Tag: courts

US judge urges Biden to examine support for ‘plausible genocide’ in Gaza | Israel War on Gaza News

A United States federal court has dismissed a case accusing President Joe Biden and other senior US officials of being complicit in Israel’s alleged genocide in Gaza.

Still, the court’s decision (PDF) urged Biden and his colleagues to examine “the results of their unflagging support” for Israel, including its human rights implications.

US District Court Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case on procedural grounds late on Wednesday, citing the division of powers under the US Constitution. He said in his decision that “disputes over foreign policy are considered nonjusticiable political questions” and fall outside his jurisdiction.

“There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court. This is one of those cases. The Court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter,” he wrote.

But White added that, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said in a provisional ruling last month, “it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide.”

“This Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

The lawsuit came as the Biden administration has faced mounting pressure to end the US’s unwavering support for Israel amid its war on Gaza, which has killed more than 27,000 Palestinians since early October.

Filed late last year by human rights groups and individual Palestinians affected by the war, the complaint accused Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin of failing to fulfil their responsibilities under international and domestic law to prevent genocide.

The US, which provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid annually, was obligated to “exercise its clear and considerable influence on Israel”, the lawsuit argued.

It also pointed to “dehumanising” remarks by senior Israeli officials, including Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, to illustrate an intent to pursue the “erasure and destruction of Palestinians”.

While Israel has rejected the charge, international law experts have said the bombardment of Gaza and restrictions on the entry of water, food and other humanitarian supplies could amount to genocide.

The 1948 Genocide Convention, which the US ratified, states that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [state parties] undertake to prevent and to punish”. It also outlines that “complicity in genocide” is a punishable act.

‘End deadly course of action’

Katherine Gallagher, senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a nonprofit involved in the case, said the judge’s ruling “affirmed that what the Palestinian population in Gaza is enduring is a campaign to eradicate a whole people — genocide”.

The decision, Gallagher said in a statement, also affirmed “that the United States’ unflagging support for Israel is enabling the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the famine facing millions”.

“While we strongly disagree with the court’s ultimate jurisdictional ruling, we urge the Biden administration to heed the judge’s call to examine and end its deadly course of action. Together with our plaintiffs, we will pursue all legal avenues to stop the genocide and save Palestinian lives.”

The Biden administration, which is under widespread pressure over its staunch support for Israel, called for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

In December, government lawyers argued that the court was being asked to “intrude into areas committed to the political branches of the government and violate constitutional separation of powers”.

Despite Wednesday’s decision, the plaintiffs and their supporters said the court’s decision to hear their arguments marked an important step. A hearing was held last Friday in California, and Palestinians testified about the dire situation in Gaza.

“It is important that the court recognized the United States is providing unconditional support to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and that a federal court heard Palestinian voices for the first time,” Mohammed Monadel Herzallah, a Palestinian American with family in Gaza, said in the CCR statement. He was one of the plaintiffs in the case.

“But we are still devastated that the court would not take the important step to stop the Biden administration from continuing to support the slaughter of the Palestinian people,” Herzallah continued.

“Currently, my family lacks food, medicine and the most basic necessities for survival. As Palestinians, we know this is a hard struggle, and as plaintiffs, we will continue to do everything in our power to save our people’s lives.”



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Four found guilty of rioting over 2019 storming of Hong Kong legislature | Hong Kong Protests News

The storming of the building marked an escalation in the 2019 mass protests that began over a China extradition bill.

A Hong Kong court has found four people guilty of rioting over the storming of the city’s legislative council building that marked a major escalation of pro-democracy protests more than four years ago.

Hundreds of protesters stormed the building on July 1, 2019, after a massive protest march against a proposed extradition bill that would have allowed authorities to send individuals to mainland China for trial.

After forcing their way inside, they ripped portraits of officials from walls and spray-painted slogans calling for the release of arrested demonstrators. An old colonial-era flag was draped over the speaker’s chair and a plaque bearing the symbol of Hong Kong was blacked out with spray paint.

On Thursday, District Court Judge Li Chi-ho found Ho Chun-yin, actor Gregory Wong, Ng Chi-yung and Lam Kam-kwan guilty of rioting.

Student journalist Wong Ka-ho and Ma Kai-chung, a reporter with Passion Times, who were on trial alongside the four, were acquitted of the rioting charge but found guilty of unlawful entry.

During the trial, Gregory Wong told the court he had entered the building solely to deliver two chargers to reporters who were covering the break-in by protesters.

Video evidence played by the prosecution showed Wong left the chamber immediately after delivering the chargers to a reporter in a yellow vest.

Another defendant, Lam Kam-kwan, told the court he was detained in China a month after the storming of Legco and forced to write a repentance letter.

Police officers denied his claims during a cross-examination by the defence.

Last May, seven others including the former president of the University of Hong Kong’s student union, Althea Suen, and pro-democracy activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, pleaded guilty to rioting and will deliver their mitigation statements later on Thursday.

They face a maximum of seven years in prison.

While the government eventually withdrew the extradition bill, the protests, which drew more than a million people onto the streets, had already gathered momentum and the demands had widened to include direct elections for the city’s leaders and police accountability.

The protests were the biggest challenge to the Hong Kong government since the city’s return to Chinese rule in 1997 and led Beijing to impose a sweeping national security law in 2020 that has seen many of the city’s leading opposition politicians and activists arrested, silenced or in exile.

More than 10,200 people were arrested in connection to the protests for various crimes, such as rioting and participating in an unauthorised assembly.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Despite lawsuits, monopoly may keep Boeing’s business intact | Aviation News

A door blowout aboard an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-9 MAX was not how many expected the first week of 2024 to unfold. However, following the incident, inspections and investigations have uncovered further production flaws at Boeing, raising concerns about quality control for the major manufacturer, alongside safety.

Since the Alaska Airlines incident, 171 Boeing 737-9 MAX planes were grounded for almost three weeks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launched an investigation into production practices at the planemaker, Alaska Airlines increased their oversight into Boeing, key suppliers were under fire, and Boeing, in firefighting mode, said it had “implemented immediate actions to strengthen quality”.

Boeing and Alaska Airlines are now staring at lawsuits while Boeing’s customers are contemplating a business plan without some of its planes.

On board the flight

Inside AS1282, the Alaska Airlines flight that experienced the blowout, the overarching theme for the 171 passengers and six crew was chaos, Jennifer L Homendy, the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), told journalists in a news conference.

At the front of the aircraft, the cockpit door blew open following the rapid depressurisation. This was something the pilots weren’t aware could take place. Additionally, the pilots struggled to communicate clearly with air traffic controllers who attempted to get the plane safely to an airport.

Obtaining a full understanding of the cockpit events remains complicated because the cockpit voice recorder overwrote itself before retrieval, as NTSB Chair Jennifer L Homendy confirmed.

Further down the cabin, passengers reported that when the door blew out, the “bang was loud enough to blast through noise-cancelling Beats headphones and Apple AirPods and harm passengers’ ears”, as per a lawsuit filed by four passengers against Boeing and seen by Al Jazeera. The blowout caused “fear, distress, anxiety, trauma, physical pain and other injuries”, the lawsuit said.

Similar to the pilots, the cabin crew struggled to communicate with each other and grasp the unfolding situation, including the damage, per The Washington Post.

Ultimately, the rising stress levels inside the cabin resulted in passengers believing the circumstances unfolding “​​was a prelude to the plane’s destruction and their own likely death”, as per the lawsuit.

In a now unavailable video, TikTok user @imsocorny, who was seated towards the front in flight AS1282, described the blowout as a “loud bang and jolt, and then a whoosh of air”.

This was followed by a commotion towards the back of the plane where the blowout occurred. But as the oxygen masks dropped and terrified passengers grabbed to put them on obstructing their view, it wasn’t clear what was going on. This left passengers believing that they could begin nosediving at any second.

The door plug that blew out was removed from the aircraft for repair and then improperly reinstalled, The Seattle Times reported, citing a whistleblower.

Lawsuits

Four passengers have filed a lawsuit against Boeing and Alaska Airlines and more may join [NTSB/Handout via Reuters]

Four passengers filed a lawsuit against Boeing and Alaska Airlines on January 16, following the incident. These plaintiffs seek to “recover damages caused by personal injuries while onboard Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on January 5, 2024”, their lawyer Mark Lindquist, told Al Jazeera.

Lindquist has previously represented dozens of victim families following Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes in 2018 and 2019, when planes went down in Indonesia and Ethiopia, respectively.

At the time those families and Lindquist hoped “Boeing learned their lesson from the MAX 8 crashes and improved their quality control”. However, Lindquist says that the newest case into the US manufacturer “demonstrates Boeing still has significant and dangerous quality control issues that need to be fixed”.

The Alaska Airlines door blowout was “an extreme, life-threatening incident”, and it blind luck that nobody died, said Lindquist.

Fourteen more passengers have contacted Lindquist asking for representation since he filed the case on behalf of the four passengers. Lindquist added that he will likely file an amended complaint with new clients and new information at some point.

Lindquist expects more legal firms to get involved in legal action against Boeing and Alaska Airlines with the aim of holding them accountable and “make sure this doesn’t happen again to anyone”, he said.

Boeing didn’t respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Impact on Boeing customers

Alaska Airlines and United Airlines are the leading airlines impacted by the 737-9 MAX grounding. To make matters worse, the pair are the two largest operators of the variant.

Despite this, their experiences with the grounding differed. Alaska has 65 737-9 MAX planes, compared to the 79 at United Airlines. However, Alaska’s overall percentage of cancelled flights was higher as the 737-9 MAX represents 20 percent of their total fleet. For United Airlines, the 737-9 MAX represents only 8 percent based on fleet data from planespotters.net.

In a filing, United said that it’ll post an adjusted loss between 35 cents and 85 cents a share for the first quarter of 2024. These results follow the 737 MAX grounding. Meanwhile, Alaska Airlines expects the ordeal to cost $150m.

Scott Hamilton, founder and managing director of Leeham Company, an aviation consulting company, said, “65 airplanes represent something like 20 percent of its fleet. You can’t remove 20 percent of the capacity for long before moving into a loss”.

These frustrations over groundings have resulted in executives from the two airlines reconsidering their future choice of aircraft.

Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci told NBC News that while it still planned to order the largest variant in the MAX series, the 737-10, decisions on fleet mix will only come once it was certified. A timeline for the 737-10s approval is unclear.

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby similarly told CNBC that they were the “biggest customer of Boeing in the world”, and they “need Boeing to succeed”. However, they’ll now be building a plan that doesn’t have the 737-10 in it for a considerable period.

Internally, the best-case scenario at United is a delay of five or more years for the 737-10. To cope with these delays at United, it “probably means we’ll change the order book up, there are alternative means of airplanes instead of MAX 10s for the next few years, it also means we won’t grow quite as fast”, per their CEO.

Alaska Airlines door blowout was ‘an extreme, life-threatening incident’ said a lawyer for some of the passengers [File: Stephen Brashear/Getty Images]

An opportunity for Airbus?

As frustrations grow toward Boeing, the question is if industry competitor Airbus can capitalise on that and capture some of that business.

It’s not as simple as that, warned Hamilton, and on the contrary, Airbus will struggle to capitalise because of its success.

“The A320 line is sold out to 2030, and sales extend beyond 2030. Airbus could not provide new aeroplanes in any great quantity even if airlines came knocking today,” Hamilton said.

So no matter how frustrated these airlines may be over quality issues, they may have no real choice but to stick with Boeing.

“The airlines basically have to stick with Boeing whether they want to or not if they want 737-size airplanes this decade,” said Hamilton.

Richard Aboulafia, managing director of AeroDynamic Advisory, said the Airbus backlog and Boeing’s status means that despite the quality of aircraft, those seeking to place aircraft orders are, to at least some degree, stuck with Boeing. He added: “It’s possible that Boeing management simply doesn’t care. They might have reasoned that while Airbus is quickly gaining ground, that’s beyond their time horizon.”

However, the latest problems are greatly endangering the cynical calculation predicted by management, he said.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Will Israel obey the ruling of the UN’s top court? | Israel War on Gaza News

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

The United Nation’s top court has ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide in Gaza and allow in humanitarian aid.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued the ruling on Friday in a case filed by South Africa.

Judges voted overwhelmingly in favour of six emergency measures that included asking Israel to punish those inciting genocide.

So, how will this ruling impact Israel’s war on Gaza? And how might other countries pressure Israel to comply?

Presenter: Nastasya Tay

Guests:

Nimer Sultany – Reader in public law at SOAS, the University of London; and editor-in-chief of The Palestine Yearbook of International Law

Geoffrey Robertson – Human rights barrister and the founder of Doughty Street Chambers

Chris Gunness – Former spokesperson for UNRWA and founder of the Myanmar Accountability Project

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

ICJ ruling in Gaza genocide case renews calls to end Israel arms transfers | Israel War on Gaza News

Rights advocates and legal experts have welcomed the International Court of Justice’s decision ordering Israel to take “all measures within its power” to prevent acts that could amount to genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

While it stopped short of explicitly demanding a ceasefire, the top court of the United Nations on Friday acknowledged there is a plausible risk of genocide in the bombarded Palestinian enclave and refused to dismiss the case brought by South Africa.

“It’s a huge defeat for Israel — one of the biggest defeats … in the past 75 years,” said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a think tank in Washington, DC.

But the ruling “goes beyond Israel” alone, Jarrar told Al Jazeera, as it highlights countries’ legal and political obligations to take action to prevent the alleged genocide unfolding in Gaza.

The ICJ’s decision in The Hague also spurred renewed calls to suspend weapons transfers to the Israeli government, which advocates say amount to complicity and violate international law. That includes arms shipments from the United States, Israel’s foremost backer.

“It’s a watershed moment where the United States government is put on notice that they cannot continue their blank-cheque policies with Israel,” Jarrar said.

“The US can’t and should not continue its arms transfers with Israel now.”

Not a ‘goodwill gesture’

The US provides at least $3.8bn in military aid to Israel annually. For years, rights advocates and a growing number of US lawmakers have called on Washington to condition that assistance on Israel’s human rights record and international law.

However, US President Joe Biden has rejected those efforts while bolstering assistance to the Israeli government.

After Israel began the Gaza war on October 7, following an attack by Hamas that killed more than 1,100 people in southern Israel, the Biden administration sent a request to Congress to approve a $14bn foreign aid package for Israel, the bulk of which would be military assistance.

The US government also twice bypassed Congress to provide thousands of artillery shells to the country as it continued to bombard Gaza. Israeli attacks have killed more than 26,000 Palestinians to date and decimated the coastal territory.

Yet, despite reports and investigations that showed US weapons were used in Israeli bombings that killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza, attempts to pressure Washington to end the transfers or determine whether the arms are being deployed in rights abuses have failed.

“We have been telling the Biden administration that this is not just a goodwill gesture” to end the transfer of weapons to Israel, said DAWN’s Jarrar, explaining that Washington has obligations under international and US law.

“This is something that they have to think about very seriously because the United States as a government is implicated in these war crimes, and US officials are also implicated,” Jarrar said. “They have to take today’s order [from the ICJ] very seriously.”

International treaties

Rights groups have called on all UN member-states to suspend their transfers of weapons that “can be used to commit violations of international humanitarian and human rights law” in Gaza.

Among other countries, Canada and the United Kingdom faced growing pressure on Friday following the ICJ’s decision. Both nations are state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty, a UN pact that seeks to regulate the flow of weapons globally and prevent them from being used in violations of international law and human rights.

It prohibits parties from greenlighting arms transfers “if [they have] knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes”.

The UK has licensed more than 474 million pounds ($602m) worth of military exports to Israel since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW), and it “provides approximately 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth bomber aircraft currently being used in Gaza”.

Pressed on UK arms exports to Israel in November, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the country’s “defence exports to Israel are relatively small — just 42 million pounds [$53m] last year”. The weapons also “go through a very strict criteria before anything is exported”, Shapps said, according to a parliamentary transcript.

But on Friday, Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director at HRW, said the ICJ’s provisional order should push the UK government to “halt arms exports to Israel with immediate effect”. “There is NO question,” she wrote on social media.

“The Court found a plausible risk of genocide & the UK has an obligation to prevent genocide & not be complicit.”

That obligation stems from the UN’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — commonly known as the Genocide Convention. The US, the UK and Canada are among 153 countries that are parties to the treaty.

It confirms “that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish”.

South Africa invoked this “obligation to prevent genocide” when it brought its case to the ICJ, and the court on Friday recognised that it had standing under the Genocide Convention. The treaty also states that “complicity in genocide” is punishable.

“If you’re supplying arms to a country where you know the arms may be used for criminal purposes, then you may become complicit in those crimes,” said Geoffrey Nice, a UK lawyer who led the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

“And it’s very hard not to become complicit after a certain stage of knowing is reached and after a certain stage of conduct continues,” Nice told Al Jazeera in a television interview on Friday.

“Arms suppliers would have to be very, very careful – and some may simply decide it’s not worth the risk of being brought into a humiliating, serious, possible investigation for crime.”

‘No other option’ but to suspend arms exports

Most countries also have their own regulations around weapons exports.

For example, Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act obliges the minister of foreign affairs to “deny exports and brokering permit applications for military goods and technology … if there is a substantial risk that the items would undermine peace and security”.

The minister should also deny exports if they “could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws” or in “serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children”.

Last year, Canada exported 21.3 million Canadian dollars ($15.7m) worth of weapons to Israel.

Canadian antiwar group Project Ploughshares said in a recent report that Canada-made components transferred to the US also eventually end up being supplied to the Israeli military, including components used in F-35 aircraft.

“Because the vast majority of Canadian military exports to the United States are neither regulated nor reported, exact volumes and values of these exports are not available to the public and remain unknown,” the report said.

Michael Bueckert, vice president of the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, said Canada has been sending weapons to Israel “for many years despite significant human rights violations and war crimes”.

But the gravity of those transfers has increased significantly after the ICJ’s decision, he said.

“There’s just no other option from the perspective of preventing Canada’s complicity in potential genocide; Canada must cancel all exports and suspend the arms trade completely to make sure that it’s not aiding or abetting those grave crimes,” Bueckert told Al Jazeera.

“There’s no such thing as safe exports of military goods from a human rights perspective in the context of possible genocide. Canada has to go above and beyond to make sure that it’s not contributing in any way.”

Global Affairs Canada did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on the calls to end arms transfers to Israel.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US court hears civil case accusing Biden of ‘complicity’ in Gaza ‘genocide’ | Israel War on Gaza News

Plaintiffs want the federal court to urge the US to use its influence to get Israel to end its hostilities in Gaza.

A civil case accusing United States President Joe Biden and other senior US officials of being complicit in Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza has begun at a federal court in California.

Lawyers representing Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, attended Friday’s proceedings along with the plaintiffs who accuse them of “failure to prevent and complicity in the Israeli government’s unfolding genocide”.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a US civil liberties group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the human rights organisation, Defence for Children – Palestine; Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights group based in the occupied West Bank; and eight Palestinians and US citizens with relatives in Gaza.

During Friday’s hearing, the court heard from lawyers, activists and organisers, including doctors in Gaza, about the situation that Palestinians have been facing for nearly four months.

Since the war began on October 7, more than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza following a Hamas attack on Israel that killed about 1,100 people there.

The CCR complaint was first filed in November last year and said Biden, Blinken and Austin “have not only been failing to uphold the country’s obligation to prevent a genocide but have enabled the conditions for its development by providing unconditional military and diplomatic support [to Israel]”.

The CCR is asking the court to “declare that defendants have violated their duty under customary international law, as part of federal common law, to take all measures within their power to prevent Israel from committing genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza”.

The group is also calling for the US to use its influence over Israel to end the hostilities against Palestinians in Gaza.

‘Political doctrine’

Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds, reporting from the court in Oakland on Friday, said the CCR is arguing that by providing weapons to Israel, the US’s support violates the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In response, the lawyers for the Biden administration “are focusing on a very narrow legal argument”, he said.

“They are saying the court does not have the authority to rule on this. They’re citing what is called the political doctrine, and it has to do with the separation of powers in the United States,” Reynolds said.

He explained that lawyers are arguing that the conduct of foreign policy, diplomacy, military activities and the relations between allies are in the “political purview of the executive branch, in other words, the president and the cabinet” and, therefore, not amenable to judicial action by other branches of power that make up the US government.

The judge appeared to also question his authority in the case, Reynolds said.

“This is really the fundamental question, whether he’s got the authority to rule on this, but the judge did open the proceedings by a litany of just describing the plight of Palestinians in Gaza,” our correspondent said.

Earlier on Friday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to take all measures possible to prevent acts of genocide against Gaza and to do more to help civilians.

Still, it failed to call for a ceasefire, which South Africa, who presented the case to the ICJ, had called for.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Former Trump aide Navarro sentenced to four months for contempt of Congress | Courts News

Peter Navarro is the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges.

Former US President Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro has been sentenced to four months in prison for contempt of Congress after refusing to cooperate with an investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House January 6 committee.

He pledged to appeal Thursday’s verdict and said he could not cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege.

A judge banned him from making that argument during trial, finding that he did not show that Trump had invoked it.

Navarro said in court before his sentencing that the House committee investigating the January 6 attack had led him to believe that it accepted his invocation of executive privilege, which shields some presidential records and communications from disclosure.

“Nobody in my position should be put in conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch,” he told the judge.

He added that there was “no reason for the harsh punishment” prosecutors were seeking.

But US District Judge Amit Mehta refuted his claim and said, “You are not a victim. You are not the object of a political prosecution”.

“These are circumstances of your own making,” he added.

Former President Donald Trump speaks at a primary election night party in Nashua, NH, as Vivek Ramaswamy, Senator Tim Scott and Eric Trump laugh [Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP]

Federal prosecutors in Washington had asked Judge Mehta to give Navarro a six-month sentence and a $200,000 fine, arguing that he chose to be loyal to Trump over the rule of law.

“The defendant brazenly defied Congress,” prosecutor John Crabb said.

Prosecutors also said that Navarro tried to “hide behind claims of privilege” even before he knew what the committee wanted, showing a “disdain” for the committee.

His sentencing came after a judge rejected his bid for a new trial after his lawyers argued that jurors might have been influenced by protesters outside the courtroom when they took a break from deliberations.

Navarro, 74, advised Trump on trade issues during his presidency and became a vocal supporter of Trump’s false claims of widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election.

Trump backers looked to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory during a clash with police and rampaging through the Capitol.

Navarro is the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges, after former White House adviser Steve Bannon, who also got a four-month sentence but is free pending appeal.

The judge presiding over Thursday’s sentencing also criticised Navarro for his past statements that Biden and other prominent Democrats are behind his conviction.

“Joe Biden is not responsible for your prosecution,” the judge told Navarro.

“It’s those kinds of statements from somebody who knows better than that contributes to why our politics are so corrosive.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Will a US court order Biden to stop ‘complicity’ in Gaza genocide? | Israel War on Gaza News

Shawan Jabarin wants to know when it will be enough: When will the death toll in Gaza be high enough for United States President Joe Biden to end his unequivocal military and diplomatic support for Israel?

“How many Palestinian civilians have to be killed until he says, ‘This number is enough’? How many? Two million Palestinians? One million? 700,000? It [would be] good if he can tell us which number wakes up his human conscience.”

Jabarin, the general director of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, said Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip would not be possible without US support.

The Israeli military campaign has killed more than 25,000 Palestinians, and United Nations officials and other experts have repeatedly warned of a risk of genocide.

Yet, since the war began in early October, the Biden administration has bypassed Congress to greenlight arms sales to Israel and blocked efforts to secure a ceasefire.

That’s why Al-Haq, alongside two other advocacy groups and individual Palestinians affected by the war, filed a lawsuit in the US late last year accusing Biden and other senior US leaders of being complicit in genocide.

The first hearing in the case is set for January 26 in a federal court in California.

“Without American support — militarily, politically — nothing like [this could have] happened,” Jabarin told Al Jazeera in a phone interview from Ramallah. “The US are not complicit indirectly. No, directly. They are helping to commission a genocide in Gaza.”

The case

Filed in mid-November, the lawsuit (PDF) accuses the Biden administration of failing to meet its responsibilities under international and domestic law to prevent genocide.

The 1948 Genocide Convention, which the US ratified, states that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [state parties] undertake to prevent and to punish”. It also outlines that “complicity in genocide” is a punishable act.

Additionally, the obligations to prevent and punish genocide have been recognised as being part of “customary international law” — a term that refers to “a general practice accepted as law”.

Drawing from those statutes, the lawsuit alleges “the United States has been obligated, from the time it learned of the specter of a genocide of the Palestinian people, to exercise its clear and considerable influence on Israel to prevent this grave crime from unfolding”.

The complaint names three defendants: Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. It claims they “have not only been failing to uphold the country’s obligation to prevent a genocide, but have enabled the conditions for its development”.

The lawsuit also emphasises that US leaders were fully aware of Israel’s “genocidal” objectives. “Dehumanising” remarks by senior Israeli officials, including Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, demonstrated a clear intent to pursue the “erasure and destruction of Palestinians”, it explained.

Gallant, for instance, called Palestinians “human animals” when he ordered the total siege of Gaza in early October. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also said, “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price,” before ordering Palestinians to “get out” of Gaza.

“Those statements were not mere rhetoric. Israeli officials said what they meant and [they] do what they say,” said Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), one of the organisations involved in the case.

“States that have the ability to influence a country that is at serious risk of — if not already — committing genocide have to take all measures within [their] power to prevent [it],” she told Al Jazeera. “And the United States did not do that. Instead, it offered unconditional military support, financial support, and diplomatic cover and support for Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign.”

Gallagher explained that the plaintiffs are asking a district court to declare that the US has breached its obligations to prevent genocide. They are also requesting a preliminary injunction ordering officials to “take all measures within their power” to fulfil its legal responsibilities.

“That would mean cutting off and ceasing the military support for the genocide,” she said.

Government’s defence

But the Biden administration has asked that the lawsuit be thrown out. In a December filing (PDF), it argued the court is being asked to “intrude into areas committed to the political branches of the government and violate constitutional separation of powers”.

Since foreign policy is decided by the executive branch, not the courts, the lawsuit “should be dismissed as nonjusticiable”, the filing said.

Oona Hathaway, a law professor at Yale University Law School, explained that this argument — known as the political question doctrine — is commonly used in foreign affairs cases, including challenges to the use of US military force abroad.

“I think there is a good chance that a court will decide that this [US complicity in genocide case] is barred by the political question doctrine,” Hathaway told Al Jazeera.

“I will say, I am myself really not a fan of the political question doctrine because I think that it means that legal violations often go unaddressed,” she said. “The truth of the matter is that, if the courts won’t address the possible legal violations, the chance that Congress is likely to do so is extremely slim.”

Hathaway questioned whether the federal court would allow the claim to move to the merits stage, where parties present why their arguments should win. But even if that does not happen, Hathaway said the plaintiffs are likely hoping “to start a conversation” and bring attention to the situation in Gaza.

“I think it’s part of raising the visibility of these concerns and ensuring that lawmakers and the American public are aware that there [are] potential legal obligations on the United States, not just on Israel, that are relevant to this conflict.”

Effort ‘to stop this genocide’

For their part, the plaintiffs have rejected the government’s use of the political question doctrine.

“This is not a case about run-of-the-mill policy decisions by the executive branch,” said Gallagher. “This is a case about compliance with the law, and no one, including the president of the United States, can be empowered to commit or fail to prevent genocide.”

“There are a lot of big legal issues here,” she continued. “Yes, it’s about upholding obligations of international law, but not in the abstract. It’s really in an effort to try and save lives and stop this genocide.”

Jabarin at Al-Haq said he hoped the federal court would rule in their favour, calling the case “unprecedented”.

“This is important, I think, for the American system, the judiciary. And this is important for the victims and for everyone who does believe in the rule of law … and peace and justice and dignity.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

NY charter schools’ success, Letters

Charter champion

The Post’s recent editorial provides yet more evidence of the superior performance of charter schools in New York (“Fresh Proof NY Needs More Charters,” Jan. 16).

When I was an undergraduate, I was fortunate to take a course taught by a professor who was an early advocate of charter schools, as well as educational vouchers for parents to use in private schools. The professor posed this question: Should parents or the government have the fundamental right — and corresponding responsibility — to provide for the education of children?

The answer reveals a great deal. If your answer is with the parents, then you are more likely to support charter schools and educational vouchers, because they give parents the financial ability to choose what is best for their kids. If your answer is the government, you accept “failing” public schools.

James E. Ciecka, Chicago, Ill.

Stuffed courts

Thank you for highlighting examples of all the frivolous litigation winding through our court system (“Crazy cases from bad to (vers)us,” Jan. 17).

Our courthouses have turned into a vehicle for preposterous claims and get-rich-quick schemes. In this particular case, a woman sued Geico, which insured her partner’s car, for contracting an STD.

Legislators should work to stem the proliferation of absurd and cynical tort claims by adopting the British “loser pays” rule. If litigants and their attorneys bring unsuccessful tort claims, they should be required to pay the costs incurred in defending those claims. Such a rule would force attorneys and potential clients to think long and hard before signing on to flimsy lawsuits.

Peter Janoff, Stamford, Conn.

‘Royaled out’

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were reportedly disappointed with the recent Emmy results, which snubbed their Netflix series (“Meanwhile, Emmy-loser Sussex sulk,” Jan. 18).

The snub is likely due to a widespread case of Harry and Meghan fatigue. Like the strident, repetitive blather from talking heads on Election Day, most viewers are willing to watch and listen for only so long. Eventually, they’ll change the channel or turn off the television.

There are too many quality shows to choose from right now. The couple’s drama has become monotonous. It’s about as interesting as radio static.

Vincent Ruggiero, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Z is for Zombie

It would seem that the kids today have collectively turned their backs on the American Dream (“Today’s kids have no drive,” Jan. 18).

Getting a job and a driver’s license — benchmarks once considered a rite of passage for American teenagers — is no longer a priority for Gen Z.

Perhaps contemporary life has been too easy for them. Parental support, combined with services like Uber and DoorDash, has made the need for a job and license almost obsolete. Add to that the legalization of marijuana, virtual reality video games and AI, and you start to think the kids should really be called: Gen Z(ombies).

Jack Kaufman, Naples, Fla.

Crime critics

I was so sorry to read about the newsstand vendors getting robbed and assaulted in Manhattan (“Newsstand Nightmares,” Jan. 15).

I hope that the “defund the police” pundits read that story. They might then stop thinking they know more about fighting crime than the police.

John Francis Fox, Queens

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Ex-wife says Georgia prosecutor filed for divorce a day after being hired by Fani Willis as affair rumors swirl

Nathan Wade’s ex-wife claims he filed to divorce her just one day after he was hired by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis – his alleged paramour – to be lead prosecutor in the Georgia election fraud case against former President Donald Trump, according to court documents filed Friday. 

Wade then immediately moved to have records related to the breakup sealed by the court handling the proceedings, Joycelyn Wade alleged in a 19-page filing with the Cobb County Superior Court.

“Plaintiff [Nathan Wade] was appointed as a special prosecutor by Ms. Willis on November 1, 2021. Plaintiff filed for divorce on November 2, 2021. Defendant [Joycelyn Wade] was served by process server on November 3, 2021,” the document submitted by attorney Andrea Dyer Hastings states.  

“Before Defendant even filed her Answer and Counterclaim, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to seal the record in this divorce action,” the filing continues. 

Nathan Wade filed for divorce one day after he was hired by the Fulton County DA, according to court filings. Getty Images
Willis claims the Wades marriage was over before she even met Nathan. via REUTERS

Nathan Wade and Willis have been accused by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman of having an “improper” and “clandestine” relationship that Roman argues is grounds for having criminal charges against him dismissed. 

Roman’s bombshell filing accused Nathan Wade — a private attorney with Atlanta-based Wade & Campbell — of using some of the nearly $654,000 in legal fees he’s raked in from the Fulton County DA’s Office for his work on the Trump case to take Willis on lavish trips. 

Willis is also accused of hiring Wade to help prosecute the Trump case despite him not being properly qualified or experienced in handling criminal matters.

Joycelyn claims she was left with “little means of financial support” after Nathan divorced her and allegedly paid for lavish trips with Willis. @purevinesfreshwines

Joycelyn Wade claimed Friday that her now-former husband never told her he was working for Willis on the Trump case, or how much money he was making as a result of the appointment, and left her with “little means of financial support” while he shelled out on trips to “California, Florida and the Caribbean” with Willis. 

The filing includes bank records detailing Nathan Wade’s travel expenses, including spends of over $800 at the Doubletree Napa Valley American Canyon hotel in May of last year and $3,172.20 on Norwegian Cruise Line the previous November — as well as $370.88 at the Hyatt Regency Aruba around the same time.

Joycelyn’s filing comes one day after attorneys for Willis filed a motion to get the Atlanta DA out of sitting for a Jan. 23 deposition in the Wade divorce case.

Willis’ legal team argued that the subpoena should be dismissed, since she wouldn’t be able to offer relevant testimony, and claimed that the Wades’ marriage was already over by 2017 — before Willis met Nathan – when Joycelyn allegedly cheated on him. 

Hastings responded that Willis’ claim of a full-blown affair by Joycelyn was “false,” arguing that her client “was experiencing a profound sense of disconnection in her marriage” after prior infidelity by Nathan Wade.

Joycelyn Wade “regrettably reconnected with an old friend through social media and text messages were the sole extent of their contact,” wrote Hastings, who argued that her client never met in person with the former flame and the couple “successfully worked through this issue, as evidenced by the fact that it was not until four (4) years later that [Nathan] filed for divorce.”

The DA’s allegations, Hastings added, “[raise] the question of whether Ms. Wills possesses equal intimate knowledge of any marital discord involving any other of her special prosecutors.”

“Her public inquiry of ‘why the one’ seems to be met with a response that suggests, ‘because you, Ms. Wills, are having an affair with him and not them.’”

Meanwhile, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners announced Friday that it was investigating whether Willis misused county funds and “accepted valuable gifts and personal benefits” from Nathan Wade, giving the Atlanta DA until Feb. 2 to respond.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version