Federal Weapons of Mass Destruction Laws: A Contradiction?

In light of the bombings that rocked the Boston marathon on April 15th, the United States - for the first time ever - has charged 19-year-old suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with using weapons of mass destruction (under 18 USC § 2332a). The bombs used by the Tsarnaev brothers are described as "pressure cookers" containing bits of metal, nails, and ball bearings.  Officials have described the Boston bombings as one of the worst acts of terrorism on U.S. soil since the September 11 attacks.  The bombs planted by the Tsarnaev brothers killed 3 people and injured over 260 people.

Keeping in mind the recent events, remember way back in 2003 when, then, President Bush proclaimed "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."  Based on those sentiments, President Bush used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to enter into a very unpopular war with Iraq.  In the years that followed, Bush was repeatedly criticized by the media, politicians and the public alike for never actually uncovering Iraq's "WMDs" (which was the so-called basis for the war in the first place).  During the Iraq war, the U.S. government seemed to consider "weapons of mass destruction" to be weapons greater than the average firearm or bomb.  In fact, a decade ago the weapons being searched for by the U.N. included yellowcake uranium bombs, poison gas, and biological weapons.

Fast forward to 2013.  Today, the federal weapons of mass destruction statute (18 USC § 2332a) describes a "destructive device" as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, or mine.  Basically, any explosive device constitutes a weapon of mass destruction under the statute.

First, doesn't this broad definition in the federal statute, in some ways, vindicate President Bush for taking us to war?  I mean, Iraq certainly possessed explosives, grenades, missiles, and mines.  Under such a broad definition, doesn't any individual/group/nation who possesses one of the said devices - technically - possess a WMD?  [Obviously I am comparing a federal statute to the rationale given for an international conflict, which I realize is not a perfect comparison.  The point is: shouldn't a WMD be something greater than merely a crudely built bomb?].  Second, isn't such a broad statute just a simple attempt to hold a wide-range of suspects accountable as terrorists?  I can understand the goal behind this statute, however it begs the question: "When is a bomb just a bomb?"

Read More

Florence/Rome/Siena Summer Law Program

Penn State Law hosts its Florence/Rome/Siena Summer Program at the University of Florence School of Law in Florence, Italy. Members of our faculty collaborate with European scholars and practitioners to offer fully accredited courses in Separation of Powers; Comparative Law In a Globalized World — Transnational Perspectives; International Arbitration; International and Comparative Family Law; and Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure. The courses are designed to provide overviews of civil law and common law systems with emphasis on the practical aspects of international law.

The Florence program is oriented to students from within the United States and to students and lawyers from common and civil law countries outside of the United States. Lectures will be conducted in English.

While studying in this program, students will have ample opportunity to appreciate not only Florence, but also the rich cultural and social heritage found in the Tuscan setting and cites like Rome, Venice, Pisa, Bologna, and Siena.

Past Distinguished Guest Jurists in the Penn State Dickinson School of Law’s European Summer Programs have included five other members of the United States Supreme Court (the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sandra Day O'Connor).

For more, please visit: http://law.psu.edu/academics/specialized_fields_of_study/international_and_transnational_law/education_abroad/florence_rome_siena

 

Posted with Blogsy

Read More

Proposed Senate Bill Would Allow Government to Access Your Email, Facebook, and Twitter Without a Warrant

A new Senate bill that is scheduled for a vote next week increases the government's surveillance power and allows it to access your e-mail and other digital files.

Senator Patrick Leahy has written a bill that would allow government agencies -- including the SEC and the FCC -- to access Americans' e-mail, Facebook wall posts, Twitter direct messages, and Google Docs files without a search warrant.

Other Highlights from the Bill (Courtesy of CNET News)

• Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

• Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

• Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

• Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

• Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Read the entire bill below.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Amendments)

Read More

Jay Z’s "99 Problems" Used to Teach Fourth Amendment Rights

Southwestern Law School Professor Caleb Mason has authored a law review article entitled “Jay-Z’S 99 Problems, Verse 2: A Close Reading With Fourth Amendment Guidance For Cops And Perps”, which has been recently highlighted on the SCOTUSblog.

Professor Mason’s article dissects rapper Jay Z’s lyrics and uses them to examine each moment of a traffic stop, as described in the second verse of “99 Problems.” In the song, Jay Z describes a scenario that involves being pulled over by a police officer while having drugs stored in the trunk of his vehicle.

