environmentallawjournal

Alaska oil spill BP december

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:47:19 +0000

Calls for criminal and civil actions have been mounting against BP, as evidence of the oil giant’s lack of proper compliance with regulations has come to light. In November, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi remanded a lawsuit [JURIST report] by the Mississippi attorney general against the administrator of the BP $20 billion Deepwater Horizons reparations fund. In July, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed consolidated racketeering claims against BP in connection with the spill brought under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) [18 USC § 1961 et seq. text]. Former Alabama Attorney General Troy King filed a lawsuit in August 2010 against BP for damages to the state’s coast and economy, claiming that the oil giant has failed in its efforts to accept responsibility for the oil spill. In July 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company in a Louisiana state court alleging that its negligent actions led to the spill and that BP was further negligent in its oversight of the cleanup effort, resulting in volunteers falling ill due to inadequate protective equipment. One month prior, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DOJ would review whether any criminal or civil laws were violated by BP.

Federal judge rules BP not negligent in Alaska oil spill

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:46:19 +0000

A judge for the US District Court for the District of Alaska [official website] on Tuesday dismissed the petition of federal prosecutors, finding that British Petroleum (BP) [corporate website; JURIST news archive] was not negligent in a 2009 oil spill. Because the spill, which released 13,500 gallons of oil onto the North Slope of Alaska, was not a result of BP’s negligence, BP did not violate the terms of its probation. BP’s probation began as a result of a 2007 conviction [AP report] when the company was found negligent for spilling 200,000 gallons of oil on the North Slope in 2006. Prosecutors linked the two spills as evidence of BP’s negligence by arguing that in both instances the pipes had frozen and BP ignored the signs of rupturing and leaking in order to cut costs. The pipe had been partially or fully frozen for at least six months before the expanding ice caused it to rupture [Alaska Dispatch report]. Judge Ralph Beistline dismissed this argument stating that the 2009 spill was a result of a unique alignment of circumstances and that BP adhered to accepted industry practices [WP report] and reasonably addressed the situation. Beistline also dismissed prosecutors’ claim that the migration of the oil into US waters was a violation of the Clean Water Act [33 USC § 1251 et seq. text]. The decision is a victory for the oil company

US appeals court strikes down state law restricting election donations

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:45:20 +0000

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] that a Washington law banning political action committees from taking donations of $5,000 or more in the last three weeks before an election is unconstitutional. The law was challenged by Family PAC [official website] on three grounds, including two that require political action committees to report on the identities and occupations of contributors. Only the three-week time limitation was found to be an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech under the First Amendment [text]. Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna [official website] argued the law was designed to protect citizens who take advantage of a widely used vote-by-mail system, in which voters mail in their ballots 18 days before the election. The court, however, said a 21-day ban on accepting donations is not “narrowly tailored” to suit the governmental interest in “informing the electorate.” The court also concluded that, “The fact that voters have access to ballots earlier than before, and that they may choose to vote before all the election debate is in fact over, is not a sufficient reason to save this statute.”

Washington has been involved in multiple lawsuits involving elections this year. In November, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the names of signers of a petition to abolish a domestic partnership law could be released [JURIST report] because it was not a violation of the First Amendment or unreasonably dangerous to do so. A US district court also ruled in January on the constitutionality of Washington’s primary election system [JURIST report]. The court held that the system was constitutional because it would not confuse a reasonable voter, as plaintiffs said it would.

Montana high court re-affirms ban on corporate campaign spending

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:43:40 +0000

The Montana Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Friday that corporations cannot directly contribute to political campaigns or candidates. In the case, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana, the high court affirmed a century-old ban on corporate spending, implemented by the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act [PPL backgrounder]. The high court concluded that corporations have numerous avenues for voicing their political views, despite a ban on direct candidate or campaign contributions:

Corporations, through their political committees organized under Montana law, are and have been a substantial presence and active participants in Montana politics … The many lobbyists and political committees who participate in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness. Under the undisputed facts here, the political committee is an easily implemented and effective alternative to direct corporate spending for engaging in political speech.

Two judges dissented from the majority, arguing [AP report] that the US Supreme Court [official website] ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] declares that a state cannot impose a complete ban on corporate spending. The dissent predicts that if the Supreme Court hears this case, it will overturn the Montana high court’s decision.

