Ads 468x60px


Showing posts with label bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bills. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2011

Bills would transfer oversight of terror cases

WASHINGTON — In the Justice Department's ornate Great Hall, a space traditionally reserved for its most important functions, Attorney General Eric Holder stepped before staffers last week to mark the department's accomplishments in the first two years of the Obama administration and the challenges to be confronted in the term's second half.



Attorney General Eric Holder says the U.S. will continue to rely on the federal court system to bring terror suspects to justice.

By Paul J. Richards, Getty Images, AFP


Attorney General Eric Holder says the U.S. will continue to rely on the federal court system to bring terror suspects to justice.

Perhaps most striking about the speech ? which reaffirmed the department's commitment to national security ? were words that Holder did not utter: Guantanamo Bay.

Just weeks after the administration capitulated on its promise to shut down the prison at Guantanamo and referred the suspects there to trials by military commissions ? not civilian courts ? Holder's address was partly an attempt to turn the page on a painful political loss.

Even so, the Guantanamo decision may mark just the first fight in a continuing battle to undermine his authority in terrorism prosecutions.

At least two bills before Congress threaten to transfer much of the investigative oversight in terrorism cases, which are currently Holder's responsibility as the attorney general, to the Defense secretary.

'A paradigm shift'

A bill in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Rep. Bobby Shilling, R-Ill., would require terrorism suspects, including those arrested in the United States, to be placed in military custody unless the Defense secretary rules otherwise.

"It acknowledges that the attorney general has played a too important role in these cases," said Josh Holly, a Republican spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee. "This represents a paradigm shift to the law of war."

A Senate bill, sponsored by Arizona's John McCain and other Republicans, includes a similar provision that calls for "members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliated terrorist groups" to be held by the military when captured.

The bill also would give authority to the Defense secretary ? not the attorney general ? to determine whether the suspect should be transferred to civilian custody.

"This much-needed legislation would improve our current ad hoc military detention system for members of al-Qaeda and their affiliated terrorist groups," McCain said when introducing the bill.

The proposed legislative provisions were inspired partly by the controversy that followed the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with trying to blow up a commercial airliner over Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear on Christmas Day 2009.

At that time, some lawmakers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., a co-sponsor of the current Senate bill, assailed Obama administration officials for the decision to inform Abdulmutallab of his right to a lawyer during a break in the interrogation.

Lieberman and others have argued that the Nigerian terrorism suspect should have been turned over to military authorities for interrogation rather than risk losing the suspect's cooperation on the advice of a defense lawyer.

"These are lessons learned from (Abdulmutallab)," Holly said.

In his speech to staffers, Holder, while not referring to the Guantanamo decision, vowed to press federal law enforcement's anti-terrorism efforts.

"Let me be very clear about this: We will continue to rely on our most powerful and most proven tool in bringing terrorists to justice: our federal court system," Holder said.

Later, in a meeting with reporters, Holder said that the federal court system has demonstrated a "capacity" to prosecute terrorism cases.

Since the 9/11 attacks, there have been more than 400 convictions in terror and terror-related prosecutions, according to Justice Department records.

"We have the capacity to try terrorists in (federal) courts," Holder said.

A question of authority

Despite the federal courts' record of dealing with terrorism cases, some advocates for civilian prosecutions said, the Guantanamo decision diminishes the Justice Department's standing in terror prosecutions.

"The flip-flop by the Obama administration makes the Justice Department look symbolically weaker," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, "but we shouldn't let a decision based on politics diminish the role the department has played in successfully prosecuting hundreds of terror cases in federal court."

Dixon Osburn, law and security program director at Human Rights First, said the McCain and Shilling bills amount to the next challenge to the administration.

"I don't think anybody has really focused on these (bills) yet," Osburn said. "The White House needs to say that there are lines that cannot be crossed."

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.

Bills would transfer oversight of terror cases

WASHINGTON — In the Justice Department's ornate Great Hall, a space traditionally reserved for its most important functions, Attorney General Eric Holder stepped before staffers last week to mark the department's accomplishments in the first two years of the Obama administration and the challenges to be confronted in the term's second half.

var data = blocks.columnist;if (data != undefined){document.getElementById('columnistmug').innerHTML=data;} By Paul J. Richards, Getty Images, AFP

Attorney General Eric Holder says the U.S. will continue to rely on the federal court system to bring terror suspects to justice.

