- Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, a Boeing 727, was shot down on February 21, 1973 when it strayed over Israeli territory, refused to land, and was shot down.
- Korean Air Lines Flight 902, was shot down on April 20, 1978 by Soviet Su-15 fighters after entering Soviet airspace and it failed to respond to demands to land.
- Air Rhodesia Flight RH825, was shot down on September 3, 1978 by Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army by using a Strela-2 missile. After it crashed, the fifty-six survivors were killed by the Revolutionary Army troops.
- Air Rhodesia Flight RH827, was shot down on February 12, 1979 by the AIPRA guerrilla army, again using a Strela 2 missile, the same as the previous shoot-down of September 3, 1978.
- Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870, was shot down by NATO jet fighters on June 27, 1980. This downing is disputed and there is some report that there was a bomb on board, however Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga attributed the downing to French interceptors used in the Gadio “clandestine” operation.
- Korean Air Lines Flight 007, was shot down on September 1, 1983 by Soviet Su-15TM fighters west of the Soviet “secret” airbase at Sakhalin Island. Congressman Larry McDonald was on that flight and died.
- Polar 3, a research airplane, was shot down on February 24, 1985 by the Polisario Front, a guerrilla army operating in West Africa.
- Air Malawi 7Q-YMB, shot down on November 6, 1987 over Mozambique: a civil war was in progress there and the shoot-down is attributed to participants in the civil war.
- Iran Air Flight 655, was shot down on July 3, 1988 by U.S. guided missiles fired from the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The U.S. later apologized and attributed it to a “mistake:” the US. said it thought the commercial airliner (an Airbus A300) was an Iranian F-14 giving false signals that it was a commercial flight.
- T&G Aviation DC-7, was shot down on December 8, 1988 over the western Sahara desert by the Polisario Front. The aircraft was a DC-7 used to spray insecticide as a public health goodwill gesture to control a locust outbreak.
- Transair Georgian Airliner shot down in September 1993 by missiles and gunfire from the former Soviet republic Georgia.
- In September 1993, three airliners belonging to Transair Georgia were shot down by missiles and gunfire in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia.
- Lionair Flight LN 602 was shot down in September 29, 1998 off the coast of Sri Lanka. Although unproven, it is widely believed to have been shot down by the Liberation Tiers of the Tamil Eelam rebel group operating in Sri Lanka.
- Siberia Airlines Flight 1812, shot down October 4, 2001 by Ukrainian missiles fired from the Crimea peninsula. The missile was mistakenly fired during a military exercise. The President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma expressed condolences but never confirmed responsibility.
- DHL freight aircraft, November 22, 2001, damaged by a mid-air missile strike managed to land with wing damage inflicted by a missile. It had just taken off from Bagdad, Iraq.
- Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76, shot down March 23, 2007 over Somalia. The missile was reportedly fired by a Somalian private army during the battle for Mogadishu, a conflict by private warlords for Somalia.
The news of July 9, 2014 from Iraq is that 90 pounds of uranium compounds have come into possession of the Islamic State In Iraq and Levant (ISIS). The uranium was obtained from a university laboratory in Mosul, a city in Northern Iraq that is occupied by ISIS and is beyond the control of the Nation of Iraq. A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency has officially notified the United Nations in New York of these developments.
The International Atomic Energy Agency Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material obligates the signing nations to protect nuclear facilities and material in peaceful domestic use, storage and transport. The treaty, entered into in 1987 and modified in 2005 has 150 nations as “signatories”. The treaty covers the “low grade” nuclear material stolen by the ISIS. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its press release, indicated that the nuclear material is not suited for atomic explosive weapons, but may be used in “dirty” bombs. A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device embedded in radioactive material. The conventional explosives would spread the nuclear material and contaminate the explosive radius with levels of radioactivity that exceed acceptable levels of exposure for humans.
