I still don’t understand why we were told that dumping the body was in tradition with Islamic law. I also don’t understand why there were so many versions of events out in those early days. Sure, the basic story stayed the same; Pakistan, bin Laden, Marines, raid, 9/11 – but details of shoot-outs (or not), female hostages (or not), an armed bin Laden (or not), who could see what and when (or not) at the White House and other tidbits of info were flipping like a coin at a football game.
On the matter of a dead Usama bin Laden, many people in the US and the world were unimpressed and even critical of Obama for not showing any photos of the newly deceased bin Laden.
Last week the case against the National Defense Authorization Act was presented to a judge in New York. One of the plaintiffs in the case has decided to sue the Obama administration claiming that by simply doing his job he could be arrested and detained indefinitely due to the nature of his work, reporting. Chris Hedges, columnist for TruthDig, joins us to explain how his day in court went.
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill that extends three Patriot Act surveillance authorities until late May.
Obama signed the “FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011,” which refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Surveillance authorities under that act were extended in part by amending the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act.
With Obama’s signature, the ability of the United States to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps and monitor individual terrorists is maintained until May 27. The administration has said it supports a longer extension, and the Senate next week will begin working on a three-year extension.
This is NOT a new paper; it was penned in 2003 and uploaded recently (to the best I can tell). However I was pleased with the analysis (besides not questioning 9/11 itself) and the emphasis for maintaing civil liberties through the courts in the least. 2003 was a much harder year to be “against the grain” than 2010 as it was only a year or so after the 9/11 attacks. I doubt the author of the paper would is pleased at the current state of affairs.
After September lIth. governments around the world have taken swift action to address what is now perceived as a world-wide threat of terrorism. The measures adopted are powerful and far-reaching. They also have the very real potential seriously to restrict civil rights and freedoms: the very rights and freedoms in the name of which the new anti-terrorism initiatives have been taken. While Courts have the power to ensure that these initiatives do not improperly infringe on individual rights and liberties. in recent judicial pronouncements. it appears that several high courts – specifically including the Supreme Court of Canada – are suggesting more, not less, judicial deference to government initiatives taken at this troubled time.
I found this the other day browsing around but unfortunately I cannot open or download the file. I am hoping someone out there has an account with this group Palgrave Connect. All the chapter contents seem to be very interesting. I somehow get the feeling the issue will say basically that the means will justify the end. See comments below.
The Impact of 9-11: The New Legal Landscape is the third volume of the six-volume series The Day that Changed Everything? edited by Matthew J. Morgan. The series brings together from a broad spectrum of disciplines the leading thinkers of our time to reflect on one of the most significant events of our time. With a foreword by the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Bob Graham, the volume’s contributors include Alan Dershowitz, Aziz Huq, William Weaver, and other leading scholars.
List of Contents:
Acknowledgments * About the Contributors * Foreword – Bob Graham * Introduction – Matthew J. Morgan * The Preventative State: Uncharted Waters after 9/11 – Alan M. Dershowitz * Section I: The Impact on American Civil Liberties * The Logic of Suspending Civil Liberties – Dewi Williams * The Use of “Speech Zones” to Control Public Discourse in 21st Century America - Paul Haridakis and Amber Ferris * Challenges to Academic Freedom since 9/11 - Peter N. Kirstein * The Right to Bear Arms and Gun Control after 9/11 - David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen * National Security Letters and Diminishing Privacy Rights – Christopher P. Banks *
Countless prisoners are being denied justice under a federal statute whose intent was to reduce frivolous law suits, two prominent legal authorities say.
Law professors Margo Schlanger of Washington University, St. Louis, and Giovanna Shay of Yale indict the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act(PLRA) of 1996 for “undermining the rule of law in America’s prisons” by “preventing inmates from raising legitimate claims” against their keepers.
The professors trace the subsequent “dramatic decline” in prisoner law suits to the fact that “constitutionally meritorious cases are now faced with new and often insurmountable obstacles.”
We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.
Presumably, complying with American and international law are some of the ideals that we fight to defend.
Torture is a violation of both international and American law. Specifically, the Geneva Convention makes it illegal to inflict mental or physical torture or inhuman treatment.
The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it’s perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the “three-strikes” rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?). Read the rest of this entry »
Shortly before 8:00 Tuesday morning, a concerned parent visited the elementary school at West-Mont Christian Academy in North Coventry, Pennsylvania. After checking in at the desk, the teacher was escorted to the lobby to wait for his child’s kindergarten teacher. Read the rest of this entry »
No longer the stuff of disturbing futuristic fantasies, an arsenal of “crowd control munitions,” including one that reportedly made its debut in the U.S., was deployed with a massive, overpowering police presence in Pittsburgh during last week’s G-20 protests.
Nearly 200 arrests were made and civil liberties groups charged the many thousands of police (most transported on Port Authority buses displaying “PITTSBURGH WELCOMES THE WORLD”), from as far away as Arizona and Florida with overreacting…and they had plenty of weaponry with which to do it.
Bean bags fired from shotguns, CS (tear) gas, OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) spray, flash-bang grenades, batons and, according to local news reports, for the first time on the streets of America, the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
Mounted in the turret of an Armored Personnel Carrier (APC), I saw the LRAD in action twice in the area of 25th, Penn and Liberty Streets of Lawrenceville, an old Pittsburgh neighborhood. Blasting a shrill, piercing noise like a high-pitched police siren on steroids, it quickly swept streets and sidewalks of pedestrians, merchants and journalists and drove residents into their homes, but in neither case were any demonstrators present. The APC, oversized and sinister for a city street, together with lines of police in full riot gear looking like darkly threatening Michelin Men, made for a scene out of a movie you didn’t want to be in.
Posted by Brian 
