This week we have been discussing Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent speech at Northwestern University Law School detailing the claim of President Barack Obama that he has the right to kill American citizens based on his inherent authority and the ongoing war on terror. I previously wrote a blog and a column on the issue. Those pieces noted that Holder limited his remarks by referring to targeted killing “abroad.” However, I noted that the Administration’s past references to this power are not so limited. Indeed, the only limits stated by the Administration have been self-imposed standards and what Holder calls “due process” — expressly excluding “judicial process.” Now, FBI Director Robert Mueller has entered the fray. On Wednesday Mueller was asked in a congressional hearing whether the current policy would allow the killing of citizens in the United States. Mueller said that he simply did not know whether he could order such an assassination. It was the perfect moment to capture the dangerous ambiguity introduced into our system by this claim of inherent authority. I can understand Mueller deferring to the Attorney General on the meaning of his remarks, but the question was whether Mueller understands that the same power exists within the United States. One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
Continue reading “Mueller: I Can’t Say Whether I Now Can Kill Citizens In The United States Under Obama’s Kill Doctrine”
Category: International
Below is today’s column in Foreign Policy magazine on Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech at Northwestern University Law School. UPDATE: FBI Director declines to answer whether the new doctrine allows the killing of citizens in the United States.
Scott Lupien insists that he is the ultimate conservationist. According to the article below, Lupien, an American fluent in Chinese, takes wealthy Chinese to Canada where they can see magnificent Polar bears up close . . . and kill them and turn them into rugs. The , Lupien is a professional hunter who is “teaching the Chinese about conservation” by leading trips to shoot down male polar bears. He insists that his customers respect nature: “Each hunter is allowed to kill one male only. We then turn them into rugs.” On his website, however, Lupien says that the story is false raising an interesting question of potential defamation.
Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University Law School yesterday explaining President Barack Obama’s claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport.
Continue reading “Holder Promises To Kill Citizens With Care”
China has found its answer to Survivor. Emphasizing a strength, the latest television sensation is Interviews Before Execution where condemned prisoners breakdown in confessions before being led off to be executed.
Continue reading “[Non] Survivor: China’s New Hit Show Features Condemned Prisoners In Last Moments”
Iranian human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani has been sentenced to 18 years in prison by what the Iranian government refers to as “courts.” To his credit, Soltani refused to defend himself before the Iranian tribunal which blindly carries out the dictates of the religious leaders of the country.
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Is an opinion defamation? Is it defamation if it is worn on a t-shirt? Is it defamation if you post a picture of yourself wearing said t-shirt on Facebook? Is the manufacturer liable for civil damages a purchaser of their t-shirt incurred since they wrote the content later found defamatory? An unusual case in Spain raises these questions and more.
A woman in Madrid, Spain is certainly perplexed by a court ruling that found her guilty of a “dignitary tort”. She was sentenced and initially ordered to pay 2,000 euros ( ≈ $2640) in damages and a 240 euro-fine ( ≈ $317), but the court later reduced the damages on appeal to 1,000 euros ( ≈ $1320) and eight days of house arrest in lieu of the fine. Adding insult to injury, the claimant – her ex-husband – asked that the damages be paid in installments to supplement his 700 euro per month income ( ≈ $924 per month).
This is a cause of action here is one we do not have an exact analogy for in the United States, but defamation is close. Historically, the primary dignitary torts recognized in English and subsequently American law are battery, assault, and false imprisonment. These torts still exist under modern American tort law, but they also have criminal law counterparts because they contain elements of violence. Under modern jurisprudence, the term dignitary torts is more closely associated with defamation (slander and libel), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and alienation of affections. In some jurisdictions, the use of the phrase “dignitary torts” is limited to those torts which do not require the threat of or actual physical injury. What was required in the present Spanish case was that the statement in question insulted someone’s dignity and effectively damaged that person’s reputation.
