Judge orders hearing on forcibly medicating Loughner

Jared Lee Loughner is charged in the Tucson mass shooting in which six were killedForcing Loughner to take powerful drugs violates his rights, lawyers sayProsecutors say the medication is necessary to control his schizophrenia

(CNN) -- A hearing is set for Wednesday to challenge a decision to forcibly medicate Arizona shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner in a federal prison hospital.

In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns scheduled the hearing for the U.S. Federal Court in San Diego.

Lawyers representing Loughner said that forcing him to take mind-altering psychotropic drugs against his will violates his rights.

Prosecutors said prison officials acted properly in ordering the medication, which they said was necessary for Loughner to control his schizophrenia.

Loughner, 22, is charged in the January mass shooting in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

A federal judge ruled last month that Loughner was not competent to stand trial. He was sent to a federal facility in Springfield, Missouri.

His lawyers conceded in an emergency motion filed Friday that they were uncertain whether officials at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, where Loughner was transferred, had started administering the drugs.

However, they said prison officials held a deficient hearing process and used faulty reasoning in deciding to drug Loughner against his will.

For example, Loughner had no attorney present at the June 14 hearing, the lawyers said, and officials failed to state the drug and dosage he should receive.

According to the emergency motion, authorities assessed Loughner as dangerous because of incidents before his transfer to the Springfield prison: He threw a chair against a door and spit at an attorney.

However, the reasoning to administer the drugs was to treat Loughner's mental illness, rather than to subdue any dangerous behavior, according to the motion.

Prosecutors argued that Loughner received a proper administrative hearing on the matter, and the medication prescribed was necessary to prevent him from being a danger to himself and others.

In the days and weeks to come, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' recovery from a gunshot wound to the head will be a marathon, not a sprint, doctors say.Doctors for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords have upgraded her condition from serious to good, and said she may be transferred to a nearby rehabilitation hospital Wednesday morning.A federal judge entered a plea of not guilty Monday on behalf of Jared Lee Loughner to three counts of attempted murder in the mass shooting that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this month.Gabrielle Giffords has been able to stand with assistance. "She's activating her muscles even more than what I had anticipated," one doctor says.Rep. Gabrielle Giffords arrived in Houston, Texas, on Friday to continue her recovery from a gunshot wound to the brain, her office said.The next phase of recovery for U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is likely to begin later this week when she will be transported to a rehabilitation hospital in Houston.Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was worried about her safety long before she was critically wounded in a mass shooting that killed six people in Arizona, her husband said in a new interview.Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner photographed himself posing with a 9mm handgun while wearing a red G-string, a law enforcement source said.Today's five most popular stories

CNN

High court orders drastic prison population reduction in California

Inmates sleep on bunk beds in a gym modified to hold prisoners at the state prison in Chino, California.NEW: The state now has a two-year window to complyThe Supreme Court rules, 5-4, that California must reduce its prison population"Needless suffering and death" result from overcrowding, Justice Kennedy saysJustice Alito dissents, warning against "gambling with the safety of the people"

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has affirmed a federal order telling California to reduce its overflowing prison population, a situation the majority said "falls below the standard of decency."

The 5-4 ruling Monday from the justices come in a classic battle over state versus federal authority, focusing on whether U.S. courts can step in and essentially run state prisons when officials have repeatedly violated basic constitutional guarantees afforded inmates.

The issue came down to a sharply divided debate between public safety concerns and individual rights, a debate that goes into how the three branches of government should balance competing state interests.

The swing vote was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote of the "continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations," including as many as 156,000 people crammed in correctional facilities designed to hold about half that many.

He noted "needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies have been found to be sufficient."

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned any mass release of inmates to alleviate overcrowding would be "gambling with the safety of the people of California."

The state now has a two-year window to comply, with the clock starting Monday. Officials have not fully explained how their ongoing inmate reduction plan will need to be modified to meet the federal order.

In a statement issued Monday afternoon, California Gov. Jerry Brown said he would take "all steps necessary to protect public safety" in implementing the order.

