Feral Jundi

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Legal News: Appeals Court Lets Contractor’s Family Sue Palestinian Authority Over His Death

Filed under: Israel,Legal News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:36 PM

Thanks to Clay over at the FJ Facebook Page for pointing this one out. I wish the families success in their case. –Matt

 

Appeals Court Lets Contractor’s Family Sue Palestinian Authority Over His Death
August 14, 2011
An appeals court ruling allows a case to proceed against the Palestinian Authority by the family of a contractor killed by a roadside bomb while providing security to State Department employees during an October 2003 trip to the Gaza Strip.
On Friday, the three-judge panel, members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, released a ruling explaining that the family of Mark Parsons can sue the Palestinian Authority under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991 over questions of material support by the PA to a terror group. The decision overturns part of a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the PA.
“Although we agree with the district court that the family’s conspiracy claim theories are too speculative to survive summary judgment, we believe a reasonable juror could conclude that Palestinian Authority employees provided material support to the bomber,” reads the ruling.
Mark Parsons and two other members of DynCorp International were killed by a roadside bomb while protecting a convoy that included State Department employees on their way to interview Palestinian Fulbright Scholarship applicants. A roadside bomb exploded as the convoy traveled past the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, about a quarter of a city block away from a manned PA security checkpoint.

(more…)

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Legal News: Former Shield Group Whistleblowers Cleared For Civil Suit Against Rumsfeld

Filed under: Iraq,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:27 PM

I am not too familiar with this case, so I really cannot comment too much. It looks to me like poor communications is the culprit. But if in fact they were poorly treated in detention, and no one fessed up that they were Whistleblowers, then that is pretty pathetic. Three months in detention, and no one could come forward to clear these guys? –Matt

 

Court clears way for torture suit against Rumsfeld
August 8, 2011
A federal appeals court has cleared the way for a civil suit against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld by two Americans who allege they were tortured while being held by the US military in Iraq.
The three-judge panel upheld a ruling by a lower court judge who denied a Justice Department motion to drop the suit brought by Donald Vance and Nathan Ertell against Rumsfeld in 2006.
Vance and Ertell allege in the suit that they reported to the FBI that they suspected the privately owned Iraqi security company they worked for, Shield Group Security, was paying off an Iraqi sheikh to obtain government contracts.
But when the security company began to suspect their loyalty, they were taken into custody by the US military and held incommunicado at Camp Cropper where they were subjected to violence, sleep deprivation and extremes of light and sound.

(more…)

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Legal News: Italy And Norway Produce National Regulations On The Use Of Armed Guards For Maritime Security

Filed under: Italy,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security,Norway — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:04 PM

Right on, and this is great news that countries are now starting to wake up about this stuff. I also think that this move to put armed guards on boats and backing that up with legal authority to do so, is actually helping to fuel the opinio juris of the world body that armed security is a good idea on these boats. If Italy or Norway thinks it’s a good idea, then other countries might be more inclined to do the same thing. I have also seen this change in attitude with places like the UN, Germany and the UK.

Now will armed guards on boats, eventually lead to states granting Letters of Marque? Who knows, but as armed guards on boats present certain unavoidable situations (like taking prisoners after sinking a pirate boat, killing pirates, killing innocents, clashes with other navies or armed guards, etc.) then further legislation might lead countries to just go back to the tried and true license called the LoM. In other words, if the sum of all of the laws created over time add up to being just a basic LoM, then why not just implement the LoM?