What did this woman do to merit this punishment? She posted a picture of herself to Facebook wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it. Her boyfriend bought it for her while they were on vacation. It’s the kind of “gag t-shirt” commonly sold around the world. What did the shirt say that was so offensive? I’ll tell you below the fold.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
This week Huffpost ran an article titled:“IBM’s Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal”, written by Edwin Black. The article was a followup to Mr. Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” published in 2001. As Mr. Black puts it justifying this particular article:
“Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM‘s pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
These are of course pretty serious charges being made about one of the world’s most famous companies and about its founder. While I will present the nature of these charges and the specificity of the author’s alleged proof in the piece, it really is not my focus to condemn IBM one way or another, or even to vouch for the truth of the article. I will provide a link that offers a different perspective on these charges and will leave it to you the reader to decide what you think of them. My real purpose here is to discuss the necessary amorality of Corporations and what effect that amorality has upon nations and people. Continue reading “A Corporate Tale”
In a controversial interview, Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz has called not only for the White House to sever ties with Media Matters, but has called upon Media Matters to fire staff member M.J. Rosenberg for this criticism of supporters of Israel. Clearly, this is not a first amendment issue that arises when the government is asked to engage in censorship or coercion with regard to critics. However, the demand for Rosenberg’s termination does raise serious concerns over the freedom for writers to raise often controversial topics and positions. Rosenberg was voicing a common objection over Israeli policy and the demands for his termination sends a chilling message for anyone who voices such positions.
Continue reading “Dershowitz Calls On Media Matters To Fire Critic Of Israel”
The Chinese have long believed that bear gall bladders hold special healing qualities — leading to the worldwide massacre of bears to feed the Chinese traditional medicine market. Now a publicly traded pharmaceutical company, Guizhentang, has introduced “Bear bile farms” where hundreds of bears are held in cramped cages to be harvested for their bile. The horrific practice is carried out on drugged bears with a hypodermic needle.
The Iranian Sharia courts have given the world a steady stream of horrific judgments — using the pretense of a legal system to mete out religious-based and perfectly medieval punishments. They have now added a fresh outrage. Despite worldwide condemnation, a trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict that Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, be put to death. His crime? Converting to Christianity. During the country’s Sharia law, such apostasy is punished by death.
Continue reading “Iranian Court Orders The Death Penalty For Christian Pastor Convicted of Apostasy”
Sometimes the Chinese are sooooo competitive. On the heels of the announcement of Russian scientists that they have grown a plant from 30,000 old seeds, Chinese scientists have announced that they have found an entire 300-million-year-old peat-forming forest at a site near Wuda, China. Of course, Americans have had the last laugh but pointing out that the Earth is only 5000-6000 years old, according to Creation Science and many of our leaders.
Scientists in Russia have announced that they have grown plants from seeds stored away by squirrels over 30,000 years ago in the banks of the Kolmya River in Siberia. The Institute of Cell Biophysics team claims to have raised plants of Silene stenophylla from the squirrel leavings. Of course, what they really found was a den of atheist squirrels since various presidential candidates and religious figures have agreed that the Earth is only 5000 to 6000 years old.
Continue reading “Atheist Squirrel Science: Russians Grow Fruit From 30,000 Year Old Seeds”
Recently released intelligence reports have shined light on how U.S. officials secretly demanded investigations of Charlie Chaplin — portraying him as a dangerous radical. The English intelligence officials at MI5 found no support for our paranoia about Chaplin as a dangerous communist. They also failed to show where Chaplin was born. What they did find did not please U.S. officials.
Continue reading “British Records Show Effort Of U.S. To Investigate And Discredit Chaplin”
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Reasonable people tend to agree there is both a right to privacy and that it is necessary. But what exactly is the right to privacy? Justice Brandeis famously said in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928), “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.” Plainly put, at its heart a right to privacy is simply a right to be let alone.
However, do we need to specifically protect it or generally protect it? Is that right absolute? Laws, by definition and the nature of entering a social compact, are restrictions on absolute liberty found in the state of nature. One of the larger disagreements at the Constitutional Convention was about whether enumerated rights would serve to unjustly limit those rights versus a failure to enumerate rights would result in rights not being properly protected. This is a valid question surrounding this issue, especially since some would advocate enumerating the right to privacy by Constitutional amendment. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. While specifically defining/enumerating a right creates a foundation for arguments surrounding said right, leaving a right’s definition nebulous allows jurisprudence greater leeway to evolve around fact specific instance and questions that in the long run can result in a more nuanced understanding and application of the right without the constraints a foundational definition might impose. In this light, consider the right to privacy.
Continue reading “Privacy Rights – To Enumerate or Not to Enumerate, That is the Question”