Brown, a Democrat, signed legislation in April that was aimed at cutting the state's prison population by tens of thousands, largely by housing non-violent felons with sentences less than three years in county jails. In his Monday statement, Brown said the court's ruling recognized that law as "key to meeting this obligation," but said the plan still needs "full and constitutionally guaranteed funding."

Prison overcrowding is a nationwide problem, but California's dilemma is unique in its massive scope and time frame. There is general agreement that the prison conditions across California are disturbing.

Prisoners are stacked three deep in 6-by-9-foot cells designed to hold only one. Open spaces meant to be gymnasiums and clinics have been transformed into crowded encampments with bunks and unsanitary conditions. Suicides occur once every eight days on average.

California has the nation's largest prison system, and the state says it has reduced the prison population to meet overcrowding concerns. But a special federal court panel had ordered 36,000 to 46,000 more inmates released or transferred quickly, about a quarter of the total.

Despite some recent drops, the prison population in the state has increased by about 75 percent in the past two decades.

Two lawsuits -- one filed in 1990, the other in 2001 -- say overcrowding is the core cause of what has become a domino effect of unsafe and unhealthy conditions for those on both sides of the iron bars.

State legislators and corrections officials have admitted the prisons violate the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" contained in the Constitution, and have organized more than 20 panels and commissions to address the crisis.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who left office in January, had blamed the legislature for not approving more money to build new prisons, or reforming the way defendants are punished and sentenced, particular repeat offenders.

"I don't blame the courts for stepping in to try to solve the overcrowding crisis," he said three years ago. "The fact of the matter is, for decades the state of California hasn't really taken it seriously and hasn't really done something about it."

The special federal court in 2009 had ordered the state to shrink the prison population from the current 200% over capacity to a maximum of 137.5%, and to accomplish that in two years. The state was given wide latitude to meet the goal, but the court was adamant the state do it without delay and without excuse.

The task was made more difficult by the state budget crisis and a national economic downturn that has created turmoil over funding solutions not just in prisons, but also in education, transportation, and social programs.

Kennedy spent most his 52-page majority opinion affirming the right of federal courts to step into the situation.

"This extensive and ongoing constitutional violation requires a remedy, and a remedy will not be achieved without a reduction in overcrowding," he wrote. "The relief ordered by the three-judge court is required by the Constitution and was authorized by Congress in (federal law). The state shall implement the order without further delay."

The state has already begun to comply; about 9,000 inmates have been released since the 2009 trial stemming from the lawsuits.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan supported Kennedy's conclusions.

Two tough dissents followed the majority's ruling. Reading from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling represents "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history." He said it "takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity." Justice Clarence Thomas backed him.

In a separate dissent, Alito spoke of the potential impact of the decision.

"The prisoner release ordered in this case is unprecedented, improvident, and contrary" to federal law, he said. "I fear that today's decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years we will see."

Chief Justice John Roberts added his support to Alito's dissent.

The case is Brown v. Plata (09-1233).

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

British court orders trial over racist murder (AFP)

LONDON (AFP) – A British court ordered two men Wednesday to face trial for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence 18 years ago, reopening an unsolved case of racism that caused a national uproar.

Lawrence, an 18-year-old student, was stabbed to death at a bus stop in Eltham, southeast London, on April 22, 1993. Nobody was ever convicted of his murder and the case remained open.

Gary Dobson, 35, and David Norris, 34, were arrested in September last year over the murder and are in custody. The allegations against them could not previously be reported for legal reasons.

"There is to be a new trial," said Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, lifting the reporting restrictions and setting the trial date for November at the Old Bailey in London.

Dobson was tried for murder in 1996 in a private prosecution brought by Lawrence's parents, alongside two other suspects, Luke Knight and Neil Acourt. All three men were acquitted.

Dobson's retrial is possible under a new law that allows a fresh trial as long as there is new and compelling evidence.

Speaking to reporters outside court, Lawrence's mother Doreen, who has campaigned tirelessly for justice for his son, said: "It's been a long time in coming but we still have a long way to go.

"And at this moment in time, all I can think about is Stephen and that perhaps somewhere down the line we will finally get justice for him."

