During the trial both access to transcripts and prosecution and defense motions have been virtually inaccessible. Bradley, who faces a life sentence over the leaking of more than 700,000 sensitive military documents published by Wikileaks, is currently being tried by a military tribunal. The trial is expected to begin on June 3, 2013. The judge overseeing Manning’s court-martial announced this week that she will close portions of the trial to the public in order to protect classified material. Prosecutors are expected to call 150 witnesses to testify against Manning, while two dozen witnesses may be able to provide their testimony in closed sessions. Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights which is part of the legal challenge, described the effort as a last ditch attempt.”If this lawsuit fails, Manning’s trial will take place under conditions where journalists and the public will be unable as a practical matter to follow what is going on in the courtroom,” says Kadidal.”The federal civilian courts are now our last option,” she added. Assange’s co-plaintiffs in the legal injunction include Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman, and The Nation magazine. The coalition seeks to force the release of files currently being kept out of the public’s access. The same group previously filed a similar lawsuit in military courts that was shot down in a 3-2 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces last month. Now, they are hoping that the same legal request will fare better in a civilian court. The group’s preliminary injunction is expected to be presented in front of a Maryland US District Court shortly after Manning’s trial begins in June. Though the pretrial process has been opaque, prosecutors did say this week that they had agreed not to pursue a charge that Manning had violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which could potentially reduce any prison sentence by eight years. According to the Washington Post, prosecutors did not provide a reason for the recent shift. Regardless, convictions for the more serious charges faced by Manning could still carry a sentence of life in prison. Manning’s defense team attempted to block testimony from witnesses linked to alleged damage caused by the release of the leaked documents. Army Col. Denise Lind, overseeing the trial, disagreed, and ruled that the prosecution will have the option to call witnesses to provide both evidence and context of any collateral damage caused by the document leaks. Lind did say, however, that the testimony would be limited so as to not have the trial “devolve into many trials regarding international politics in many regions of the world.” Both activists and journalists that have been following Manning’s pretrial proceedings have accused the US military of undermining the legal process by preventing access.“The culture of extreme secrecy that has defined both the Bush and Obama presidencies does a disservice to our democratic society. By unnecessarily cloaking these proceedings from public view or scrutiny, the government is undermining the most basic principles of transparency and freedom of the press, both of which are vital components of the democratic and judicial process,” said journalist Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation. … Read More
Federal court strikes down Arizona abortion ban
In a major rebuff to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the Republican-led legislature of Arizona the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the ban – named the Mother’s Health and Safety Act (HB 2036) – violated the constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy under Roe V. Wade. Supporters of the Arizona statute had based their arguments both on an interpretation of life as beginning earlier than the generally accepted legal standard of 24 weeks, while the bill also included the possibility of an abortion past 20 weeks in case of medical emergency. The decision of the 9th Circuit Court three-judge panel was unanimous against Arizona’s abortion ban. Judge Marsha Berzon, writing on behalf of the San Francisco-based court, said the state’s ban violated US Supreme Court rulings since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.“A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable,” said Berzon. Cathi Herrod, the head of Christian social conservative group Center for Arizona Policy which championed the 2012 ban, said the ruling was not surprising and believed its ruling would be overturned.“This ruling is not surprising nor am I discouraged at the prospects of this important law ultimately being upheld,” said Herrod via a statement on Tuesday.“The Ninth Circuit Court is historically one of the most overturned appellate courts in the nation. Based on the facts of this case, I am confident that this Court will be overturned once again,” she added. According to the Associated Press, the 9th Circuit’s ruling is binding only within the nine Western US states under its jurisdiction, Idaho is the only additional state with a similar abortion ban. Janet Creppe, the lawyer who argued against the ban on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Tuesday’s decision affirmed abortion law based on viability.”These laws are all unconstitutional,” she said. “This is not a close legal question at all. These laws are unconstitutional.” Supporters of Arizona’s ban asserted that the law was meant to protect a mother’s health, and prevent fetuses from feeling pain, though that concept seemed to be in legal conflict with viability of a fetus as defined by Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings.Supporters of abortion bans have been vocal regarding the disputed claim that fetuses can feel pain at a gestational age of 20 weeks and older. The more conservative view held by other pro-life groups supports the belief that life begins at conception.”We look forward to an appeal to the United States Supreme Court,” said Herrod. Nine other US states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier. Though several of those state bans had previously been placed on hold, or struck down by other courts. Historically, US public opinion has varied on the issue of abortion. According to opinion data provided by Gallup, as of May 2013 just over 50 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be provided “only under certain circumstances,” 26 per cent believe it should be available without restriction, and 20 per cent believe it should be illegal altogether. … Read More
