Judge dismisses lawsuit over drone strikes

FILE – In this image taken from video and released by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, Nov. 8, 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites. On Friday, April 4, 2014, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including U.S.-born al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki. Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that “on these facts and under this circuit’s precedent,” the court will grant the Obama administration’s request. (AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group, File) NO SALES, MANDATORY CREDIT

FILE – In this image taken from video and released by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, Nov. 8, 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites. On Friday, April 4, 2014, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including U.S.-born al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki. Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that “on these facts and under this circuit’s precedent,” the court will grant the Obama administration’s request. (AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group, File) NO SALES, MANDATORY CREDIT

In this Thursday, May 1, 2008 photo, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer attends a ceremony at the federal courthouse in Washington. On Friday, April 4, 2014, Collyer dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including an al-Qaida cleric. Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that “on these facts and under this circuit’s precedent,” the court will grant the Obama administration’s request. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials for the 2011 drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including an al-Qaida cleric.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the case raises serious constitutional issues and is not easy to answer, but that “on these facts and under this circuit’s precedent,” the court will grant the Obama administration’s request.

The suit was against then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then-CIA Director David Petraeus and two commanders in the military’s Special Operations forces.

Permitting a lawsuit against individual officials “under the circumstances of this case would impermissibly draw the court into ‘the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation,’” said Collyer. She said the suit would require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets and how best to counter threats to the United States.

“Defendants must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution when they intentionally target a U.S. citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress,” said Collyer. “They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.” The lawsuit sought unspecified damages.

At oral arguments last July, the judge challenged the Obama administration’s position repeatedly, pointedly asking “where was the due process in this case?” for the now-dead U.S. citizens targeted in the drone attacks. When an administration lawyer said there were checks in place, including reviews done by the executive branch, Collyer said “No, no, no, no, no,” declaring that “the executive is not an effective check on the executive” when it comes to protecting constitutional rights. But in Friday’s ruling, it was clear that the administration’s arguments had a strong impact on the judge, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The government argued that the issue is best left to Congress and the executive branch, not judges, and that courts have recognized that the defense of the nation should be left to those political branches.

Anwar al-Awlaki’s classification as a key leader raises fundamental questions regarding the conduct of armed conflict, Collyer’s 41-page opinion stated. The Constitution commits decision-making in this area to the president, as commander in chief, and to Congress, the judge said.

U.S.-born al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, an al-Qaida propagandist, were killed in a drone strike in September 2011. Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, was killed the following month.

The lawsuit was filed by Nasser al-Awlaki — Anwar’s father and the teen’s grandfather — and by Sarah Khan, Samir Khan’s mother

Al-Awlaki had been linked to the planning and execution of several attacks targeting U.S. and Western interests, including a 2009 attempt on Christmas Day on a Detroit-bound airliner and a 2010 plot against cargo planes.

“The fact is that Anwar al-Awlaki was an active and exceedingly dangerous enemy of the United States, irrespective of his distance, location, and citizenship,” said Collyer. “As evidenced by his participation in the Christmas Day attack, Anwar al-Awlaki was able to persuade, direct, and wage war against the United States from his location in Yemen, without being present on an official battlefield or in a hot war zone.”

She said that the U.S. government moved against al-Awlaki as authorized by the defendants and she said the officials acted in accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was enacted by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Also impacting the outcome was the type of lawsuit, commonly known as a Bivens action, which seeks to hold liable individual officials as opposed to being a legal action against an entity. Bevens actions have a high legal hurdle to meet in order to survive.

“Allowing plaintiffs to bring a Bivens action against defendants would hinder their ability in the future to act decisively and without hesitation in defense of U.S. interests,” Collyer said.

“Although it gave this court pause, a plaintiff’s U.S. citizenship has not affected the analysis of Bivens special factors by the circuit courts,” she added.

“The Supreme Court has never suggested that citizenship matters to a claim under Bivens,” said Collyer’s opinion, quoting from a federal appeals court case.

Associated Press

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Politics Headlines

Judge dismisses lawsuit over drone strikes

$4.5 Million Settlement In Scott Olsen’s Lawsuit Against Oakland Police

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

$4.5 Million Settlement In Scott Olsen’s Lawsuit Against Oakland Police

19 States Join Lawsuit Against NJ Gun Law

Support is mounting for a lawsuit that challenges New Jersey’s tight restrictions on handgun ownership and its high standard of “justifiable need” for carrying a weapon outside the home.