In their ruling, the panel of three judges said Lawrence was a "young black man of great promise" killed "just because of the colour of his skin".

They described how he was waiting peacefully for a bus with his friend Duwayne Brooks when "a group of white youths crossed the road towards them. One of the youths used abusive racist language".

"This was followed by a sudden and immediate attack, as the group converged on or charged at them," the ruling said.

Brooks managed to flee but Lawrence was stabbed twice in his upper torso and major blood vessels were severed. He managed to get to his feet and tried to run away but collapsed on the pavement. He died soon afterwards in hospital.

"The murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young black man of great promise, targeted and killed by a group of white youths just because of the colour of his skin, was indeed a calamitous crime," the judges said.

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Bahrain's king orders end to emergency law

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Bahrain's king set a fast-track timetable to end martial law-style rule Sunday in a bid to display confidence that authorities have smothered a pro-reform uprising even as rights groups denounced the hard-line measures.

The announcement to lift emergency rule two-weeks early on June 1 came just hours after the start of a closed-door trial accusing activists of plotting to overthrow the Gulf state's rulers.

The decision appears part of Bahrain's aggressive international campaign to reassure financial markets and win back high-profile events. They include the coveted Formula One grand prix that was canceled in March amid deadly clashes and protests by the country's majority Shiites, who are seeking greater rights and freedoms.

But the massive crackdown has come at a high price in the strategic island nation, which hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet.

At least 30 people have been killed since the protests began in February, inspired by revolts against autocratic leaders in Tunisia and Egypt. But tiny Bahrain also carries a volatile demographic mix. Shiites account for about 70 percent of the population, but claim widespread discrimination and are denied top posts in the government and security forces.

Tensions in the Gulf have soared between Shiite power Iran and the Sunni Arab rulers backing Bahrain. Iran has sharply condemned the three-month emergency rule imposed March 15 just as a 1,500-strong Saudi-led force arrived in Bahrain to support the monarchy. Gulf leaders, in turn, have strongly warned Iran to halt meddling in their affairs.

Meanwhile, watchdog groups — including the top U.N. rights agency — have accused Bahraini authorities of overstepping their bounds with closed-door trials and mass detentions of hundreds of protesters, activists and others. A major America labor organization, the AFL-CIO, is asking Washington to withdraw from a free-trade pact with Bahrain as punishment for pressuring Shiite-led unions.

U.S. official have tried to straddle two objectives: rapping Bahrain's leaders for violence and urging for reforms, but making sure there are no serious cracks in one of Washington's most important military alliance in the Gulf.

The declaration to remove the emergency rule gave no details of what would take its place, including whether the nighttime curfew would end or if the numerous checkpoints would be dismantled. Last month, Bahrain's foreign minister said the Saudi-led reinforcements would remain as long as there are perceived threats from Iran.

The latest indication of Bahrain's Iran worries came Sunday when 21 opposition leaders and political activists went on trial in a special security court set up under the emergency rule, which gives the military sweeping powers.

The suspects — 14 in custody and the others charged in absentia — are accused of attempting to overthrow the 200-year-old Sunni dynasty and having links to "a terrorist organization abroad working for a foreign country." No additional details were made public, but Bahrain's leaders have claimed that Lebanon's Iranian-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah is involved in Bahrain's protests.

Lawyers for those in custody entered not guilty pleas. Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said the closed-door proceedings violated international standards for a fair trial.

Late last month, the security court sentenced four protesters to death for killing two policemen in the unrest. Three other opposition supporters were convicted as accomplices in the murders and were sentenced to life in prison.

Among those charged on Sunday are senior Shiite opposition leaders such as Hassan Mushaima, the leader of Al Haq movement, and some of its senior members including Abdul Jalil al-Singace. Mushaima and al-Singace were among the first political leaders taken into custody after emergency rule was imposed.

Also among the suspects: Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, the kingdom's leading human rights activist; Ibrahim Sharif, a prominent Sunni reform leader, and Ali Abdul Emam, a blogger and founder of a popular discussion forum known as Bahrain-On-Line. Al-Khawaja was beaten unconscious by police in his house in the outskirts of the capital, Manama, according to relatives who witnessed the raid.

Last week, authorities charged 23 doctors and 24 nurses with participating in illegal rallies or attempts to topple the ruling Al Khalifa family.

Some of the medical staff who treated protesters during the unprecedented political unrest will be tried in the same security court. Only select journalists are allowed to cover the trials after authorities put a gag order on legal proceedings against suspected opposition supporters.

Later this month, three former top editors of Bahrain's main opposition newspaper, Al Wasat, will be tried in a criminal court after authorities accused them of unethical coverage of the protests.

Al Wasat was to shut down Sunday, but the paper's board decided to continue publishing despite a significant drop in circulation and revenue since the three editors were forced to resign in April.

The political turmoil forced Bahrain's crown prince, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, to call off the Bahrain Grand Prix scheduled for March 13.

Last week, Formula One's governing body gave Bahrain until June 3 to decide if a new date could be set for this year. The task of persuading F1 overseers may be tough, however.

In an interview posted on the official F1 website, the sport's boss Bernie Ecclestone said officials would need "a guarantee that there won't be any problems" in Bahrain.

"But right now, I don't know how anybody could guarantee that because it might be peaceful now, but who knows in the future," he added.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Japan PM orders nuclear plant closure

View of the Hamaoka nuclear power plant's No.3 reactor taken in May, 2009.NEW: Chubu Electric Company declines to comment, a representative saysJapan's prime minister asks power company to shut down Hamaoka nuclear plantThe plant is vulnerable to an earthquake or tsunami, the prime minister saysThe prime minister says the government can't force the plant to shut down

Tokyo (CNN) -- Japan's prime minister said Friday he has asked the operator to shut down the nuclear reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear plant until earthquake and tsunami protections can be built.

The plant -- located on the Pacific coast in Omaezaki, southwest of Tokyo -- is vulnerable and could produce "grave damage to Japan" similar to the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that was damaged in the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami in March, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said.

"The primary reason for this request is in the interest of the safety and security of the people of Japan," Kan said. "We came to this conclusion because of the grave impact on Japan's people that could be incurred as a result of a serious accident at Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant."

The prime minister stressed that he could only ask the plant's owner, Chubu Electric Company, to shut down the plant. The Japanese government can not order the company to close the plant, he said.

A representative for the company said it had no immediate comment.

Environmental group Greenpeace applauded the decision.

"Greenpeace welcomes Prime Minister Kan's request to close Hamaoka, one of the most dangerous nuclear reactors in Japan," said Junichi Sato, Greenpeace Japan Executive Director. "This is the first time a prime minister has directly requested a nuclear plant in Japan be closed, however, it cannot be the last."

Nuclear plant safety has been in the spotlight worldwide since the March 11 earthquake and ensuing tsunami that forced the automatic shutdown of reactors at four Japanese power plants, including Fukushima Daiichi.

The loss of cooling at that plant caused a series of problems, including explosions that damaged the buildings housing nuclear reactors and caused the release of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Radiation eventually spread into the ocean after plant workers began releasing contaminated water into the sea near the plant.

The disaster ranked at the top of the seven-step International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, equalling the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion. Crews are still working to restore cooling and contain the damage.

The United States was among the nations that ordered a review of nuclear plant safety in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. That review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues.

CNN Top Stories

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Pakistan orders cuts in U.S. military personnel

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's army ordered a reduction in U.S. military personnel operating inside the country on Thursday in apparent protest at a unilateral American commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Pakistani army troops on Thursday guard the perimeter of the walled compound where Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad during a weekend raid.

The army has been heavily criticized at home for allowing the country's sovereignty to be violated during Monday's pre-dawn operation in a busy garrison town not far from the capital, Islamabad. It is also facing international charges it may have been harboring the al-Qaeda chief, given his location.

The army statement, the first since the raid, appeared aimed at countering both charges.

It said a decision had been made to reduce the number of U.S. military personnel to the "minimum essential" levels, but gave no more details and a spokesman declined to elaborate. U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment.

