The U.S. government can withhold photographs and videotapes of a Guantanamo Bay detainee identified as the would-be 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan agreed with the government that images of Mohammed al-Qahtani, if made public, "could logically and plausibly be used by anti-American extremists as propaganda to recruit members and incite violence against American interests at home and abroad."
Authorities have said al-Qahtani narrowly missed being one of the hijackers when he was denied entry into the U.S. at an Orlando, Florida, airport a month before the attacks. He was captured by Pakistani forces in December 2001 and taken to Guantanamo, where he remains.
The Center for Constitutional Rights sued the departments of Defense and Justice and the CIA in 2012, saying the release of videotapes and photographs of his interrogation and confinement would serve the public interest. The group has accused FBI and military personnel of subjecting al-Qahtani to isolation and aggressive interrogation techniques in 2002, including the use of a snarling dog, stripping him naked in the presence of a woman and repeatedly pouring water on his head.
9/04/2014
Texas abortion clinic to reopen after court ruling
Women in South Texas facing a 200-mile drive for access to legal abortions learned Wednesday that a local clinic shuttered by a sweeping anti-abortion law would reopen, marking the first tangible effect of a court ruling last week that blocked key parts of the state law.
Whole Woman's Health clinic in McAllen, a city near the Mexico border, closed in March after its doctors said they couldn't obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals as the state now requires. But a federal judge ruled Friday that the law created unconstitutional barriers to abortions in South Texas, and the clinic is now set to reopen later this week, chief executive Amy Hagstrom Miller said.
Questions are now also being raised about whether the ruling had other broader ramifications than first thought.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made two key rulings in Friday's 21-page decision. He struck down a mandate that required all abortion clinics in Texas to adopt costly hospital-level operating standards and exempted clinics in McAllen and El Paso from an already upheld requirement that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
A four-day trial last month narrowly focused on the El Paso and McAllen areas because clinics there serve regions where access to abortions would otherwise be particularly difficult. But language Yeakel included in a separate final judgment has left some questioning whether his order — inadvertently or not — banned the admitting-privileges law at all Texas abortion clinics.
Whole Woman's Health clinic in McAllen, a city near the Mexico border, closed in March after its doctors said they couldn't obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals as the state now requires. But a federal judge ruled Friday that the law created unconstitutional barriers to abortions in South Texas, and the clinic is now set to reopen later this week, chief executive Amy Hagstrom Miller said.
Questions are now also being raised about whether the ruling had other broader ramifications than first thought.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made two key rulings in Friday's 21-page decision. He struck down a mandate that required all abortion clinics in Texas to adopt costly hospital-level operating standards and exempted clinics in McAllen and El Paso from an already upheld requirement that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
A four-day trial last month narrowly focused on the El Paso and McAllen areas because clinics there serve regions where access to abortions would otherwise be particularly difficult. But language Yeakel included in a separate final judgment has left some questioning whether his order — inadvertently or not — banned the admitting-privileges law at all Texas abortion clinics.
7/09/2014
South Carolina Episcopalians take fight to court
About 50 conservative Episcopal churches in South Carolina are in court this week, trying to keep their name, seal and $500 million in land and buildings after they broke away from the national denomination in a wide-ranging theological dispute.
The breakaway group, the Diocese of South Carolina, said it had to leave the national church not just because of the ordination of gays, but a series of decisions it says show national Episcopalians have lost their way in the teachings of Jesus and salvation.
The national church argues the split wasn't properly made, and it is fighting for the 20 or so churches in South Carolina staying under its umbrella.
Property disputes in the Episcopal Church and other Protestant churches have been going on for decades and end with varying results.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene in a dispute between the Episcopal Church and a conservative northern Virginia congregation that left the denomination in a rift over homosexuality and other issues. The court left in place a judge's decision siding with the national church, ending a seven-year fight over a church that traces its roots back to George Washington.
The breakaway group, the Diocese of South Carolina, said it had to leave the national church not just because of the ordination of gays, but a series of decisions it says show national Episcopalians have lost their way in the teachings of Jesus and salvation.
The national church argues the split wasn't properly made, and it is fighting for the 20 or so churches in South Carolina staying under its umbrella.
Property disputes in the Episcopal Church and other Protestant churches have been going on for decades and end with varying results.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene in a dispute between the Episcopal Church and a conservative northern Virginia congregation that left the denomination in a rift over homosexuality and other issues. The court left in place a judge's decision siding with the national church, ending a seven-year fight over a church that traces its roots back to George Washington.
5/26/2014
Supreme Court justice suspends Missouri execution
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order late Tuesday suspending the planned execution of a Missouri inmate with a little more than an hour to spare before the inmate's scheduled lethal injection.
