people from revolting when they know the system is corrupt? Give them the illusion of choice. We have the illusion of choice when it comes to our foods, the media, which gas station we chose, and worst of all, our vote… and our leaders.
In this video, we explore the different ways major companies give us “peasants” the illusion of choice.
We hope that this video will help some people open their eyes and realize it is all a method to pacify us like babies.
Its time to spit out the pacifier, open our eyes, and demand real choices… Or create them for ourselves.

http://www.successcouncil.com/

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

US Judge Leads Workshop on Letters of Credit

By , January 3, 2013 11:52 pm

US Judge Leads Workshop on Letters of Credit

The U.S. Embassy to Iraq hosted a workshop at Iraq’s Judicial Development Institute from December 17-20 on the role of judges in adjudicating disputes involving letters of credit. U.S. Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff, representing the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), led the workshop with the assistance of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice.

The Iraqi Higher Judicial Council selected 15 judges from both trial and appellate courts in ten different provinces across Iraq to participate in the workshop to ensure the concepts reached all levels of the Iraqi judiciary. Topics of discussion included Independence Principal, Doctrine of Compliance, and International Fraud and Abuse.

“I was very impressed with the presentations at the CLDP workshop and very pleased it was held at the Judicial Development Institute, which was constructed with funding from the U.S. government,” said Steven H. Fagin, Director of the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Office at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. “This event was just the latest example of the strong partnership between the U.S. Mission and Iraq.”

Judge Amir Al-Shammari, Chief Judge of the Baghdad Commercial Court, noted that similar workshops organized by CLDP for the Iraqi judiciary “have resulted in many useful recommendations to modernize Iraq’s laws and adopt important international treaties.”

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is committed to the professional development of Iraq’s judges, judicial investigators, and court administrative staff through bilateral programs on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation, as outlined by the Strategic Framework Agreement.

(Source: US Embassy)

Iraq Business News

Judge Napolitano (the unplugged one): Shoot down a drone, become an American hero!

By , May 19, 2012 11:09 am

Judge Napolitano (the unplugged one): Shoot down a drone, become an American hero!
By: Bulov on: 19.05.2012 [10:48 ] (89 reads)

Judge Napolitano (the unplugged one): Shoot down a drone, become an American hero!
Get short URL

email story to a friend print version
Published: 17 May, 2012, 02:07

Judge Napolitano
TAGS: SciTech, USA, Planes

Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano has found a novel approach to handling the whole drone surveillance dilemma that has Americans worried that the government will soon watch their every move from the sky.

Speaking out against the future of aerial eavesdropping in America, Judge Napolitano said on Fox on Tuesday, “The first American patriot that shoots down one of these drones that comes too close to his children in his backyard will be an American hero.”

Congress is currently working alongside defense contractors, the Federal Aviation Administration and local law enforcement agencies across the country, among others, to draft plans to put unmanned aerial aircraft into US sky in the near future. The FAA believes that, at this rate, 30,000 small, remote-controlled drones could be above the homes of every American.
Even just recently, higher ups within the US Air Force admitted that drones might collect imagery that “may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.” Local law enforcement agencies already have drones at their disposal ready to be used as soon as Congress and the FAA can figure out how to use the crafts without disrupting air traffic.

Judge Napolitano warns that, even if it sounds like an impossible science fiction fantasy gone awry, Americans should be more than just a bit weary. If the past is any precedent, it wouldn’t be above Congress to have the crafts licensed and launched at any moment.

“The same Congress that let the president bomb Libya is going to let his Air Force spy in our backyards and like potted plants, they’ll look the other way.” Judge Napolitano said this week.
“The Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment were written to guarantee us the right to be left alone … Suddenly the government, silently, from 30, 000 feet above is violating those amendments.”

In recent weeks, we’ve reported at RT on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and now CISPA — the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. In each one of these cases, the federal government has circumvented the American public’s concerns over civil liberties. Now while CISPA still awaits further congressional voting and perhaps an eventual approval from the president himself, another hotbed issue involving the civil liberties of each and every American is on the table. Even if the next major threat to civil liberties isn’t just on Capitol Hill — but thousands of feet off the ground — Judge Napolitano said this week any American that takes up arms to attack drones is an alright person in his book.

Those are the only people on the planet that should be worried, either. Aside from the continuous deployment of combat drones across the world, surveillance crafts are now making their way north of the border into Canada too.

“The very same drone that was staking out a nest of insurgents and possibly shooting them could be deployed in New York for surveillance,” Ryan Calo, a researcher at Stanford Law School, tells the Wall Street Journal.

Or, in the judge’s words, right in — or over — your backyard.
http://rt.com/usa/news/judge-napolitano-drone-government-430/

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Judge blocks indefinite military detention provision

By , May 17, 2012 9:03 pm

Judge blocks indefinite military detention provision
By: Basil Katz, Reuters (sent by Invictus) on: 17.05.2012 [15:40 ] (87 reads)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a recently enacted law’s provision that authorizes indefinite military detention for those deemed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled in favor of a group of civilian activists and journalists who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, which was signed by President Barack Obama in December 2011.

Ads by Google
“In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” the judge said.

She added that it was in the public interest to reconsider the law so that “ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

By issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge prevents the U.S. government from enforcing section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions.

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, which represents the government in this case, declined to comment on the ruling.

During day-long oral arguments in March, Forrest heard lawyers for former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others argue that the law would have a “chilling effect” on their work.

“Can Hedges and others be detained for contacting al Qaeda or the Taliban as reporters?” Forrest asked the government at the hearing.

The judge said she worried at the government’s reluctance at the March hearing to specify whether examples of the plaintiffs’ activities – such as aiding the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in the case of Brigitta Jonsdottir, a member of parliament in Iceland – would fall under the scope of the provision.

“Failure to be able to make such a representation… requires the court to assume that, in fact, the government takes the position that a wide swath of expressive and associational conduct is in fact encompassed by 1021,” the judge wrote.

Hedges called the ruling “courageous” but said the judge “did what she was supposed to do” given that “the law is so clearly unconstitutional.”

The government argued that section 1021 could not be singled out as being a new part of the 2011 law. Section 1021 should instead be considered “an affirmation” of the resolution passed in 2001 authorizing the use of force following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

(Reporting By Basil Katz; Editing by Peter Cooney and Cynthia Osterman)

h ttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-lawsuitbre84f1hs-20120516,0,2381226.story

iraqwar.mirror-world.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news