The U.S. has around 275 declared U.S. military personnel in Pakistan at any one time, some of them helping train the Pakistan army.

The Pakistani army also warned that it would review its military and intelligence cooperation with Washington if the United States carries out any more similar raids. Earlier, the government had warned of "disastrous consequences" if the U.S. staged a similar attack on its territory.

But in an apparent nod to international criticism, the army admitted to "shortcomings in developing intelligence on the presence" of bin Laden in Pakistan.

Still, it said its Inter-Services Intelligence agency had given initial information to the CIA about bin Laden, but claimed the "CIA did not share further development of intelligence on the case with the ISI, contrary to the existing practice between the two services."

Ties between American and Pakistan were already strained before Monday's raid because of American allegations it was failing to crackdown on Afghan Taliban factions sheltering on its soil and Pakistan anger over U.S. drone strikes on its soil.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Egyptian court orders Mubarak's name, image removed from public places

A Cairo court today ordered the removal of all pictures of ousted president Hosni Mubarak and his wife from Egypt's streets, squares and public institutions.

Judge Mohammed Hassan Omar said the images would be taken down from "public squares, streets, libraries and other public institutions around the country," the official MENA agency reports.

According to the court ruling, Al Ahram online says, the Egyptian people "are now aware of Mubarak's corruption, making it important to rid the country of the image of control of his 30-year rule."

Mubarak, 82, stepped down from office in February amid a popular uprising and mass demonstrations.

He was recently hospitalized in the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, where he is being held under house arrest. He suffered heart problems while being questioned about corruption allegations and his role in violence against protesters during the popular protests.

His two sons, Alaa and Gamal, are also in prison pending investigations into similar allegations, Al-Arabiya reports.

.div-wrapper

View the Original article

Federal Government Orders 16 Mortgage Lenders to Reimburse Homeowners

Associated Press

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet

The federal government on Wednesday ordered 16 of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and servicers to reimburse homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon.

Government regulators also directed the financial firms to hire auditors to determine how many homeowners could have avoided foreclosure in 2009 and 2010.

Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, the nation's four largest banks, were among the financial firms cited in the joint report by the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,

The Fed said it believed financial penalties were "appropriate" and that it planned to levy fines in the future. All three regulators said they would review the foreclosure audits.

In the four years since the housing bust, about 5 million homes have been foreclosed upon. About 2.4 million primary mortgages were in foreclosure at the end of last year. Another 2 million were 90 days or more past due, putting them at serious risk of foreclosure.

Critics, including Democratic lawmakers in Congress, say the order is too lenient on the lenders. House Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would require lenders to perform a series of steps, including an appeals process, before starting foreclosures.

"I want to know what abuses (the government agencies) identified, which banks committed them and how their proposed consent agreement is going to fix these problems," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Government and Oversight Committee. "Based on what I have read ... I am not encouraged at all."

The other lenders and service providers cited by the agencies include: Ally Financial Inc., Aurora Bank, EverBank, HSBC, MetLife Bank, OneWest Bank, PNC, Sovereign Bank, SunTrust Banks, U.S. Bank, Lender Processing Services and MERSCORP.

Citigroup said in a statement that it had "self-identified" needed changes in 2009 and that it has helped more than 1.1 million homeowners avoid foreclosure.

"We are committed to working with our regulators to further strengthen our programs in these areas and meeting these new requirements," the company said.

Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC, said it had not found "any instance where a homeowner was foreclosed upon without being in significant default."

Without specifically identifying instances of bad foreclosures, the government agencies noted in its report that the "deficiencies in foreclosure processing observed among these major servicers may have widespread consequences for the housing market and borrowers."

John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a consumer housing watchdog, said the government's action is a year too late. It does little to help those who are just now wrestling with a foreclosure and those who have already been displaced, he said. Rather than moving swiftly to seize people's homes, the banks should have done a better job helping people lower their mortgage payments through modification programs, he said.

"This should have happened a long time ago," he said. "There are so many people who, if they had received a meaningful modification, could have stayed in their homes."

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article