There is no judicial venue for enforcing agreements signed by nations. The Charter of the United Nations has a process for member nations to bring treaty violations before the Security Council, but no enforcement process exists. The United Nations created the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a court for nations to litigate disputes in accord with international law. The ICJ has been a forum of limited jurisdiction and has been a court where some member states go to seek resolution of disputes. The limitation of the court is it has no enforcement powers. Because the ICJ cannot enforce any of its rulings it has declined to take cases where the outcome would require enforcement. By example a civil court in the United States can use contempt powers to arrest and detain and fine persons who fail to comply with Court orders.
The Security Council of the United Nations, under Chapter VII, can impose sanctions on member nations that threaten international peace and security but does not and has not invoked Chapter VII in matters that would require actual enforcement. At this time a violation of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material by ISIS may be beyond the powers of the ICJ to act and, for political reasons, the Security Council may not invoke Chapter VII. Individual citizens cannot force nations to comply with their treaty undertakings with some limited exceptions: The United States Supreme Court has, over the past 120 years, permitted some banks and corporations to sue in Federal Court when they are financially harmed by inaction or non-compliance by signatory nations to some treaty obligations.
The FBI announced changes to its interrogation protocol when investigations concern national security. Newer rules would allow profiling techniques, such as, mapping of certain ethnic groups. In past years, civil rights concerns were raised about the use of racial profiling. The FBI changed its interrogation policies as a result of those concerns. In June of 2014, the FBI began to circulate a change in its new guidelines to permit racial profiling in national security investigations. In a release that was made to civil rights groups and in a letter sent to Congress, the policy changes were announced.
In 2006 and 2007, internal investigations undertaken by the FBI revealed abuses involving surveillance, credit card information and telephone logs of racially targeted persons or groups. The report suggested that the use of racial profiling was condoned in domestic criminal investigations and was shortly stopped. In 2007, a set of guidelines was issued and policy changes were made in FBI investigations. The breadth of the guidelines to limit or reduce racial profiling has impacted, according to the FBI, national security investigations and accordingly, those restrictions will be lifted.
The FBI said that the current rules made it difficult for agents to conduct terrorism probes.
The Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office, Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, issued a press release opposing the changes in 2007. Ms. Fredrickson’s comments were that removing restrictions on national security investigations would “…allow for racial profiling without question.” Ms. Fredrickson’s comments were generally received as accurate, although the FBI statement reiterated that civil rights would not be violated with the change in investigatory techniques and protocols and limited the permissive use of racial profiling to only national security matters. The FBI said that once an official of the FBI notifies the suspects of the nature of the investigation that the racial profiling limitations would apply from that point forward. Due to the focus on terrorism, the FBI did not permit either a careful study or review of its proposed changes when it circulated the draft to members of the press and civil rights groups.
The new guidelines would replace FBI guidelines issued in 2007. An FBI official said the new rules are crucial to helping the bureau become “an intelligence-driven agency that is not waiting for things to fall on our doorstep, but actually looking proactively for threats within the country.”
Racial profiling, which targets persons on their race or ethnicity, has been the focus of the American Civil Liberties Union’s requests to end profiling. The FBI has said that race and color are not considerations in selecting investigation targets or investigations. The use of national origin has given rise to FBI investigation techniques that catalog visual and facial clues, which it believes is a tool in investigations in national security, matters. Law enforcement finds that racial profiling is a useful investigative technique. By example: sexual battery is most commonly a crime involving a female victim and a male perpetrator. In an effort to reduce sexual batteries, law enforcement may use sex as a factor.
Other examples of racial profiling that the FBI will use in national security investigations are statistically justifiable findings as to the national origin of terrorist. By example: Few terrorist suspects are of German birth while a significant number of suspects are of Saudi or Pakistani birth. It is argued that without profiling based on provable commonalities among suspects that investigations would be hampered, assets misappropriated and some preventable terrorist acts would not be discovered due to the mis-application of limited investigatory resources.
Obama Care (the Affordable Health Care Act) requires health insurance provide birth control benefits. The Hobby Lobby case tells us you don’t have to if you are a closely held corporation (4 or fewer stockholders) and you have bona fide religious objections to birth control.