Nineteen states as well as the powerful National Rifle Association have joined the case’s plaintiff John Drake, who in his lawsuit claims he was denied a permit following a thwarted robbery attempt on his Sussex County business.

Drake lost his appeal before a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year and now a growing number of states, led by Wyoming, are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, claiming New Jersey was wrong when it determined that the business owner failed to prove “justifiable need” to carry a gun under state statute.

Drake’s suit also claims that his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment has been violated.

Wyoming’s Republican Gov. Matt Mead said: “If the current decision stands, states providing greater protections than New Jersey under the Second Amendment may be pre-empted by future federal action.”

Drake runs an ATM servicing business and carries large amounts of cash, making him vulnerable to robbery attempts, and wants to carry a weapon as protection.

Drake joined in an existing lawsuit filed by a New Jersey pet shop owner who was kidnapped and savagely beaten, yet also had been denied a gun-carry permit. That man dropped out of the case when his permit for a weapon was approved.

“It seems unreasonable to me to have to wait until you’re beaten up or shot at to get a permit,” Drake told New Jersey’s Star-Ledger.

Other gun-rights supporters agree.

“Americans should not have to ask their government for a permission slip to own a gun,” Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, told Newsmax.

“The Second Amendment is a protected right, not a privilege,” Brown said. “New Jersey officials have overstepped their authority and New Jersey residents should have their right to self-defense upheld.”

The NRA announced in February that it will join the states in filing an amicus brief in the case.

“Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves beyond their front doorstep,” Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “New Jersey law unconstitutionally forces lawful gun owners to prove ‘justifiable need’ in order to carry a handgun for self-defense, showing specific threats or prior attacks. This is absurd. Our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to the home.”

Wyoming, a deeply pro-gun state, has taken the lead in the case, spurred by Gov. Mead, who called the New Jersey law a threat to citizens’ freedom everywhere.

“This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside the home,” Mead said. “So I felt it was necessary to have the [state] attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.”

Some in New Jersey are pushing back on the intervention from outsiders. A Feb. 18 editorial published by the website NJ.com called on them to “butt out.”

“States have broad powers to set gun policy, and in ours, a strong majority supports strict laws,” the editorial noted. “Most New Jerseyans don’t want to have to worry that the guy they’re fighting with over a parking spot might be packing heat. That’s why you need to show justifiable need to carry a handgun here.”

The editorial called out Wyoming for having the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in 2010. It continued: “Other states complain that if our policy is upheld, it could threaten their laxer standards. Please. Do they want us meddling in their gun laws? Because they actually do threaten our citizens by making it easier for dangerous people to acquire guns and bring them back East.”

New Jersey is asking the Supreme Court not to take the case, while at least three dozen members of Congress are urging the high court to take it up, according to the conservative website GOPUSA.com.

The case is not only being watched by gun rights proponents but also political observers who see an opportunity for New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, a possible 2016 presidential contender, to take a bold stand on the issue and shore up relations with the right.

Christie in the past has defended his state’s gun laws as “sensible” even as they have been described as among the nation’s most restrictive.

“Gov. Christie can burnish some important right-of-center credentials for a GOP presidential primary by supporting revisiting the requirement to prove ‘justifiable need’ to carry one’s handgun outside the home,” Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus told Newsmax.

“With 19 states joining in the lawsuit, this could be an important opportunity for him,” Jacobus said.

Jacobus said it might be easier to gather broad support against the law than against other gun-control measures.

“That New Jersey’s ‘justifiable need’ requirement prohibits people who have or carry large sums of money on them as part of their jobs from also carrying a handgun for protection is something even many who favor some gun restrictions can understand,” Jacobus said. “It is a mainstream concept that is not polarizing in the way the debates on assault rifle bans or waiting periods are.”

The coalition of states joining Wyoming in support of Drake includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

Related Stories:

• Schools, Legislatures Move to Allow Guns on Campuses
  


• TSA Seizes Record Number of Guns in 2013

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Newsmax – America

19 States Join Lawsuit Against NJ Gun Law

ACLU Executive Order 12333 FOIA Lawsuit

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

ACLU Executive Order 12333 FOIA Lawsuit

VIDEO: Tom Cruise Settles $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit

The terms of the settlement are confidential but Bauer did release an apology.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: Tom Cruise Settles $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit

Missouri Legislator & Wife Ask Court for Protection During Obamacare Lawsuit Appeal

Thomas More Society Seeks Preliminary Injunction for State Rep. Wieland and Family

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 25, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed for preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of Missouri State Representative Paul Wieland and his wife Teresa in the couple’s lawsuit contesting Obamacare’s infringement on their First Amendment rights. The couple is asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to exempt their family from the Health and Human Services mandate that would require them to participate in group insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and birth control for their teenage and adult daughters.

