The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction against an Oklahoma referendum banning the use of Islamic Sharia law in courts and said there’s no evidence of such influence on US courts.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment in Oklahoma that bans the use of the Islamic legal code known as Sharia, calling the popular measure discriminatory and saying there is no evidence that US courts are influenced by those Muslim legal precepts.
Skip to next paragraph
The Denver-based court, which is not known for holding progressive views, on Tuesday upheld a lower court injunction against the proposed amendment, which passed in 2010 by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in a referendum. The court decision, sparked by a lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, repudiated, in part, the fear of ?creeping Sharia? that has inspired over 20 proposed state laws and has infused some Republican campaign rhetoric.
?Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve,? the three judge panel wrote. ?Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”
The court concluded that the law also interferes with the Constitution’s First Amendment ban on religious discrimination, pointing out that the law focuses on Sharia ?while not prohibiting people of other faiths to rely on the legal precepts of their religions.?
The ruling does not settle the case, but reaffirms a decision made by an Oklahoma state judge to grant an injunction against the law taking effect.
At the same time, the decision may not lay to rest concerns among many Americans that the US legal system is susceptible to influence by legal ideas embodied in foreign cultures and religions, such as Sharia. Sharia law uses as its foundation the Koran and Mohammed’s teachings.
Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/zJJbuLd7lGY/Court-dismisses-fears-of-creeping-Sharia-that-inspired-Oklahoma-ban-video
freedom riders survivor redemption island facebook dislike button ralph macchio mariska hargitay international monetary fund jeep wrangler
Tags:
islamic sharia law,
Law,
tenth circuit court of appeals
WASHINGTON ? After a bruising battle in Congress, the Obama administration retained the right to investigate and try suspected terrorists in civilian courts. But officials say newly enacted legislation raises a host of questions that will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.
During a struggle that began last May and ended this past week in a compromise defense bill, the administration waged an uphill fight against a majority of Republicans and some Democrats trying to expand the role of the military while reducing the role of civilian courts in the fight against terrorism.
It was the latest effort by conservatives to keep open the U.S. military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to place terrorism suspects in indefinite detention and to designate military commissions as the preferred alternative to civilian courts for meting out justice.
In the end, the administration came away with one major victory. Gone from the defense bill during House-Senate negotiations was a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.
The new law would require military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The military custody requirement does not apply to U.S. citizens or to lawful U.S. residents.
The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.
The new law “will ramp up the political costs” when the administration decides to hold a civilian criminal prosecution for a detainee, said University of Texas law professor Robert M. Chesney, who focused on detainee issues while serving at the Justice Department in 2009.
But, Chesney added, “this law does leave the president with flexibility” to have civilian trials “and therefore the law is neither quite as bad as its opponents say nor as useful as its supporters think.”
Weighing in heavily in the debate was the FBI, the front-line investigative agency that now must operate in a reordered environment in which the U.S. military will suddenly play a bigger role that is sometimes side by side with law enforcement.
In a Nov. 28 letter to Congress, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the legislation will inhibit the bureau’s ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence.
Mueller tried to make a similar point at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this past week, but got little sympathy from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
“What I am focused on is what happens at the time of arrest,” the FBI director said.
“Well, then you need to work this out with the Department of Defense, don’t you?” said Sessions, a former federal prosecutor and ex-Alabama attorney general.
Mueller also said it wasn’t clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.
And last month, Lisa Monaco, assistant attorney general for national security, said that “agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether and how to get a waiver . in order to thwart an al-Qaida plot against the homeland.”
Law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, say that it won’t be easy working under a new set of rules that must be written in the next 60 days before the law goes into effect.
Pressure from the administration produced one late compromise section that says nothing in the bill may be “construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”
But that left open questions.
“I’m concerned with the lack of clarity about who is in charge of investigation and interrogation for detainees in military custody,” Michael J. Nardotti, the judge advocate general of the Army from 1993 to 1997, said of the legislation.
“If the detainees are in military custody and the military is responsible for their disposition and control, what role does the FBI have in that process and is the FBI going to be directed in some respects by the military on the use of the bureau’s investigative resources?” asked Nardotti.
“The second concern I have,” said Nardotti, “is that the use of the words `associated forces’ in the legislation can be read as expanding the definition of who can be held indefinitely in military custody in an open-ended conflict.” That could become an important issue because the legislation will undoubtedly at some point ? or at many points ? undergo scrutiny by the courts.
Gary Solis, a retired judge advocate who served 26 years in the Marine Corps, called the latest political venture into how best to battle terrorism “a very bad idea.”
“Making the military the warders of every suspected terrorist goes far beyond the military’s legislatively assigned mission,” he said.
“It appears to me to be an effort to assure that all suspected terrorists will be tried by military commission,” said Solis. “Despite the fact that hundreds of terrorists have been tried in the federal courts, convicted and sentenced to long terms, for reasons that escape me Congress is unwilling to allow our courts to proceed with what they have demonstrably been so capable of doing.”
Congress and the White House have been at odds over detention policy ever since President Barack Obama was sworn in.
Many lawmakers have resisted the administration’s efforts to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and have opposed trying terror suspects in federal courts in the United States rather than by military commission. This latest round featured some Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, supporting the measure while some Republicans and libertarian-leaning Republicans, including Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, opposed the legislation that the administration objected to.
___
Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/obama/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_terrorism
sun news telugu news headlines today lauryn hill austin weather houston weather sprint
Tags:
Law
Eric Gay / AP
A Predator B unmanned aircraft lands after a mission at the Naval Air Station, Tuesday, Nov. 8, in Corpus Christi, Texas.
By Sylvia Wood, msnbc.com
The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing new rules that could make it easier for law enforcement agencies to use drone aircraft in?the U.S., raising concerns about privacy at a time when the aircraft are already conducting surveillance missions in some parts of the country.
The American Civil Liberties Union released a report?Thursday demanding better protections against a surveillance society, ?in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.?
?Our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values,? warns the ACLU report, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft.”
The?report follows a weekend story by the Los Angeles Times that detailed how the unmanned aircraft are being used in domestic law enforcement cases, and not just along the country?s borders to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers?as was originally authorized by Congress in 2005.
?
The Times said a North Dakota county sheriff asked federal authorities to employ a drone for surveillance in a standoff with three men on a farm June 23, resulting in the first known arrest of U.S. citizens involving the spy planes in a domestic case.
Live Poll
Do you think domestic drones pose a privacy concern?
-
170999
Yes. They will, by making surveillance much easier and cheaper for law enforcement.
63%
-
171000
No. As long as they stay focused on criminal activity, they’re no different than regular aircraft.
35%
-
171001
I don’t know.
2%
VoteTotal Votes: 7828
Since then, the Times said, two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base have flown at least two dozen surveillance flights for local police. The Times reported the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration have also used drones in domestic investigations.
Next month, the FAA is expected to issue proposed rules that the?ACLU warns could expand their use by domestic law enforcement agencies.
The FAA declined comment for this story but in a recent fact sheet acknowledged the growing interest by law enforcement in unmanned aircraft.
?The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas and national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft,? the FAA statement said. ?The goal is to help identify the challenges that UAS (umanned aircraft systems) will bring into this environment and what type of operations law enforcement can safely perform.?
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has supported expanding the use of domestic drones along the border with Mexico. In October, the Sheriff’s Department in?Montgomery County, north of Houston, bought a $300,000 ShadowHawk drone from Vanguard Defense industries using federal homeland security grant funds.
?It’s an exciting piece of equipment for us,” Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the sheriff’s office told the Houston Chronicle at the time. “We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety — looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire?issues.”
McDaniel said the aircraft would not be used to track suspects? vehicles but may provide surveillance for officers serving warrants.
M. Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, says widespread use of drones domestically seems inevitable, particularly since they are an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopter?and airplanes.
?Drones are capable of finding or following a specific person,? he writes in a recent article in the Stanford Law Review. ?They can fly patterns in search of suspicious activities or hover over a location in wait. Some are as small as birds or insects, others as big as blimps. In addition to high-resolution cameras and microphones, drones can be equipped with thermal imaging and the capacity to intercept wireless communications.?
In addition to privacy concerns, Calo said, drones also raise safety and security issues, particularly because they can crash and their guidance systems can be hacked. He cited the case of the CIA drone recently lost in Iran. The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday reported a claim by an Iranian engineer that?the Iranians were able to exploit a navigational weakness in the drone?s technology to make it land in Iran.
Catherine Crump, the ACLU report?s?co-author and staff attorney with the Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said the organization isn?t against the use of all domestic drones but rather wants to make privacy a central issue as the technology becomes more available.
“We have a clear opportunity to get ahead of the game,? she said.
Some of the ACLU?s recommendations include not deploying drones unless there is?certainty that they will collect evidence of a specific crime. If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required, the ACLU said. The report also calls for restrictions on retaining images of identifiable people, as well as an open process for developing policies on how drones will be used.
?Historically, the fact that manned helicopters and airplanes are expensive has imposed a natural limit on aerial surveillance. But the prospect of cheap, flying video surveillance cameras will likely open the floodgates,? said Jay Stanley, the report?s other co-author and senior policy analyst with the ACLU?s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Source: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9476623-domestic-drones-coming-soon-over-a-home-near-you
tinkerbell modern warfare 3 stoke rift sisters blackburn rovers canvas
Tags:
Law
Parole Denied For Women Who Cooked Husband: Gosia Wozniacka of the AP reports that Omaima Nelson, a California woman serving a life sentence for the killing, chopping, and cooking of her husband during Thanksgiving 1991, was denied her second bid for parole Wednesday. Nelson argued that she should be paroled because she was a changed person, claiming to be sorry and claiming that she killed in self-defense. Due to her long criminal history, lack of responsibility, and failure to complete educational and vocational programs, the two-person panel of the state Board of Parole found that Nelson continued to be a danger to society. Parole commissioners said Nelson will not be eligible to seek parole again for 15 years — the maximum period she can be held without another hearing.
Judge Allows Alleged Murderer’s Road-trip: Gene Johnson of AP reports that in an oral ruling Monday, Washington Judge Micheal Moynihan decided to allow accused murderer Peggy Sue Thomas to take a two-week, five-state road trip so she can attend her half-sister’s memorial service, receive dental care, and attend to a few other chores. Thomas is charged with killing a man in 2003.? Despite protests from Island County Prosecutor Greg Banks, Thomas is free on $500,000 bail, and had her arraignment delayed a week to Oct. 31 to accommodate the trip. While Thomas will be on a GPS monitoring device, there will be various non-signal points along the trip that might not immediately report if she flees the country. Banks stated: “That’s the first time I’ve ever seen anything like that. We’re sure hoping she comes back.”
Alabama Immigration Law Leaves Police Uncertain: After a meeting on Thursday with the Department of Homeland Security, Mobile Police Chief Micheal T. Williams announced there are too many gray areas to begin enforcement of the Alabama’s new Immigration law, which continues to be disputed by the U.S. Justice and Department and civil rights groups. The law expressly prohibits profiling but states that an officer can make an arrest when “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.” Police are also prohibited from raiding job sites where illegal immigrants might be working and must consult the federal government when determining if someone is illegal or not. Due to the confusion, John Jenkins, the state’s Deputy Director of Homeland Security, told the group of 50 officers from across Mobile and Baldwin counties to consult with their city attorneys for clarification. David Ferrara of the Press-Register reports. ?
?
Source: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2011/10/news-scan-1049.html
roddy white roddy white vincent jackson jets amazing race michael oher giants
Tags:
Law
Entries