Campaign finance [JURIST news archive] has been a hotly contested issue recently. Two weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a Wisconsin law that prohibited people from donating more than $10,000 per year to political action committees. In June, the US Supreme Court ruled that an Arizona campaign finance regulation violated the First Amendment [JURIST report]. In May, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a Minnesota law that prohibited direct contributions to candidates and affiliated entities. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] ruled in 2009 that a Connecticut campaign finance law discriminated against minor party candidates [JURIST report] in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

US extradites woman suspected of war crimes to Bosnia

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:42:24 +0000

The US has extradited Rasema Handanovic, a woman accused of killing Bosnian Croat civilians during the 1992-1995 Bosnian Civil War [JURIST news archive], according to US officials Tuesday. Handanovic, along with Edin Dzeko who was extradited last week, served in a unit of the Bosnian Army that attacked a village [AP report] in Trusina on April 16, 1993, resulting in the death of 18 civilians. Fellow combatants testified to having witnessed Handanovic personally shoot wounded victims in the head [Reuters report], some multiple times. Handanovic, who immigrated to the US and became a citizen in 2006, lived with her family in Oregon. She faces a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

A number of cases have been opened in relation to the Bosnian Civil War. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina [official website] confirmed the indictment [JURIST report] of former police officer Bozidar Kuvelja in March for his role in a 1995 massacre. In February, French authorities arrested Milorad Momic [JURIST report] under an international arrest warrant for his suspected involvement in war crimes. Last August, Spanish officials extradited accused Montenegrin war criminal [JURIST report] Veselin Vlahovic, known as the “monster of Grbavica,” to Sarajevo. He was wanted on three international arrest warrants, including one for the rape, torture and murder of more than 100 women and children and is expected to face genocide charges before the country’s war crimes court.

Philippines ex-president faces new charges

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:41:07 +0000

Philippine authorities filed a second criminal complaint against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive], the former Philippine president who has been under hospital arrest [JURIST report] for previous charges of corruption and electoral fraud. The second complaint alleges that Arroyo approved a $329-million national broadband network deal with the Chinese company ZTE Corporation [corporate website] in return for millions of dollars in kickbacks in 2008. Arroyo abandoned the deal in 2008 as a result of public pressure. Prosecutors also charged Arroyo’s husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, the former Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza and former Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. on related charges. The former president is accused of violating sections 3 (g) and (i) of the Republic Act 3019 [text], as well as the Republic Act 6713 [text], also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Arroyo and her husband reject the accusations.

Arroyo was formally charged last month with corruption and election fraud during her presidency and was arrested the next day on a warrant issued for the charges. Earlier that same week, Arroyo and her husband tried to leave the country after the Philippine Supreme Court allowed them to travel [JURIST report] despite the pending charges, but were denied transit until they received an official copy of the court order. The arrest warrant effectively overrides the court’s travel permit. In July 2010, current Philippine president Benigno Aquino [BBC profile] signed an executive order [JURIST report] to set up a “truth commission” to investigate allegations that the outgoing administration engaged in corruption and rights violations.

Russia criticizes US human rights record

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:40:46 +0000

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) [official website] issued a report on Wednesday strongly criticizing the human rights record of a number of countries including the United States. Twenty pages of the 90-page report focus on the United States [AP report], and list a number of practices and conditions that the MFA views as violations of basic human rights. Among the concerns raised were alleged invasions of personal privacy, purported mistreatment of Muslim Americans since the 9/11 terror attacks [JURIST Feature] and judicial errors which have permitted innocent people to be convicted of capital crimes. The MFA report also highlights the “notorious” military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] and rebukes US President Barack Obama [official profile] for “legalizing indefinite and extrajudicial custody” of those prisoners. The report also criticizes Canada, European Union nations, and some former Soviet states. It excludes the Middle East and Asia. Some of the MFA report’s concerns surrounding capital punishment and the Guantanamo Bay prison [JURIST op-eds] have been voiced by JURIST contributors.

This report marks the first time that the MFA has issued a statement regarding the state of affairs of human rights in other countries, although Russia has been criticized internationally and by its own citizens for its human rights record. Earlier this month, the Russia Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights called for the annulment [JURIST report] of the conviction of ex-oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive]. Also this month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official website, in Russian; JURIST news archive] ordered an investigation into allegations of fraud [JURIST report] in recent parliamentary elections. Earlier, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) [official website] issued preliminary findings [JURIST report] that the Russian election was “characterized by frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulation.” The US State Department [official website] and other world leaders have also called for an investigation into the allegations of election fraud and expressed concern over “harassment” of election monitoring groups.

India upper parliament house fails to pass anti-corruption bill

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:40:20 +0000

The Indian upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha [official website], on Thursday failed to pass an anti-corruption bill [text, PDF] that proposed the creation of an official anti-corruption agency known as Lokpal. The upper house met in an extended session of parliament intended to allow for passage of the Lokpal bill, but adjourned at midnight after 14 hours of acrimonious debate [AFP report]. The bill was torpedoed by a ruling-coalition party member, the Trinamool Congress, in an abrupt reversal. Opposition parties have accused the government of deliberately avoiding a vote [VOA report] because it lacked the votes. The future of the bill is unsure. Parliament is scheduled to reconvene early next year [AP report], but the date is unclear. Anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare has criticized the Lokpal bill, demanding a more powerful ombudsman while the opposition demanded independent investigatory powers.

Corruption has been a major issue recently in Indian politics. Earlier this week, the Lok Sabha [official website], the Indian lower house of parliament, passed the Lokpal bill [JURIST report]. The bill was proposed in response to many corruption scandals that have occurred in India recently including a high court judge embezzling funds [JURIST report]. Also, Indian activist Anna Hazare’s twelve day fast in August prompted the Indian government to address the issue of corruption. Earlier this month, the Transparency Index (TI) released its Corruptions Perceptions Index in which it named India as one of the countries whose corruption perception had deteriorated [JURIST report] since last year. In August, addressing both houses of parliament, Indian president Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil indicated that the Indian government would work to eradicate corruption [JURIST report] and take measures to ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption and that it will take other legislative and administrative measures necessary to improve transparency.

Iran court sentences opposition leader to 8 years in prison
John Paul Putney on December 30, 2011 12:03 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court on Wednesday sentenced opposition figure and former Iranian foreign minister Ebrahim Yazdi to eight years in prison for attempting to act against national security. Yazdi was also banned from civic activities for five years [AFP report] in the closed-door trial reportedly held in early November. Yazdi, now 80 and suffering from cancer and a heart ailment, is head of the Freedom Movement of Iran [Princeton University backgrounder], which was instrumental in the 1979 Islamic revolution but was subsequently banned after it turned against clerics and advocated democratic reform [AP report]. According to his lawyer, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, Yazdi refused to defend himself [DPA report] after questioning the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the court. Yazdi’s lawyer, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, in July was sentenced to nine years in prison and banned from working as a lawyer [JURIST report] and a teacher for ten years after being convicted of seeking to overthrow the government. Yazdi plans to appeal and hopes for an appeals court that will allow a public trial with a jury.

Yazdi is one of several opposition figures that have been detained and charged in connection with a wave of civil unrest following the disputed re-election [JURIST news archive] of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile, official website]. In March, Iranian opposition leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and Mehdi Karroubi [NYT profile; JURIST news archive] and their wives were arrested and jailed [JURIST report]. In February, Karroubi called for his own trial to be set up in a public court in an open letter to the head of the Supreme Judicial System of Iran [GlobaLex backgrounder], Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani [official website, in Farsi]. Also in February, Iranian lawmakers called for Karroubi and two other opposition leaders, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former reformist president Mohammad Khatami [BBC profile] to face trial and death

Poland announces new amnesty policy

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:39:54 +0000

The Poland Ministry of Interior [official website] announced Thursday a new amnesty program [Ministry of Interior information] that will allow thousands of illegal immigrants to stay and work in Poland. The new policy will give illegal immigrants who have resided in Poland since December 2007 or longer to apply for residence. Residents who have been denied legal status in the past and ordered deported will have to show they have been in the country without leaving since at least January 1, 2010. Those who are approved will be granted amnesty for two years, during which time they can enter into employment contracts and work to legitimize their stay for longer. The law was passed by the Polish Sejm in July and signed [EUBusiness report] by President Bronislaw Komorowski in August. This is the third amnesty law [DW-World report] of its kind Poland has passed, including one in 2003 and one in 2007. Officials believe this law will be more successful because there are fewer restrictions than in the previous laws.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants continues to be a controversial international issues. In August, US President Barack Obama announced major reforms [JURIST report] to the US’s current immigration system, putting 300,000 illegal immigrants’ cases up for review and temporarily halting their deportation. Many of the criteria allowing immigrants to stay in this country mirror portions of the US Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act [materials], which has languished in Congress for a decade, and attempts to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants who serve in the military or achieve a college education. Both France and Spain [JURIST reports] have granted amnesty at times, to varying results. Spain was criticized, as EU commissioner complained that its amnesty program contributed to an uptick in illegal immigration between Africa and Europe. The UK rejected an amnesty program [JURIST report] in 2006, and instead focused on a “fair but tough” enforcement of immigration law.

US appeals court upholds telecom company immunity law

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:39:27 +0000

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday unanimously ruled [opinion, PDF] that a law granting immunity from civil suits for telecommunications companies that assist government intelligence agencies is constitutional. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 (FISA) [text] provides in Section 802 that “a civil action may not lie or be maintained . . . against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community” as long as the Attorney General certifies this fact while it is still in district court. In an appeal of a dismissal under this section challenging the provision as unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of appeals judges affirmed the dismissal, saying the section “does not violate Articles I or II of the Constitution or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” The same court also reinstated two other lawsuits [Washington Post report] brought by telecommunications customers seeking redress for alleged violations of privacy by the National Security Agency (NSA) [official website].

The appeal consolidated 33 cases brought since 2006 challenging immunity for the companies as unconstitutional. The US House of Representatives passed amendments to FISA [JURIST report] in 2008 that included a controversial provision granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the NSA warrantless surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. The original suits were brought in response to reports that the NSA was using data gathered from warrantless searches [JURIST report] by American telecommunications companies to identify people with connections to terrorism. The US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled [opinion, PDF] in 2002 that warrantless wiretapping surveillance was constitutional after an order by former US President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly monitor international calls