- Torquay, England: cops to give flip-flops to drunken women exiting nightclubs to reduce high-heel trip/fall risk [Daily Mail]
- Mumbai attack introduced new terrorist tactics, expect to see them employed elsewhere [John C. Thompson/National Post, Bill Roggio] Heroic hotel employees [Reuters] Twitter, Flickr come into their own as breaking news sources during attacks [TechCrunch]
- “15 ways to get more out of Pandora” [Lifehacker h/t @lilyhill]
- NYT covers legal difficulties of pursuing pirates (but we did get to the story first) [NYT]
- Interview with Eve Tushnet [Norm Geras via Ann Althouse]
- “Dear @barackobama – thank u 4 another email with ‘donate’ at the bottom. Pls note my future donations will be called ‘taxes'” [@JerseyTodd]
- Pictorial tour of America’s ugliest motel [Lileks] At the time people were duly impressed. What equivalents are we building today?
Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’
India
In our thoughts.
No N.Y. forum for Egypt terror plaintiffs
“Israeli and Russian victims of a 2004 terror attack on an Egyptian Hilton cannot sue the hotel in the United States, in part because a judge believed they were seeking a higher recovery from a New York jury sitting blocks from the World Trade Center site. Southern District Judge Peter Leisure found that the plaintiffs, none of whom were Americans, may have been engaging in forum shopping in Niv v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 06 Civ. 7839, and he dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” (Mark Hamblett, “N.Y. Forum Denied for Suit Over Terror Attack in Egypt”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 19).
The costs of universal jurisdiction
“International human rights law” — what could sound more cuddly and humanitarian? Who could disapprove of such a thing? That’s one reason it’s so popular at almost every law school nowadays following years of generous support by the Ford Foundation, Soros, and other donors. In practice, as is now clear, it often tends to furnish a set of handy weapons for carrying on “lawfare” — warfare by means of courtroom action against one’s adversaries, particularly in the courts of third countries. (Anne Herzberg, “Lawfare against Israel”, WSJ, Nov. 5). For the closely related issue of laws empowering private attorneys and litigants to pursue foreign entities over alleged terrorist support whether or not such actions advance U.S. diplomatic goals, see Sept. 12, 2007.
U.K.: Great moments in international human rights law
Fowzi Badavi Nejad, the only survivor among six terrorists who seized the Iranian Embassy and 26 hostages in London 28 years ago, “has reportedly been assured he will not be deported back to his native Iran because of human rights laws, and will instead stay in Britain at taxpayers’ expense.” (Chris Irvine, “Iranian Embassy terrorist to be freed this month can claim benefits”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 9).
Pro bono Guantanamo detainee efforts
Apparently not quite so pro bono as all that, reports the Washington Times: a Kuwait-based group backed by the government of that wealthy Arab state has kicked in nearly $4 million to the legal effort. Firms receiving Kuwaiti funds include Shearman & Sterling, Arnold & Porter and Pillsbury Winthrop. “The Kuwait-based group also has financed a public relations campaign run by Levick Strategic Communications in Washington” toward the goal of “due process for the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay”. (Jim McElhatton, “Kuwait helps pay detainees’ legal bills”, Jul. 25)(via Elefant).
But Was He Properly Mirandized?
It’s not just the U.S. civil-justice system that often winds up serving counterproductive ends, but also our criminal and national security legal systems. And just like with, e.g., our tort system, it sometimes seems like everyone knows this except us Americans.
Consider this, from the Times‘ detailed account of the interrogation of 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
Mohammed met his captors at first with cocky defiance, telling one veteran CIA officer, a former Pakistan station chief, that he would talk only when he got to New York and was assigned a lawyer–the experience of his nephew and partner in terrorism, Ramzi Yousef, after Yousef’s arrest in 1995.
Apparently, KSM was somehow privy to an advance copy of Boumediene. . .
April 17 roundup
- “I did not know what kind of monster we were dealing with”: dramatic testimony from Judge Lackey on Scruggs corruption [Folo; and repercussions too]
- New at Point of Law: Pork-barreling Albany lawmakers shell out for just what NY needs, three more law schools; Sarbanes-Oxley unconstitutional? Ted goes after JAMA on Vioxx; sadly, appeals court overturns Santa Clara opinion that nailed ethical problems with govt.-paid contingency fee; legal aid lawyers, to subprime borrowers’ rescue? and much more;
- Cadbury claim: we own the color purple as it relates to chocolate [Coleman]
- A world gone mad: Innocence Project directors include… Janet Reno? [Bernstein @ Volokh]
- Not unrelatedly: Can a California prosecutor be held liable for wrongful murder conviction of man freed after 24 years? [Van de Kamp versus Goldstein, L.A. Times via Greenfield]
- With all his lawyer chums from Milberg-witness days, you’d think Ben Stein could have saved the makers of his creationist movie from stumbling into textbook IP infringements [Myers, again, WSJ law blog]
- Groggy from dental anesthesia, plus a half a glass to drink: then came the three felony DUI counts [Phoenix New Times, Balko via Reynolds]
- Shell says boaters had years of notice that mandated ethanol in fuel was incompatible with fiberglass marine gas tanks, which hasn’t stopped the filing of a class action [L.A. Times via ABA Journal]
- Terrorism asymmetry: “They say ‘Allahu Akbar!’ we say ‘Imagine the liability!'” [McCarthy/Lopez, NRO]
- Deborah Jeane Palfrey convicted [WaPo; earlier]
- David Neiwert truly born yesterday if he thinks Kevin Phillips is noteworthy for his record of being right [Firedoglake; some correctives]
Senate Dems: Trial lawyers’ pockets more important than anti-terrorism legislation
Amid deep and growing divisions among Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) last night abruptly withdrew [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have also] granted the nation’s telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits charging they had violated privacy rights.
(Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane, “Telecom Immunity Issue Derails Spy Law Overhaul”, Washington Post, Dec. 18). Reid had previously promised to pass the bill this month, but a handful of Democratic senators, most notably Dodd and Kennedy, threatened to block the bill because of the immunity provision. Reid had the votes to pass it (a filibuster attempt failed 76-10), but chose not to. Earlier: Nov. 5 and Oct. 31.
Update: Were the government’s actions were illegal? Maybe, though reasonable minds can differ. But the question is different from the one of the dynamic consequences of finding private liability here. If corporations are held liable every time they agree to cooperate with the government on a national-security issue that is potentially ambiguous, they just won’t cooperate at all without a court order. Perhaps that is the rule we want going forward. But if so, that policy choice should be the decision of Congress, not of unaccountable trial lawyers—and if it is the rule Congress wants, they should state it explicitly, so voters can hold them accountable for the consequences, rather than hiding behind trial-lawyer surrogates that later reward them for the earmarks to the trial bar. Should trial lawyers make terrorism policy?
“Should Trial Lawyers Make Terror Policy?”
Ted has a new essay out by this title in AEI’s Liability Outlook series (Sept. 11). To quote from the conclusion:
One can debate the appropriate role for each of the three branches in the post-9/11 world in coordinating domestic and foreign policy in responding to terrorism. But one matter should be beyond debate. Individual litigants in individual cases should not be able to use the combination of civil liability rules and the power of the civil courts to interfere with larger national policy. Congress can disagree with the executive branch, but should do so through legislation, rather than abdicating its responsibilities to trial-lawyer proxies. Civil liability is a poor tool for deterring suicide bombers, and civil anti-terrorism laws are bound to have their greatest effect when used against innocent parties.