By Paul J. Richards, Getty Images, AFP

Attorney General Eric Holder says the U.S. will continue to rely on the federal court system to bring terror suspects to justice.

Perhaps most striking about the speech ? which reaffirmed the department's commitment to national security ? were words that Holder did not utter: Guantanamo Bay.

Just weeks after the administration capitulated on its promise to shut down the prison at Guantanamo and referred the suspects there to trials by military commissions ? not civilian courts ? Holder's address was partly an attempt to turn the page on a painful political loss.

Even so, the Guantanamo decision may mark just the first fight in a continuing battle to undermine his authority in terrorism prosecutions.

At least two bills before Congress threaten to transfer much of the investigative oversight in terrorism cases, which are currently Holder's responsibility as the attorney general, to the Defense secretary.

'A paradigm shift'

A bill in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Rep. Bobby Shilling, R-Ill., would require terrorism suspects, including those arrested in the United States, to be placed in military custody unless the Defense secretary rules otherwise.

"It acknowledges that the attorney general has played a too important role in these cases," said Josh Holly, a Republican spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee. "This represents a paradigm shift to the law of war."

A Senate bill, sponsored by Arizona's John McCain and other Republicans, includes a similar provision that calls for "members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliated terrorist groups" to be held by the military when captured.

The bill also would give authority to the Defense secretary ? not the attorney general ? to determine whether the suspect should be transferred to civilian custody.

"This much-needed legislation would improve our current ad hoc military detention system for members of al-Qaeda and their affiliated terrorist groups," McCain said when introducing the bill.

The proposed legislative provisions were inspired partly by the controversy that followed the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with trying to blow up a commercial airliner over Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear on Christmas Day 2009.

At that time, some lawmakers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., a co-sponsor of the current Senate bill, assailed Obama administration officials for the decision to inform Abdulmutallab of his right to a lawyer during a break in the interrogation.

Lieberman and others have argued that the Nigerian terrorism suspect should have been turned over to military authorities for interrogation rather than risk losing the suspect's cooperation on the advice of a defense lawyer.

"These are lessons learned from (Abdulmutallab)," Holly said.

In his speech to staffers, Holder, while not referring to the Guantanamo decision, vowed to press federal law enforcement's anti-terrorism efforts.

"Let me be very clear about this: We will continue to rely on our most powerful and most proven tool in bringing terrorists to justice: our federal court system," Holder said.

Later, in a meeting with reporters, Holder said that the federal court system has demonstrated a "capacity" to prosecute terrorism cases.

Since the 9/11 attacks, there have been more than 400 convictions in terror and terror-related prosecutions, according to Justice Department records.

"We have the capacity to try terrorists in (federal) courts," Holder said.

A question of authority

Despite the federal courts' record of dealing with terrorism cases, some advocates for civilian prosecutions said, the Guantanamo decision diminishes the Justice Department's standing in terror prosecutions.

"The flip-flop by the Obama administration makes the Justice Department look symbolically weaker," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, "but we shouldn't let a decision based on politics diminish the role the department has played in successfully prosecuting hundreds of terror cases in federal court."

Dixon Osburn, law and security program director at Human Rights First, said the McCain and Shilling bills amount to the next challenge to the administration.

"I don't think anybody has really focused on these (bills) yet," Osburn said. "The White House needs to say that there are lines that cannot be crossed."

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.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Planned Parenthood Holds Back on Challenging Wave of Anti-Abortion Bills

AP

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signs an abortion restriction bill April 12 at the Statehouse in Topeka.

Despite a wave of late-term abortion restrictions being signed into law in state capitals, advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood so far have held back on filing any legal challenges. 

The hesitation could be a sign that the groups are concerned about their chances in court. The new proposals would ban most abortions after about 20 weeks into pregnancy, narrowing the window in which a woman can seek an abortion, based on claims that a fetus can feel pain after that period. Though these proposals are seen by pro-choice advocates as an assault on reproductive rights, the litigation hasn't started flying. 

Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislation director for the National Right to Life Committee, suggested that's because the momentum is against those groups.

"It would seem to me that they fear a public debate that focuses on the pain of the unborn child," she told FoxNews.com. 

The latest state law to impose these restrictions comes out of Oklahoma. Republican Gov. Mary Fallin on Wednesday afternoon signed a bill, one of two anti-abortion measures, making abortions after the 20-week mark a felony for the doctor. 