The Declaration of Paris (DoP) is old and outdated, and as we put more private armed guards on boats and states continue to pass laws allowing for such things, then why hold to the DoP? Especially as pirates continue to flourish, and navies continue to fail at stopping this virus. Stuff to think about, and bravo to Italy and Norway for doing the right thing. –Matt

National regulations on the use of armed guards
July 22, 2011
Italy

The Italian Decree no. 107, dated 12 July 2011, (Italian only) states the general principles of the deployment of military forces or private security guards onboard Italian Ships.
—————————————————————
Norway

On 29 June 2011, the Norwegian Government announced a new framework on the use of armed guards by amendments to Regulation 972/2004 on ship security and amendments to Regulation 904/2009 relative to arms. The changes came into force on 1 July 2011.
The new framework follows the IMO guidelines, and allows Norwegian owners to have armed guards onboard in a certain geographical area within the legal limits laid down. An owner wanting to place armed guards onboard must apply for authorization with Norwegian Police Authorities and provide necessary documentation to the Norwegian Maritime Directory. However, the owner is required to conduct an independent risk evaluation to prove the need for armed guards. In addition the owner must be able to show the Security Company’s documentation on procedures for training, qualification and storage and use of weapon.
The simultaneously issued Provisional Guidelines the use of armed guards  offer practical guidance on the interpretation of the new framework.
The minister of Trade and Industry states in a press release (Norwegian only) that the amendments do not imply an encouragement to have armed guards onboard Norwegians ships. The purpose is to control the selection and use of security companies to ensure the safety of Norwegian ships and their crew. He emphasizes that all other efforts to protect the ship and its crew must first be fulfilled before armed guards are used.
Link to post here.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Letter Of Marque: California Law Review–Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime, By Todd Emerson Hutchins

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:22 PM

Excellent paper and I recommend checking out the whole thing with the provided link below. The section that I was particularly interested in is the International Law portion. I continue to hear arguments against the Letter of Marque, and no one really has a firm legal foundation for their argument. Or at least that’s what it seems to me. It is just assumed or the ‘opinio juris’ is that issuing Letters of Marque is a no go, and this paper clearly identifies the counter argument to this belief.

So that is why I posted this, and I hope that the legal counsels of countries that are looking for arguments for firing up their LoM or introducing legislation for such a thing, will have some resource to draw from. And what is really nice with legal papers like this, is they are heavily sourced and footnoted, just so they can back up their arguments. The footnotes alone are worth reading, just because they indicate how much the LoM has been talked about in legal circles. Lot’s of opinions, and this is a good collection of them.

In this particular section I posted below, the author identifies two reasons why states believe they are prohibited from privateering and issuing letters of marque, based on their interpretation of the Declaration of Paris and of International Law. One is opinio juris and the other is state practice that influences this interpretation.

State practice refers to “consistent conduct,” while opinio juris means States follow the rule out of “belief” that they are legally obligated to behave in a certain manner.

One of the reasons why I started the Letter of Marque category is to remind states of the practice of privateering, and to remind those who are establishing a legal basis for the act, that countries like the US have a history of consistent conduct when using privateers(it was used in multiple conflicts). And because the US is not a signatory of the Declaration of Paris, then that is interpreted as an ‘objection’ to banning the practice.  This is key if you are to prove a state’s ‘belief’, and the fact that the LoM still exists in the US’s most cherished legal document called the Constitution, then we can certainly deduct the US ‘opinio juris’.

The author made this legal argument very well. So if the US could care less about the Declaration of Paris, then why do these other countries continue to hang on to a ‘belief’ that they have to abide by this document? Especially as their navies continue to be downgraded by reduced budgets, or those navies get over extended with other commitments. And especially as piracy is attacking the very life blood of these countries or commerce. National interest should be focused on doing whatever it takes to stop this, and the LoM is just one tool to help with that endeavor.

Finally, I would like to also point out the fact that this was written by a ‘naval Surface Warfare Officer’ and  a ‘Judge Advocate student at the Naval Justice School in Newport, R.I’. That indicates to me a paper influenced by naval military history and thought, and the legalities behind implementing the LoM in modern times. It is also a paper that can show the way for how to implement the LoM to help in the war against today’s virus called piracy.  Very cool and check it out. –Matt