The Wielands are suing the federal government for violating their religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights by reason of Obamacare’s mandating a religiously objectionable health insurance plan provided by the State of Missouri. Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that the Wielands obtain for themselves, and provide for their dependent daughters, health care coverage that includes coverage for “contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This coverage, which is abhorrent to the Wielands, given their Catholic faith, is mandated to continue until their dependent daughters are 24 years old. The Eighth Circuit court and other federal appellate courts have held that for-profit employers are likely to prevail on similar claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because their free exercise of religious faith is substantially burdened when the government forces them to provide such coverage for their employees. The Wielands claim that their religious freedom – Paul’s as an employee and both Wielands, as parents, is also protected under the act.

The Wielands had previously obtained a health insurance plan that did not include abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. But because of the Health and Human Services mandate, that plan was eliminated and, without their permission, the Wielands were transferred to another plan that is contrary to their Catholic faith.

“We liked our health care plan. We should be able to keep it,” Mrs. Wieland said. “It protected our religious beliefs and our rights as parents.”

To date, forty for-profit employers have filed lawsuits over the controversial Obamacare mandate. Thirty-two of the plaintiffs have secured injunctive relief against the mandate. “There is every reason to expect that the Wielands will also prevail in their quest to secure their religious liberty,” said Timothy Belz, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, who is representing the Wielands.

According to veteran court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether to take up one or more of four cases on the mandate decided in the lower courts – including an appeal by the Obama Administration of the Hobby Lobby decision by the Tenth Circuit in June that upheld the right of the Christian craft store chain to exclude abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their employee’s health plans.

The lawsuit by the Wielands names the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of Labor as defendants.

Read the request for injunctive relief for the Wielands here.

A copy of the original lawsuit is available here.

Conservative Daily News

Missouri Legislator & Wife Ask Court for Protection During Obamacare Lawsuit Appeal

Texas Farmer Wins Entry of Default in Keystone Lawsuit

Bloomberg – by Laurel Calkins

A Texas farmer has won an entry of default against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which failed to respond to a federal lawsuit claiming it illegally granted environmental permits to TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline.

Michael Bishop, a farmer in Douglass, about 150 miles northeast of Houston, said he will ask U.S. Magistrate Judge Keith Giblin, in Lufkin, Texas, to invalidate the pipeline’s permits and order the Army Corps to conduct public hearings that it skipped before issuing water-crossing permits to Keystone, which will transport Canadian tar-sands crude to refineries on the Texas Gulf coast.  

“Tomorrow I’m going to ask the judge for everything I had in my original petition,” Bishop said in a phone interview. “I’m going to ask him to revoke the permit and effectively shut this pipeline down until they comply with the law.”

Bishop is one of the last Texas landowners still battling Calgary-based TransCanada, Keystone’s parent, in court over the company’s use of eminent domain laws to install the pipeline against the property owners’ wishes. The company has said construction on the southern leg of the pipeline is largely complete in Texas and Oklahoma.

“Public hearings should’ve been held in accordance with the law,” Bishop said in his original petition, filed in April. He claims the agency “yielded to political pressure and expedited the permit” in violation of federal environmental regulations.

Keystone XL’s northern leg has yet to obtain permission from U.S. President Barack Obama to cross the Canadian border, and construction on that stage of the 2,151-mile (3,461-kilometer) line hasn’t begun.

Gretchen Krueger, a TransCanada spokeswoman, said the company hasn’t had a chance to review the document and had no immediate comment. The company isn’t a formal party to the lawsuit.

The case is Bishop v. Bostick, 9:13-cv-00082, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Lufkin).

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurel Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/texas-farmer-wins-default-in-keystone-pipeline-fight-correct-.html

Texas Farmer Wins Entry of Default in Keystone Lawsuit

A Lawsuit to End Homosexuality

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

A Lawsuit to End Homosexuality

Tea Party leader demands class action lawsuit against homosexuality

Rick Scarborough of Tea Party Unity and Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality would like to join forces and file a class action lawsuit against homosexuality.

Yes, they really, really want to do that.

“Peter, the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit,” Scarborough says. “I just wonder if you’ve explored that, talked to anyone about it. Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that. Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?”

“Yeah I think that’s great,” LaBarbera responds. “I would love to see it. We always wanted to see one of the kid in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV. But we never really got the client for that.”