Fallin follows governors in Kansas and Idaho who signed similar bills into law last week. Nebraska started the trend with a groundbreaking law passed last year. 

Nearly a dozen other states are considering copycat bills, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the abortion-rights institute, said Indiana could be the next state to approve one, and expressed concern that the states are moving so rapidly on the proposals. 

"Our view is that these bills fly in the face of constitutional precedent," she said, referring to standards that typically mark the cutoff for abortions at what's known as fetal viability. Most states with limits on late-term abortions use fetal viability, which is the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb, as the threshold. That can be as early as 24 weeks. 

The laws in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma move that up by a month. Only a small percentage of abortions, though, are sought after the 20-week mark. 

The Center for Reproductive Rights has suggested the reason it's not taking to the courts to fight the changes is because they only impact a relatively small number of abortions. 

"They're trying to move the agenda to a small percentage of cases, but we're not fighting on their turf," a CRR official told Politico.com. CRR did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com. 

Planned Parenthood -- which has suffered from a spate of bad publicity after an anti-abortion group released videos purporting to show an actor posing as a pimp soliciting advice from its clinics -- reportedly claims it does not have standing to challenge the latest measures because it doesn't offer late-term abortions in those states. 

Critics of the so-called "fetal pain" provisions nevertheless dispute the science used to justify them. They point to a 2010 study from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which concluded that a fetus "cannot experience pain in any sense" before 24 weeks into a pregnancy. 

"Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero," the study said. 

But conservative state lawmakers, who saw their numbers expand after the November elections, are pressing ahead with restrictive measures, particularly in the wake of the 2007 Supreme Court decision which upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban. 

Balch suggested abortion rights groups are worried that the debate could turn against them if they challenge the latest set of bills in court. 

"While there are people there who have standing to challenge the law, there is a reluctance in the pro-abortion movement to humanize that unborn child," she said. "It's a debate that our opponents do not want to have." 

Balch said her organization is "prepared to go into all the states and pass this law if that's what it takes." 

Most states provide exceptions to consider the life and health of the mother, no matter when the cut-off is set. Nash described those exceptions as limited.

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

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

More state bills are targeting abortion

By Doug Dreyer, AP

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill last month requiring a three-day waiting period and counseling for women seeking abortions.

EnlargeCloseBy Doug Dreyer, AP

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill last month requiring a three-day waiting period and counseling for women seeking abortions.

On Tuesday, Idaho's Legislature approved a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, last month signed a bill mandating a three-day waiting period for abortions and requiring women seeking abortions to get counseling at a pregnancy help center. Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer last month signed a bill making it a felony to perform or provide money for abortions sought because of the fetus's race or sex.

STATES: Fights brew on abortion rightsAbortion bills "are moving in states where they haven't before," says Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislation director for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion. Another surprise is "the speed at which these bills are going through," she says.

"What's different this year is that, as a result of the election, there are a lot more anti-abortion" state legislators, says Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports abortion rights. Republican gains in the 2010 election gave them control of both chambers in 26 legislatures; Democrats control 15.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is monitoring 362 abortion bills in this legislative session; in 2010, 174 bills were tracked.

Some bills would block public or private insurance coverage for abortions, others would ban most abortions 20 weeks after conception, and others would require pregnant women to have ultrasounds before having abortions.

Some bills are moving quickly.

This week, a Florida Senate committee passed a bill that would require ultrasounds before abortions. Last week, an Ohio House committee approved a bill that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The Kansas Legislature last week passed a bill banning most abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.

Crane and Balch disagree on the message behind the spate of abortion legislation.

"We are absolutely certain that this is not what Americans voted for in November 2010," Crane says. In addition to a new crop of conservative legislators, she says, 29 governors are considered "anti-choice" by her organization.

Balch attributes the momentum to new legislators of both parties who share her organization's goal of providing "protection for the unborn child."

A Gallup Poll taken in May 2010 found that 24% of Americans believed abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 54% said it should be legal under certain circumstances and 19% said it should always be illegal.

Ian Bartrum, a constitutional law professor at Drake University Law School in Iowa, says the number of bills could speed a case to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling making abortion legal.

"The more places they have a law," he says, "the more likely they can get a challenge."

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

View the Original article