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada to return to Jordan if new treaty is ratified – lawyer
“If, and when, the Jordanian parliament ratifies the treaty, [Qatada] will voluntarily return to Jordan,” Qatada’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC said during a Friday bail hearing in London. The pledge is seen as a victory for the British government, which has fought for Qatada’s deportation for nearly eight years. The cleric is accused of spreading radical ideas that once inspired one of the 9/11 hijackers.”The Home Secretary’s focus remains on seeing Abu Qatada returned to Jordan at the earliest opportunity,” Security Minister James Brokenshire said in a statement. “We continue to pursue this case before the courts and to work with the Jordanian government to achieve this.” The British parliament is expected to approve the new treaty by the end of June. Judge Stephen Irwin asked for evidence to be presented at the next hearing about how long it would take for the new treaty to come into force in Jordan.Jordan’s minister of information said the process could take weeks or months, but is likely to go ahead, local media reported.Jordan convicted Qatada in absentia in 1999 on evidence obtained by torture, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court found him guilty of encouraging militants who planned bomb attacks in 1999 and 2000. Under a 2005 agreement between Jordan and Britain, he will be retried if he returns.However, the European Court of Human Rights previously blocked his deportation from Britain due to fears that evidence obtained through torture would be used against him in the new trial. It backtracked in May 2012, and said Britain could expel him.In November, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that he could not be sent back because of the torture concerns, and released him on bail. The Court of Appeal in London then upheld that decision last month.The cleric has been in and out of jail in Britain since his initial arrest in 2001. In recent years, he lived at a house in London under strict bail conditions.He was sent back to jail last March after police found telecommunications equipment in house – a violation of his bail terms. Judge Irwin said on Friday that Qatada’s bail terms were aimed at”stopping this man from communicating his ideas” and that the breaches had been”significant.” The cleric is seen as a security risk in Britain, though he has never been charged with any offense. He is currently being held in London’s Belmarsh maximum-security prison. … Read More
Italy: Berlusconi tax fraud conviction upheld
Related
Silvio Berlusconi sentenced to four years jail 26/10/2012 16:35 CET
‘No scenes of a sexual nature’ claims Berlusconi 19/10/2012 12:54 CET
‘I did not have sex with that woman,’ Berlusconi… 19/10/2012 19:55 CET
Berlusconi Tax-Fraud Conviction Upheld 08/05/2013 19:42 CET
Costa Concordia indictment hearings open 15/04/2013 13:16 CET
An appeals court in Milan has upheld the tax fraud conviction and four-year prison sentence against former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The case, which involves Berlusconi’s television company, could see him barred from public office for five years.
He is unlikely to serve jail time, but the verdict keeps the judicial heat on the conservative Italian leader.
“It’s a very bad judgement. We were convinced that this would be the decision of the Court of Appeal,” said Niccolo Ghedini, Berlusconi’s lawyer.
“We will now appeal to the Supreme Court.”
A court convicted the 76-year-old in October on the grounds that he bought US film and television rights at inflated prices, allowing his company – Mediaset – to fraudulently lower its tax bill.
Berlusconi has repeatedly denied the charges, saying he never took part in any contracts negotiating the company’s television rights.
In other trials in the past, Berlusconi has either been acquitted or let off under statutes of limitations.
More about: Italy, Justice, Silvio Berlusconi, Tax fraud, Trial
Copyright © 2013 euronews
JavaScript is required in order to view this article’s accompanying video
U.S. Appeals Court strikes down labor board’s ‘poster rule’
A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. on Tuesday struck down National Labor Relations Board regulations that required workplaces to display a poster about worker’s federal rights. The NRLB issued new regulations in 2011 that required companies to inform employees about…
Colorado court: Businesses can fire employees for off-hours pot use
A Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that businesses can still fire employees who test positive for marijuana use, even if they never show up to work under the influence. According to NBC News, a divided panel of judges ruled that even though marijuana use is legal in the state, the fact…
Sweden’s ‘racist sniper’ felled for further crimes
Convicted murderer Peter Mangs had his attempt to overturn his life sentence quashed on Thursday by a local appeals court, which also found him guilty of an additional three attempted murders. … Read More