The article’s author uses the song lyrics to clear up many false assumptions and to debunk the myth that officers need a warrant to search a vehicle. Professor Mason also makes it clear that “perps” shouldn’t “consent” to searches under any circumstances or thereby lose their right to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

The article is an interesting and informative read that I highly recommend to everyone, notwithstanding your “perp” status.

[Article Enclosed]

Read More

“A Mistakenly Designated Arbitration Forum Clause is Null And Void” (Case Watch)

Control Screening, LLC, a New Jersey-based manufacturer, and Tecapro, a Vietnam-based company, had a dispute over the proper interpretation of an arbitration forum selection clause in their contract. Tecapro entered into a contract with Control Screening for the purchase of twenty-eight customized X-ray machines with a total purchase price of over one million dollars. Each company alleged that the other company breached its obligations under the contract.

The contract provided that:

In the event all disputes are not resolved, the disputes shall be settled at International Arbitration Center of European countries for claim in the suing party’s country under the rule of the Center. Decision of arbitration shall be final and binding [sic] both parties.

Tecapro initiated arbitration proceedings in Belgium but, later, Control Screening notified Tecapro of its intention to commence arbitration proceedings in New Jersey.

The District Court concluded that the only reasonable interpretation of the arbitration clause was that Tecapro could have sought to arbitrate in Vietnam or Control Screening in New Jersey. The latter is what happened therefore the arbitration was allowed to proceed in New Jersey.

Tecapro appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by improperly exercising personal jurisdiction over it and finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate in New Jersey rather than in Europe.

DECISION: Affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found ample evidence that Tecapro purposefully directed its activities at New Jersey, and that virtually all of those activities arose from its relationship with Control Screening. As such, the appellate court concluded that the District Court correctly determined that Tecapro’s activities in New Jersey adequately supported a finding of personal jurisdiction.

In terms of the forum selection, the central question was how to interpret the clause in order to determine the appropriate arbitration forum.

The appellate court found that the parties mistakenly provided that disputes were to be settled at “International Arbitration Center of European countries,” which is a particular place that does not exist. According to the court, since the parties mistakenly designated an arbitration forum that does not exist, the forum selection provision of the arbitration agreement was null and void. As a result, the otherwise valid arbitration agreement was treated as if it did not select a forum. Thus, the district court properly compelled arbitration in New Jersey since the arbitration agreement lacked a term specifying a location.

Citation: Control Screening LLC v. Technological Application & Prod. Co., 11-2896, 2012 WL 3037824 (3d Cir. 2012)


[Arbitration – Personal Jurisdiction – Forum Selection]

Read More

Mitt Romney to Address the NAACP Convention [Houston, TX - July]

(Washington, DC) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will address the upcoming 103rd NAACP Annual Convention in Houston, TX. The convention will run from July 7 – July 12 at the George R. Brown Convention Center under the theme “Your Power, Your Decision – VOTE”.

“Every four years we invite the presidential candidates to address our convention, and we are delighted that Governor Romney has decided to join us,” stated NAACP Chairman Roslyn M. Brock. “Governor Romney will have the opportunity to speak to NAACP leaders from every state in the nation. We are proud to offer a forum to discuss the important issues of the day.”

“We are pleased that Governor Romney has decided to join us in Houston this summer,” stated NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous. “This election will be about how to provide the best future for all Americans, of every color and background. As America grows more diverse, we can choose to embrace that diversity or let it divide us. We look forward to an engaging conversation with Governor Romney about his vision for a more just society.”

Every presidential election cycle, the NAACP invites both the Republican and Democratic nominee for president to address the NAACP membership. In 2008, both Senator John McCain and then Senator Barack Obama spoke at the NAACP Annual Convention in Ohio.

During the convention, the NAACP will adopt a policy agenda that addresses the economic and social problems faced by communities of color. This year’s convention will build on the Association’s voter engagement and empowerment initiatives, with advocacy workshops on a myriad of vital issues, including civic engagement, health care, criminal justice, and climate justice.

More information about the 103rd NAACP Annual Convention is available here.

[via: http://tinyurl.com/7kpr7dr]

Read More