The pair also discussed the media’s reluctance to “step out and support these ex-gays” rather than “do the pro-gay thing,” and called on Fox News to lead the way.

You can listen to the exchange here:

h/t Right Wing Watch

Continue Reading…

Salon.com

Tea Party leader demands class action lawsuit against homosexuality

Guantanamo Bay Lawsuit Shows Gitmo"s Still As Secretive As Ever

Guantanamo Bay Lawsuit Shows Gitmo’s Still As Secretive As Ever
© AP

The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has long been a secretive base, whetherit be  Colonel Nathan Jessup covering up murder in A Few Good Men or President Obama’s administration refusing to answer questions regarding Camp 7 to a Miami Herald reporter.

The Herald’s Carol Rosenberg has been covering the Guantanamo Bay detention facility since it opened in 2002, and is currently suing the the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act over the refusal to disclose how much it Camp 7 cost to build and to operate. Camp 7 is where 16 of the high-value detainees, including alleged 9/11 conspirators, are being held. According to the lawsuit, all other construction and operating costs have been revealed for the rest of the camp. The Pentagon claims that the information is classified and that it would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, despite releasing it for all other areas.

If the president and the Pentagon are serious about transparency at the detention center than it must finish releasing the documents on the operational and construction costs for Camp 7. If the detention facility is going to remain open then it has to be transparent. Any number published regarding the housing of alleged 9/11 conspirators could be justified by the president’s team, and those who support the facility on the right. The refusal to reveal this information when it has been revealed in all other contexts is confusing, especially considering the ease by which this policy could be justified by both sides of the aisle supporting the continuation of the detainment policy. Hopefully Rosenberg’s lawsuit is successful so that at least we understand more about this facility that has gained such a negative reputation.

PolicyMic

Guantanamo Bay Lawsuit Shows Gitmo"s Still As Secretive As Ever

VIDEO: Lawsuit Against U.N. Planned for Haiti Cholera Outbreak

Suit says thousands have died and more than 650,000 have gotten sick because of sanitation problems at peacekeepers’ barracks.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: Lawsuit Against U.N. Planned for Haiti Cholera Outbreak

UN faces lawsuit over Haiti cholera deaths

Published time: October 09, 2013 15:23

Health workers at a tent city on the outskirts of Haitian capital Port-au-Prince recover the body of cholera victim Ti Rosse Louizi on November 27, 2010. (AFP Photo / Hector Retamal)

Victims of a Haitian cholera epidemic said on Wednesday they were filing a lawsuit against the United Nations, while the world body says it is immune from such legal claims.

The Boston-based human rights group Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) said it will file a compensation claim against the world body on Wednesday over a cholera epidemic that has killed over 8,300 people and sickened more than 650,000 since October 2010.

“The plaintiffs include Haitians and Haitian Americans who contracted cholera themselves as well as family members of those who died of the disease,” the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti said in a statement.

No details were given about the amount of compensation the victims were seeking.

In November 2011, the IJDH filed a petition at UN headquarters seeking at least $ 100,000 for the families or next-of-kin of each individual killed in the epidemic and a minimum of $ 50,000 for each victim who suffered illness from the outbreak.

The United Nations, however, said it would not pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation claimed by the cholera victims.

An independent panel appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to study the cholera outbreak issued a 2011 report that did not hold the Nepalese peacekeepers responsible for the deadly epidemic.

Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky said in February of this year that the United Nations advised the legal representatives of the cholera victims that “the claims are not receivable pursuant to Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities.”

A report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, challenged the UN stance, saying the epidemic was likely brought to the Caribbean country by the UN peacekeepers when contaminated sewage was discharged from their living quarters into a waterway.

Before that, cholera, an infection causing severe diarrhea that can lead to dehydration and death, had been rare in Haiti.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched a $ 2.2 billion initiative in December 2012 to rid Haiti of cholera over the next decade.

Meanwhile, there has been some difference of opinion on the question of compensation for the Haitian victims.

On Tuesday, a UN official broke with the ranks and argued on behalf of compensation for the thousands of Haitians involved.

The high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay, while falling short of blaming the UN peacekeepers for the epidemic, nevertheless declared: “I have used my voice both inside the United Nations and outside to call for the right…of those who suffered as a result of that cholera be provided with compensation,” Pillay said at an awards ceremony for human rights activists in Geneva.

UN associate spokesperson Farhan Haq said it was not the “United Nations’ practice to discuss in public claims filed against the organization.” 

