COURT TRANSCRIPT. FARAJ HUSSAN AL SAADIS QC VS SECURITY SERVICES OFFICER
08-02-2010
|
The Use of Executive Privilege Must Be Reined In: Problematic Claims of Privilege Regarding the U.S. Attorney Firings and Torture Policies
15-07-2008
Last Thursday, July 10, former White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove refused to honor the subpoena of a House subcommittee looking into whether or not wrongful pressure was brought upon U.S. Attorneys in connection with the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Arkansas.
|
Did the Supreme Court Violate or Vindicate the Constitution in the Latest Guantanamo Bay Decision? The Difference Between Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
18-06-2008
Not surprisingly, last week’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush has already been decried by conservatives and hailed by liberals.
|
R v Benbrika & Ors (Ruling no 20) [2008] VSC 80
22-03-2008
The accused in this case, 12 in number, have been indicted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on a total of 13 counts alleging breaches of that part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code concerned with proscribing activity associated with terrorism.
|
The Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes: How An ACLU Lawsuit Might Force the Bush Administration To Reveal What Actually Happened
14-12-2007
By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of "advanced interrogation" techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved.
|
What's at Stake in the Latest Guantanamo Bay Case?
05-12-2007
The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Boumediene v. Bush, which presents the question whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.
|
‘Enemy Combatant’ or Enemy of the Government?
03-10-2007
By introducing the concept of war into national law, the latest U.S. anti-terrorist law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), produces a turning point in the legal and political organization of the Western world. It puts an end to a form of state that succeeded in “establishing peace internally and excluding hostility as a concept of law.”1 It is the constituent act of a new form of state that establishes war as a political relation between constituted authorities and national populations
|
A System of Wholesale Denial of Rights
03-10-2007
As in the past, Americans owe Jean-Claude Paye a debt of gratitude. From his position, as a sociologist in Brussels, he has proven that he can see what is happening in George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s America, more clearly perhaps than many who live in the United States.
|
Modest Improvements Cannot Save an Inherently Flawed Process at Guantánamo
28-07-2007
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in Bismullah v. Gates, the first case interpreting the new statutory review procedures created to replace habeas corpus for Guantánamo detainees.
|
How a Military Officer's Sworn Declaration Sheds New Light on Guantanamo's Flawed Detention System
29-06-2007
Last week, a U.S. Army Reserve officer provided the first glimpse into the inner-workings of the Bush Administration's system for classifying hundreds of Guantanamo detainees as "enemy combatants."
|
The Al-Marri Decision: A Victory for One Man, and for a Principle, But One With Limited or Nonexistent Practical Consequence
18-06-2007
On Monday, June 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. The ruling was a blow to the Bush Administration. The Fourth Circuit is one the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country.
|
A Bid to Litigate the Legality of U.S.-Sponsored Torture in Federal Court: Will It Succeed?
05-06-2007
Last week, the ACLU filed a suit that could provide human rights activists with an ingenious mechanism to allow a federal court to litigate whether torture sponsored by the U.S. is a tort - which would, in turn, mean its victims would be entitled to money damages.
|
Getting Rid of Lawyers at Guantanamo: An Update
17-05-2007
Yesterday morning in Washington, I was lucky enough to witness oral arguments in the latest chapter in the Guantánamo litigation saga.
|
Habeas Corpus Evaporating
15-05-2007
Aziz Huq directs the Liberty and National Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in Times of Terror, and recipient of a 2006 Carnegie Scholars Fellowship.
|
The Case Against Restricting Lawyers at Guantanamo
15-05-2007
JURIST Special Guest Columnist Jonathan Hafetz, Counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says that DOJ-proposed restrictions on lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees would chill communications between lawyers and their clients, suppress information about detentions, and inhibit detainees from meaningfully contesting the allegations against them...
|
David Hicks' Guilty Plea: Another Blow to US Moral Authority
10-04-2007
JURIST Guest Columnist Victor Hansen of New England School of Law says that the overbearing terms imposed on Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks in his recent military commission plea agreement are the product of an overly and unfairly coercive system and have further undermined America's moral authority in rule of law matters...
|
Coming Up Short on Habeas for Detainees
03-04-2007
JURIST Contributing Editor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, says that the Supreme Court's failure to marshall enough votes to review the habeas-stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act at this stage shows that the court cannot be relied upon to consistently provide justice and that Congress should pass rescinding legislation...
|
Dangerous Discretion: State Secrets and the El-Masri Rendition Case
13-03-2007
JURIST Guest Columnist Aziz Huq, Director of the Liberty and National Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, says that the El-Masri v. Tenet ruling represents a dangerous trend in "state secrets" cases towards immunity from litigation at the discretion of the executive...
|
The Un-American Way: The Kafkaesque Case of Khalid El-Masri
13-03-2007
JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says that the dismissal of Khalid el-Masri's rendition appeal on state secrets grounds leaves him without right or remedy, just like the iconic Joseph K. in Franz Kafka's The Trial, a legal and personal powerlessness which might have been expected under various historically-notorious regimes, but not in the United States of America...
|
The Ruling on Jose Padilla's Competence to Stand Trial: The Judge May Have Been Right, But Legal and Moral Questions Persist
05-03-2007
Last week, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ruled that American citizen Jose Padilla, who is now facing terrorism charges in Miami, Florida, is competent to stand trial.
|