Structuring a Sustainable Letters of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pirates
Lieutenant Todd Emerson Hutchins
June 9, 2011
(this is just one section of the paper)
THE PRESENT STATE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE
Many contemporary international law scholars contend that the Paris Declaration “by formal accession or tacit acceptance by all the powers [has become] an established part of the general body of [customary] international law.”273 Proponents of a broad prohibition on privateering allege that customary international law has formed since the Paris Declaration. “[I]nternational custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” is recognized as a source of international law under Article 38 of the International Court of Justice Statute.274 It “consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way.”275 The two key elements are state practice and opinio juris.276  State practice refers to “consistent conduct,” while opinio juris means States follow the rule out of “belief” that they are legally obligated to behave in a certain manner.277 Admittedly, the distinction is frustrating “because it is difficult to determine what states believe as opposed to what they say.”278

(more…)

Friday, July 8, 2011

Legal News: Federal Jury– Jamie Leigh Jones Was Not Raped, And KBR Did Not Commit Fraud

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 2:54 PM

This is a stunning verdict, in a week of amazing legal news.(to include that Casey Anthony case) Thanks to a reader for sending me this news, and I also want to openly apologize to KBR and to those men who were labeled as rapists by this women. My commentary was only based on the given information, and at the end of the day, what matters most is the facts.

This jury was given all of the available information and have made their choice. And honestly, after reading what was posted in that Mother Jones article, I can see why they made their choice.

As to my thoughts on the whole case? I have heard about this kind of thing in the federal government, the military, and in private industry and it is most unfortunate. And usually the way it goes down is that a gal gets drunk, sleeps with a guy they work with, then has regrets in the morning about sleeping with that guy. Then the rumors that get spread about what happened are what fuel the anger of those that had regret. So the temptation of lashing out by crying rape in order to save face is there.

I know it sounds pretty immature, but these things happen in the real world. And these things happen in war zones as well. Probably the two things that get male contractors in the most trouble overseas is ‘booze and women’. The best solution for contracting survival is to not drink while over there, and to avoid relationships (if you can).

Especially for security contractors, because A. you carry a gun and B. you must not be distracted or influenced. Remember the whole ‘Mission, the Men, and Me” concept? Well, when you start putting your relationships ahead of the mission (contract) or the men, then your start opening yourself up to all sorts of problems. Now of course the risks are lower when relationships are with individuals from ‘other’ companies and contracts on a FOB or something. But if you have relations with your client(s) on your particular contract, or within your company, then that is a big red flag. Keep it professional, and focus on the mission and contract.

Now I also want to go back to the real sexual assault cases out there. The ones where women were truly assaulted, and all of the evidence and circumstance pointed towards that. I certainly hope that this particular case does not hurt your case.

This case is also a cautionary tale for those women who have decided to use rape as a means to hurt some guy that you had consensual sex with, all because you had regrets about the whole affair in the morning or sometime later. There is a difference here between being raped/sexually assaulted, or having regrets because of personal choice. It is called being accountable for your actions, and if that is what you chose to do, then you need to live with it and move on.

A female victim has a lot of power when they scream rape, because it symbolizes such a shocking and tragic crime. But those same female victims lose that power when those ‘less than honorable women out there’ scream rape and use it as a malicious tool and legal weapon. KBR’s image suffered under this assault, and the accused men suffered under this assault–and both are a prime example of the power of this kind of thing. My support goes to those women who were truly victims, and I only hope that this case does not hurt your pursuit of justice or your desire to step forward and say something. –Matt

Federal jury: No rape, no fraud in KBR case
July 8, 2011
A federal jury on Friday ruled that a woman who sued KBR over an alleged sexual assault in Iraq was not raped, and the company did not commit fraud.
Jamie Leigh Jones sued KBR, its Houston-based former parent company Halliburton and KBR firefighter Charles Bortz, who she claimed led an attack on her while she worked for KBR at Camp Hope in Baghdad in 2005.
Jones’ attorney, Ron Estefan, told jurors during closing arguments that KBR had neglected to enforce its policies against sexual harassment by its contract workers in Iraq, which facilitated Jones’ rape.
Estefan asked the jury to award his client as much as 5 percent of KBR’s net worth in actual or punitive damages, which would have been more than $114 million.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress