NDAA's Indefinate Detention Provision Blocked by Judge

The National Defense Authorization Act was a great disappointment to civil libertarians.  However, they must take heart in this news:

Judge Rules Against Law on Indefinite Detention

From the NY Times article:

...the debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties is still unfolding 11 years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

In the detention case, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a permanent injunction barring the government from relying on the defense authorization law to hold people in indefinite military detention on suspicion that they “substantially supported” Al Qaeda or its allies — at least if they had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The United States has been detaining terrorism suspects indefinitely since 2001, relying on an authorization by Congress to use military force against perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and those who helped them. Last year, Congress decided to create a federal statute that codified authority for such detentions.

I hope the Federal Courts continue to uphold constitutional principles as Judge Forrest has done in this case.

High Court Rulings on Campaign Spending, Sentencing of Juveniles

Two other important Supreme Court decisions were announced yesterday.  The first upheld the Citizens United decision allowing unlimited corporate campaign donations.  (They struck down a Montana law which restricted campaign donations.)

The second decision by the Court said that it was a violation of the 8th Amendment to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment without a chance of parole.

Watch High Court Reaffirms Campaign Finance on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law

Three important parts of the law were struck down, another upheld (for now at least).  The part that was upheld, sometimes called the "show me your papers" provision is seen by some as the most controversial part of the law.  A good explanation from Marcia Coyle on the NewsHour on PBS last night:

Watch Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Immigration Law on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Obama's Drone Program: Author of new book interviewed

The following interview of Dan Klaidman done by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

Michael Jackson's doctor sentenced

From NBC news:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He was convicted of manslaughter defined as: the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

Was justice done in this case?

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in GPS Tracking Case

One of the more controversial cases of the Supreme Court term was heard this past week.

Below NBC has a short report on the case, and the oral arguments made before the Court.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Two more detailed sources on the case:

From the NY Times:

Court Casts a Wary Eye on Tracking by GPS

In an argument studded with references to George Orwell’s “1984” and the possibility that rapid advances in technology would soon allow the government to monitor everyone’s movements, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled to articulate how the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures should apply to the tracking of cars using GPS devices. The fit between 18th-century principles and 21st-century surveillance seemed to leave several justices frustrated.

From the NewsHour on PBS:

A Step Closer to the DREAM (Act) Goals

This is some of the best news I've heard out of the White House in a while. I know the hardliners will be furious, but come on, these young people deserve a chance to make it in this country.

Obama policy lifts deportation threat for many young immigrants | Seattle Times Newspaper

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

Without any thoughtful constitutional analysis, my first impression is this is just wrong. What do you think? Is this a violation of 4th Amendment rights?

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars - CNN.com:

Supreme Court: Strip-search of 13-year-old girl was illegal

Supreme Court: Strip-search of 13-year-old girl was illegal | csmonitor.com

The decision sets the standard for how far school officials can go in conducting searches of students' property.

The case, Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. April Redding, arises from a strip search conducted in October 2003 at Safford Middle School. The girl, Savana Redding, was suspected of bringing high-strength ibuprofen to school to share with other students during lunch period.

WA State's top prisons doctor quit over execution policy | Seattle Times Newspaper

Regarding the debate over the death penalty in WA State

Local News | State's top prisons doctor quit over execution policy | Seattle Times Newspaper

Supreme Court Decisions on Voting Rights Act and Special Education

Listen to the discussion from the Newshour on PBS

No excuse to lose cool with teen

Jerry Large is a columnist with the Seattle Times. He posted a thoughtful commentary on the assault, by a police officer, of a 15 year old girl that had been taken into custody. (See previous post.) His article mainly deals with how adults should react to teens who are acting out, but for those of you looking for connections to constitutional prinicples, this case certainly deals with the "rule of law" and "due process." Can you explain how?

No excuse to lose cool with teen

Justified Use of Force or Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

There has been a lot of talk about the video recording of a teenage girl being brutally attacked by prison guards in a King County jail. Keeping in mind that the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, were these guards using reasonable force or did they violate this young prisoner's rights by using excessive force? Read the article(s) which has a link to the video of the incident.

Teen in jail-cell video calls attack "horrible" Seattle Times Newspaper

From last Friday: Video released in deputy's alleged assault of girl

Some definitions you may find helpful that I found on the web:

EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

From a draft U.S. government document, the following was taken:

Inmates are protected from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. In order to prove a violation under
the Eighth Amendment, [plaintiff] must show that [defendant] unnecessarily and
wantonly inflicted pain on [him/her]. A use of force against a prison inmate
that was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline is not
―unnecessary and wanton, but force applied maliciously or sadistically to cause
harm is unnecessary and wanton.