Alito, who handles emergency matters for Missouri and other states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, didn't explain why he issued the order suspending Russell Bucklew's execution, which had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. But Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster issued a statement saying his office understands the full Supreme Court would consider Bucklew's requests on Wednesday.
Under Missouri law, the state has 24 hours to carry out a death warrant, meaning it could still execute Bucklew anytime on Wednesday if the high court rejects his appeals.
Alito's order came shortly after the full 8th Circuit court lifted a stay granted to Bucklew hours earlier by a three-judge panel of that court.
Bucklew, who was sentenced to death for killing a southeast Missouri man in 1996, suffers from a rare medical condition that his attorneys claim could cause him great pain during the execution process.
Alito, who handles emergency matters for Missouri and other states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, didn't explain why he issued the order suspending Russell Bucklew's execution, which had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. But Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster issued a statement saying his office understands the full Supreme Court would consider Bucklew's requests on Wednesday.
Under Missouri law, the state has 24 hours to carry out a death warrant, meaning it could still execute Bucklew anytime on Wednesday if the high court rejects his appeals.
Alito's order came shortly after the full 8th Circuit court lifted a stay granted to Bucklew hours earlier by a three-judge panel of that court.
Bucklew, who was sentenced to death for killing a southeast Missouri man in 1996, suffers from a rare medical condition that his attorneys claim could cause him great pain during the execution process.
Indian court drops charge against NYPD officer
A court in India's capital has dropped a weapons charge against a New York City police officer and is allowing him to leave the country, his lawyer said Saturday.
Officer Manny Encarnacion was arrested in March while visiting his wife in New Delhi after Indian airport authorities discovered three bullets he had accidentally packed in his luggage. He had been out on bail since his arrest, but was barred from leaving India until the case was resolved.
Before leaving for India, Encarnacion went to a police firing range and put the bullets in a coat pocket, according to New York City police. He packed the coat for the trip, forgetting that the ammunition was there, the police said.
Encarnacion, 49, joined the NYPD in 2004 and is assigned to a precinct in Harlem.
His lawyer, Samarjit Pattnaik, said the court heard the case Friday. "All charges against the officer were quashed," he said.
Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said, "We are pleased that police officer Encarnacion's unfortunate ordeal has been resolved and that he'll soon be returning home."
Encarnacion's arrest took place months after a diplomatic spat between the United States and India over the arrest and strip search of an Indian consular official for alleged visa fraud in New York. But Indian authorities say Encarnacion's arrest had nothing to do with the spat.
Officer Manny Encarnacion was arrested in March while visiting his wife in New Delhi after Indian airport authorities discovered three bullets he had accidentally packed in his luggage. He had been out on bail since his arrest, but was barred from leaving India until the case was resolved.
Before leaving for India, Encarnacion went to a police firing range and put the bullets in a coat pocket, according to New York City police. He packed the coat for the trip, forgetting that the ammunition was there, the police said.
Encarnacion, 49, joined the NYPD in 2004 and is assigned to a precinct in Harlem.
His lawyer, Samarjit Pattnaik, said the court heard the case Friday. "All charges against the officer were quashed," he said.
Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said, "We are pleased that police officer Encarnacion's unfortunate ordeal has been resolved and that he'll soon be returning home."
Encarnacion's arrest took place months after a diplomatic spat between the United States and India over the arrest and strip search of an Indian consular official for alleged visa fraud in New York. But Indian authorities say Encarnacion's arrest had nothing to do with the spat.
State court allows 'pink slime' lawsuit to proce
The South Dakota Supreme Court is allowing a $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit to proceed against television network ABC over its coverage of a meat product that critics derided as "pink slime."
The decision on Thursday allows the plaintiffs to potentially depose news anchor Diane Sawyer, two of the networks correspondents and other defendants.
Dakota Dunes-based Beef Products Inc. sued the network in 2012 for its coverage of the meat product the industry calls "lean, finely textured beef." BPI alleges that the coverage led to plant closures and layoffs because it misled consumers into believing the product was unsafe.
Attorneys for ABC in court filings say the network in each of its broadcasts stated the FDA deemed the product safe to eat. The network didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The decision on Thursday allows the plaintiffs to potentially depose news anchor Diane Sawyer, two of the networks correspondents and other defendants.
Dakota Dunes-based Beef Products Inc. sued the network in 2012 for its coverage of the meat product the industry calls "lean, finely textured beef." BPI alleges that the coverage led to plant closures and layoffs because it misled consumers into believing the product was unsafe.
Attorneys for ABC in court filings say the network in each of its broadcasts stated the FDA deemed the product safe to eat. The network didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)