RT – News

UN faces lawsuit over Haiti cholera deaths

FLASHBACK - $5 million lawsuit targets Jimmy Carter for ‘attacking Israel’

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, February 3, 2011 9:33 EDT

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 


• 






WASHINGTON – Former President Jimmy Carter has become the target of a class action lawsuit over ostensibly mean things he said about Israel in his best-selling 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.




The lawsuit, filed in New York by an Israeli firm, alleges that the book “contained numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.”




The five American plaintiffs, two of whom are dual citizens of the US and Israel, seek $ 5 million in damages over the book (which is being sold for less than $ 10 on Amazon) on the basis that its criticisms of Israel violated consumer protection safeguards.




The plaintiffs alleged in a press release that the 39th US president and Nobel Peace Prize winner “violated the law and, thus, harmed those who purchased the book” by unfairly “attacking Israel.”




Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said her clients’ lawsuit “will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter’s book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this fraud on the public.”




Publishing company Simon & Schuster, which is also targeted in the lawsuit, dismissed it as a frivolous act and a “chilling attack on free speech that we intend to defend vigorously.”




“This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit, and is a transparent attempt by the plaintiffs, despite their contentions, to punish the author, a Nobel Peace prize winner and world-renowned statesmen, and his publisher, for writing and publishing a book with which the plaintiffs simply disagree,” Simon & Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg told the Washington Post.




A copy of the complaint can be viewed here.


[h/t Matt Yglesias]











WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



FLASHBACK - $5 million lawsuit targets Jimmy Carter for ‘attacking Israel’

U.S. judge allows lawsuit against Google over email ads

Dan Levine
Reuters
Sept. 27, 2013

A federal judge on Thursday refused to dismiss most of a lawsuit against Google Inc over allegations the company improperly scanned the content of customers’ emails in order to place ads.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California ruled that the proposed class action lawsuit against Google can proceed. She rejected Google’s argument that its users had consented to having their email read for the purposes of targeted advertising.

“We’re disappointed in this decision and are considering our options,” Google spokesman Matt Kallman said in an email.

Read More

This article was posted: Friday, September 27, 2013 at 9:31 am

Tags: big brother, business, domestic spying, internet

---

---

  Print this page.

---

---

Infowars

U.S. judge allows lawsuit against Google over email ads

The Giant Big Oil Lawsuit That Bobby Jindal Wants to Make Disappear

In late July, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority–East, an independent board created by the state legislature in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to shore up the state’s levee system, filed a lawsuit against the oil companies. All of them. The committee targeted nearly 100 petroleum producers with operations on the Gulf Coast—including titans such as BP America, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron—for what it termed a “mercilessly efficient, continuously expanding system of ecological destruction.”

But in a state where even the lawn in front of the governor’s mansion is sponsored by Dow, the flood board’s lawsuit has faced a massive pushback. And no one has been more forceful in their opposition to lawsuit—and in the defense of the oil companies—than Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. He dismissed it almost immediately as nothing more than a “windfall for trial lawyers” and alleged that the legal action would interfere with the administration’s own unfunded long-term plans. When the nominating committee that appoints flood board candidates met for the first time on Friday, it received a warning from Baton Rouge: The lawsuit would be a litmus test for the governor, and any nominee who supported it would be rejected.

“I don’t think they’re evil,” says the board’s vice president John Barry, an award-winning historian and one of the members whom Jindal has promised not reappoint, referring to the oil companies. “But by the same token, we think we have a very strong case that they broke the law, and I don’t think anybody is immune from prosecution just because they provide jobs. Those jobs aren’t gifts.”

Continue Reading »

Politics | Mother Jones

The Giant Big Oil Lawsuit That Bobby Jindal Wants to Make Disappear

Lawsuit Tries to Ban Dark Money Groups From Funding Political Ads

Tweet

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

A former Illinois congressional candidate and a government watchdog organization have teamed up to sue the Internal Revenue Service, claiming the agency should bar dark money groups from funding political ads.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by David Gill, his campaign committee and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, is the first to challenge how the IRS regulates political spending by social welfare nonprofits, campaign-finance experts say.

As ProPublica has reported, these nonprofits, often called dark money groups because they don’t have to identify their donors, have increasingly become major players in politics since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in early 2010.

 

Continue Reading »

Politics | Mother Jones

Lawsuit Tries to Ban Dark Money Groups From Funding Political Ads

VIDEO: Donald Trump Slaps Bill Maher with Silly Lawsuit

According to reports, Donald Trump just sued Bill Maher for $5 million.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: Donald Trump Slaps Bill Maher with Silly Lawsuit