The decision is seen as an end run to, in effect, backdoor reproductive and privacy rights by framing the issue as a question that can be decided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. What has upset an entire universe of people, from women’s rights and gay and lesbian rights to, and including, civil rights advocates is the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow this obvious subterfuge.
In deciding the case, the Court agreed to look only at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’s procedural processes. The Court went to great pains to say this case has nothing to do with abortion rights and civil rights, and that is why the Court is being attacked. In its written decision, which is being called intellectually dishonest, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection Act violated the “burdensome” test of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The (RFRA) prohibits the Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Because the Court found that four of the contraceptive coverages “burdened” Hobby Lobby’s right to religious expression, the Court struck the four contraceptives from the insurance of employees of Hobby Lobby.
The Court made great efforts to calm the waters by reminding the reader to keep in mind that this case was not a first amendment religious freedom case. Nor, so the Court wrote, is it a privacy or a women’s rights case, an abortion rights case or a civil rights case. The Court was clear that it was only deciding on the issue of burdensome regulations as it affects rights of payers of medical insurance to impose their own religious beliefs. Critics of the decision accuse the Court of trying to change the relationship of government and religion with this decision. Critics say the legal “mechanics” is a slight of hand by the Roberts Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court accepted and will rule on the Anthony Elonis case in the Court’s upcoming Fall term. The Elonis case involves a man who was found guilty and sentenced to over three years in prison for posting threats to his wife on Facebook. Because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on cellphone searches, commentators are anticipating that the Elonis case will make new law on internet social sites and First Amendment free speech. With the way our Constitution is set up, the Supreme Court doesn’t “make” law, it resolves conflicts from lower courts and clarifies issues of constitutional law. In this situation, there are major conflicts in rulings from various States concerning their criminal laws and those of federal courts interpreting federal law. The Elonis case is also about internet (like books, or newspapers, or letters, or radio), each medium is, as Marshall McLuhan says, the message. The Supreme Court has to address the question: Does that matter? Internet social sites are a medium for both conveying political speech and personal “posts.” If there is a line, the Supreme Court is expected to focus on that issue.
The conflicting interpretations from lower courts hinge on what the “speaker” intended, as opposed to what the “hearer” understands. One line of cases hold that a threat is a statement only if the speaker meant to communicate it as a threat to an individual or a group (Watts v U.S.). Other lines of decisions hold that if a reasonable person would see it as a threat then it is not protected speech, regardless of the intent of the speaker. Elonis’s defense is that his threats, some of which are composed in patterns used in rap music, are protected free speech.
This issue has a long history of litigation both in State and Federal courts. One federal opinion arose from a Vietnam War protester who, in front of a protest group said, ”If I’m drafted into the army and they give me a rifle, the first person I’ll put in its sites is the President of the United States.” Is that protected political speech or a threat to kill the President of the United States? How about burning a cross? Is that political speech or a threat against African Americans? How about burning a copy of the Koran? Is that protected speech or should I be criminally prosecuted because a Muslim neighbor of mine perceived this as a threat to himself and his family? Now consider rap music in which the artist goes on about killing police. Is that a threat to police or protected free speech.
The Supreme Court can, and will, decide on what is the question before they give us an answer. What most commentators are saying is that this case will make new law because it involves the Internet.
More than 65,000,000 (one in four adults) people in the U.S. have some form of criminal record. For each of them the consequences of a criminal record carries both legal disability and a social and economic stigma. Collateral consequences of a conviction impose legal restrictions including the loss of civil rights, voting privileges, disqualification from many professions, loss of economic opportunities from lenders, credit providers, educational opportunities and grants, public assistance and publicly funded training programs. The U.S. Congress has convened a Task Force under the House Judiciary Committee. The bipartisan Over-Criminalization Task Force has conveyed and taken testimony. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has appeared before the committee to provide the House with information and insight. The Task Force will study and produce suggestions to address the collateral consequences on the federal level. The committee has heard testimony that across the board mandatory collateral consequences be eliminated.
Expected findings are that the collateral consequences fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities. Many members of Congress were clearly looking for information and guidance from criminal justice activists and the Department of Justice. The issue involves the loss of productivity and the total economic and social costs borne by the U.S. economy when persons with criminal records cannot become tax-paying citizens and become less productive or non-productive members of the community.
The Task Force will study and consider changes in the laws and policies so that as a national policy the nation will:
- Seek to end second-class legal status and stigmatization of persons who have completed their sentences;
- Only impose collateral consequences for specific offenses and not all convictions;
- Impose collateral consequences on recent offenders and create a route for consequences to be eliminated with the passage of time and proof of improved conduct;
- Restore legal rights and status upon completion of sentence;
- Design and implement a program whereby individuals can earn the right to end collateral consequences;
- Permit individuals charged with a crime to avoid collateral consequences by court-sanctioned programs;
- Encourage decision makers such as lenders and landlords to review on a case-by-case basis individual offenders who have had collateral consequences lifted;
- Fund States to purge old in inaccurate criminal records;
- Encourage criminal lawyers to seek avoidance of collateral consequences in plea negotiations; and
- Fund public education programs.
For more information, read:
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court released a unanimous decision on cell phone searches by the police. It is now a requirement for police to have a search warrant to search a cell phone.
The Supreme Court observed citizens are under increasing governmental surveillance. Face recognition software can recognize individuals with 20% of the face covered. Cellphones and mobile devices can be triangulated to location. Voice recognition identifies individual voices, and artificial intelligence systems listen, screen, discern and know who said what to whom when and where. Ten years ago the fractionated accumulation data did not mean anything other then geewizz tech stuff, until, the Justices observed, law enforcement agencies collected and collated the data to track individuals without a warrant.
The Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for cell phone searches stated that the assembling of available data to track citizens has constitutional implications. May the government assemble data to track citizens without a warrant is the issue. The public debate goes from: “If I’m doing nothing wrong, then I have nothing to hide.” To: “If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to prove.” The landmark ruling holds: a cellphone taken off a person in custody cannot be examined and used as a window into derivative content. To do that, the police must obtain a warrant. Getting a warrant means they have to present information to a neutral magistrate (Judge) that justifies probable cause that a crime has been committed or is being committed.
This is the first of what will be a decades long series of cases, as yet unfiled and as yet unimagined, to test the limits of governmental accumulation of seemingly harmless information. Supreme Court decisions have recognized a right of privacy, but commentators correctly point out that there is no constitutional language creating it. It is argued that privacy rights have been spun of whole cloth by judges wanting to create a legal concept of privacy rights without a constitutional basis. Privacy has been defined as acts, thoughts, or exploits to the edge of an individual’s emotional and moral compass that are protected from governmental regulation. Embodied in constitutional structure, the Bill of Rights, grants government limited powers. The Supreme Court has given a frame, a skeleton, upon which the law can flesh out limits that let government govern conduct but not rule lives. Defined as such, the Court ruled, it is reasonable for a warrant requirement before an intrusion.
For more information, read:
- New York Times Article: “Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones”
- Wall Street Journal Article: “Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cellphone Data”
The public conversation on the use of armed drones is in the news. On one side it is argued that Due Process rights confer upon judicial process the sole venue for “civilized” adjudication before the imposition of the death penalty. Remember that great movie line from Silverado (1985) when the Sheriff said: “We’re gonna give you a fair trial followed by a first class hangin.” On the other side is the argument that the right of a “self-defense” killing of terrorists (either in leadership roles or carrying out the directives of homicide upon non-combatant civilians) is justified. But now, it is argued, that for the same reason you can kill a pirate at sea, nations can kill terrorist targets on land. Here’s how the argument is posited:
The “right of innocent passage” by seafarers pre-dates Chinese trading junks of the third century B.C. and Greek trading vessels plying the waters of the Mediterranean. Codified in the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea are historical, and still valid, rules of conduct at sea as to the right of unfettered passage. The Geneva Convention on the conduct of armed conflict and modern judicial process conflate with those ancient laws of the sea; those who impede safe passage of seafarers can be summarily executed.
Under a court order the Obama administration released the legal justifications and rationales for the use of armed drones to kill military approved targets (people). The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union had pressed the administration for the release of these legal justifications. Responding to pressures, the administration released the memorandum for publication in the press. Traveling under the theory that the government has the right to impose death on its own citizens under the public authorities justification, the memo was released. The “public authorities justification” permits fire trucks to break the speed limits in emergency calls. The “public authorities justification” permits a homicide (the taking of a human life) by police officers. The explanation given in the memo lists “imminent mayhem” as justification under the “public authorities justification” rubric for drone killings.
What is not disputed in the released legal memorandum or in other government policy documents, as of yet, is the ancient rule permitting the killing of pirates for acts of piracy at sea. The rule, simply stated, is that a pirate attempting to board a vessel can be summarily killed. By analogy, a person who is in the process of attempting or committing an “act of mayhem” can be justifiably summarily killed, as any pirate attempting or boarding a vessel at sea. In a contemporary legal analogy, Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute can justify an act in self-defense resulting in the taking of human life. The New York Times, in an editorial opposing any non-judicial rational for terrorist killings, approaches the issue from a due process judicial process aspect. How different is the case for summarily killing Somali pirates from the use of drones to kill targets of opportunity in this our war on terrorism? History and politics will ultimately make judgments upon the killings of our times by the use of armed drones. Where do you stand?
For more information, read the New York Times editorial: “A Thin Rationale for Drone Killings”
Good news, bad news, we’ve heard it all. But when the good news or bad news comes from the voice of a corporate entity and stock prices move up, or down, lots of money is made, or lost. The price of any stock moves on news, here is an example to get grounded: If and when British Petroleum makes statements about the costs of the cleanup of the oil spill in the Caribbean, it’s stock price moves violently. In this Supreme Court decision, which arose from a class action lawsuit, the question is what to do when a corporation makes a public statement, which has a
significant impact on the price of its stock. Specifically when a class action is filed by groups of individual stockholders who have collectively lost big money.
That very question, about how to handle class-action lawsuits by stockholders, did in fact go all the way up to United States Supreme Court. Important? Very. Here’s why: No single stockholder has the resources to sue for his/her individual losses. These lawsuits take thousands of attorney-hours to litigate. Now, not only can corporations shut down class action lawsuits faster, but they can also do it for less money. Now, at the very early stages, these class action lawsuits can be dismissed. And there’s more: The entire and only legal theory upon which these class action lawsuits are based, the “fraud on the market” theory, has been gutted.
The recent case is a big win for corporations and a big setback for groups of stockholders who sue any corporation in a class action lawsuit. It started like this: Halliburton, a major petroleum services company, made some very powerful statements about asbestos claims that had been filed against it’s companies by people who were injured by asbestos poisoning. The statement went on to project its effects on Haliburton’s earnings in its engineering and construction businesses. It also spoke about benefits of a merger in that field. In a class action by stockholders, they sued on the theory that the statements were false and the corporation’s statements were intended to inflate the price of Halliburton stock.
The Supreme Court’s decision in effect makes it more difficult for investors, grouping together in a class action lawsuit, to file claims. The decision to buy or sell a security is always based on perceptions of market valuations. The Supreme Court just stopped short of ending most class actions based on securities fraud theory. There is no other theory beside security fraud to sue a corporation for making misleading statements that affect the price of its stock. This decision is all encompassing and very, very, significant. Just so you have some perspective; in the last ten years over $62 billion was paid out by corporations to investors who sued for securities fraud. The recent decision allows corporations to file motions to dismiss at the early stages. It also enunciates some powerful grounds making such dismissal motions very likely. Previously the law permitted a presumption of securities fraud just by alleging, that is accusing the corporation of trying to affect stock prices by making public announcements. The rules have now changed, making these suits more difficult to win and subject to early dismissal. This is consistent with earlier decisions by the Supreme Court. Over recent years, the court has limited workers and consumer class action lawsuits and this recent decision reads consistent with previous decisions affecting consumer and workers. Class actions bode well for a continuing trend: the law now requires more proof and earlier proof by plaintiffs to get the case in front of a jury.
More more information, read:
- New York Times article, “Supreme Court Erects Obstacle to Class Actions for Securities Fraud”
- Forbes article, “Supreme Court Leaves Fraud On Market Intact, Makes Life A Bit Harder For Securities Plaintiffs”
Porous borders and the ease of international travel can create a legal nightmare for even the most innocent of travelers.
For example, a Swiss citizen traveling in the United States and renting an automobile can have a traffic ticket in any of a number of States and run afoul of a myriad of conflicted laws and rules as to extradition. For many business travelers conducting business in one nation, they may run afoul of anti-competitive laws, charges of price fixing or bribery. Often, these business practices are non-criminal in one nation and criminalized in another.
In analyzing an extradition case, start by obtaining the charging document from the Requesting Nation and listing the elements of the alleged crime. Step two is to obtain and read the extradition treaty in effect at the time of the event, or, at the time the Requesting Nation notifies the Requested Nation that extradition is sought. Step three is to define citizenship for each of the persons/parties involved. An accused who is a citizen of Switzerland accused of a crime against a U.S. citizen has a different treaty status than a U.S. citizen who resides in Switzerland and is wanted in the U.S. to face criminal charges. Dealing with even minor traffic infractions can have profound negative results. When entering the U.S., Homeland Security will arrest and detain you for an unpaid traffic infraction. You can remain in custody while Homeland Security contacts the State and asks if the State will pay the cost of transporting the individual. After a delay that can mean 60 days in a customs holding facility, the next step is removal, or denial, of entry into the United States. I’ll use Switzerland as an example to set a roadmap of what to ask and how to proceed. The steps are: Defining the elements of the charge, read the treaty, and identify the nationality of the accused and of the victim(s).
Switzerland and the United States have entered into treaties of extradition in 1900, in 1935, in 1940, and again in 1995. Understanding the process of extraditing United States citizens from Switzerland to face prosecution involves two basic issues: defining the crime and the national policy of the two nations. To understand the first stage we can review the case of the American film artist Roman Polanksi. Polanski entered Switzerland from France (where he lived at that time) to attend a film festival. At the request of the State of California (expedited through the State Department of the United States), Polanski was detained pending removal from Switzerland to the United States and then ultimately to California. He was never actually removed to the U.S. even though the U.S. alleged he failed to appear at his sentencing. His lawyers litigated the matter in equity in Switzerland and won. The Polanski case illustrates that by defining the elements of the Indictment charges (the ‘crime’) into the laws of the Requested Nation (Switzerland in the Polanski case) the results can be different. A good lawyer can mean the difference between a “routine” extradition or a blocked extradition. That is what happened in the Roman Polanski case, and it is an excellent study in the art of lawyering in the complexity of international extradition treaty law.
In all cases ask, “Is the crime charged in the United States also a crime in Switzerland?” Switzerland by treaty will not detain and extradite persons charged with financial crimes unless they are related to another crime, such as one of violence. Tax evasion is a crime in the United States but Switzerland will not detain and surrender a person charged with failure to pay taxes. Article Two of the Extradition Treaty with Switzerland states that the crime charged must be a crime in both the Requesting Nation and the Requested Nation before Switzerland can be compelled to extradite. Sex crimes are another example. In Switzerland, the age of consent for a sex act is sixteen years of age. In most, if not all states in the United States, the age of consent is eighteen. If the United States requests Switzerland to extradite a Swiss national for a sex act within the United States, the age of the purported victim may preclude extradition. If there is any degree of force or the threat of force, then the sex act is an act of violence and the age of consent issue is subsumed by the element of the use of force and extradition will be undertaken by the Swiss. Extradition from any nation to the United States begins with reading the treaties in effect between nations. Also, be mindful that although a nation may not be required by treaty to extradite they can extradite someone anyway. An extradition may be litigated in the nation of origin but once removed and transported the Requesting Nation may not secede jurisdiction if extradition is litigated there.