Colorado’s top court finds Donald Trump ineligible for US presidency | Donald Trump News

Colorado’s Supreme Court has ruled former United States President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for the White House because of his role in the 2021 assault on the Capitol by his supporters and should be removed from the state’s primary ballot.

While the ruling only applies to Colorado, it marks the first time in US history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from public office anyone who “engaged in insurrection”, has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate and comes as courts in other states consider similar legal actions.

“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Colorado high court wrote in its four-three majority decision.

“Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” they added.

The decision – which Trump’s campaign said it would appeal – drew immediate condemnation from Republicans.

The one-time property tycoon and reality TV star faces a raft of court cases, from criminal charges over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to mishandling classified documents, hush money payments in the 2016 election and fraud in his business practices.

Trump has claimed he is the victim of political persecution.

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the Colorado justices said. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

A lower court earlier found that while Trump incited an insurrection, for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the 14th Amendment was intended to cover the presidency.

Noah Bookbinder of the campaign group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which brought the original case along with a group of Colorado voters, welcomed Tuesday’s higher court ruling.

The court’s decision is “not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country”, he said in a statement.

“Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government.”

Swift appeal expected

The Colorado court placed its ruling on hold until January 4 or until the US Supreme Court rules on the case. State officials say the issue must be settled by January 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots. The Republican primary is due to take place in March.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said they would “swiftly file an appeal” to the Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters.

Cheung claimed Colorado’s “all-Democrat appointed” panel was doing the bidding of a “[George] Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked [President] Joe Biden”.

The Supreme Court at the federal level has a six-three conservative majority and includes three judges Trump appointed when he was president.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, faces dozens of lawsuits under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War.

It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.

“I think it may embolden other state courts or secretaries to act now that the bandage has been ripped off,” Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the cases, told the Associated Press news agency after Tuesday’s ruling. “This is a major threat to Trump’s candidacy.”

The Colorado court decision brought swift rebukes from senior Republicans, including Trump’s one-time rival for the 2016 nomination, Senator Marco Rubio.

“The US has put sanctions on other countries for doing exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court has done today,” he wrote on social media.

The Colorado ruling stands in contrast with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which last month decided that the state party can put anyone it wants on its primary ballot. It dismissed a Section 3 lawsuit but said the plaintiffs could try again during the general election.

In another 14th Amendment case, a Michigan judge ruled that Congress, not the judiciary, should decide whether Trump can stay on the ballot in a ruling that is being appealed.

(Al Jazeera)

The liberal group behind those cases, Free Speech For People, has also filed a lawsuit in Oregon seeking to remove Trump from the ballot there.

Both groups are financed by liberal donors who also support President Biden, who is set to run for a second term in office. Trump has blamed the president for the lawsuits against him. Biden has no role in them.

Three Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented in Tuesday’s ruling.

One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit was not a fair mechanism for determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot because it deprived him of his right to due process, noting that a jury had not convicted him of insurrection.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past – dare I say, engaged in insurrection – there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Samour said.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Jimmy Lai’s security trial starts in Hong Kong, UK calls for his release | Courts News

BREAKING,

The media tycoon and democracy supporter, now 76, has been in jail for three years, accused of ‘collusion with foreign forces’.

Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai has gone on trial for alleged national security offences, hours after the United Kingdom joined calls for his immediate release.

Lai, who has been imprisoned since December 2020, arrived in court at 10am (02:00 GMT) where he is charged with conspiring to collude with foreign powers under the national security law imposed on the territory by China in June 2020.

Journalists inside the court said the 76-year-old, who was dressed in a blue shirt and carrying a book, looked like he had lost weight, but appeared in good spirits.

The publisher of the now-defunct Apple Daily is one of China’s most vocal critics and was arrested initially in August 2020 as police raided the newspaper’s officers.

The trial was supposed to have started a year ago, but was delayed after the government raised questions about his choice of defence counsel, Timothy Owen, a UK-based lawyer, and sought Beijing’s intervention.

Lai and the Apple Daily also face charges under a sedition law dating from the British colonial era.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In a statement late on Sunday, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron said he was “gravely concerned” about the trial and joined the United States and European Union in calling for Lai’s immediate release.

“As a prominent and outspoken journalist and publisher, Jimmy Lai has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association,” Cameron said, noting that the security law was in breach of the commitments made to Hong Kong when it resumed sovereignty over the territory in 1997.

“I urge the Chinese authorities to repeal the National Security Law and end the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. I call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their prosecution and release Jimmy Lai.”

‘Rule by law’

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy politicians, once vibrant civil society and media came under pressure in the wake of mass demonstrations in 2019, which began over concerns about a planned extradition bill with mainland China and evolved into calls for greater democracy.

A year after it was imposed, Amnesty International said the security law had “decimated” Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.

The US also called for Lai’s immediate release and condemned the prosecution.

“Lai has been held in pre-trial detention for more than 1,000 days, and Hong Kong and Beijing authorities have denied him his choice of legal representation,” US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a statement. “We call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release Jimmy Lai and all others imprisoned for defending their rights.”

Security on Monday was tight after Secretary for Security Chris Tang warned it would be enhanced because previously, “these kinds of cases” had attracted people wanting to disrupt proceedings and harass prosecutors.

People began queueing early for tickets with just 70 seats in the main venue at the West Kowloon court building open to the public.

Some police were in riot gear, while others had dogs. A bomb disposal vehicle was parked nearby.

“Jimmy Lai’s case is a case of weaponising the legal system in Hong Kong,” Finn Lau, a UK-based activist and founder of Hong Kong Liberty, told Al Jazeera. “There is no rule of law in Hong Kong anymore. It is just rule by law.”

Lai has already been found guilty and jailed over separate cases related to the management of Apple Daily and his involvement in a vigil to mark the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

The final edition of the Apple Daily rolled off the presses in June 2021.

Other publications critical of the administration have also folded, while elections have been overhauled to ensure only so-called “patriots” are able to hold public office in the territory.

Last week’s elections for district councils saw a record-low turnout of just 27.5 percent. The number of directly elected seats was cut to just 88, compared with 462 previously, and all candidates had to secure official approval before they could stand.

“Actions that stifle press freedom and restrict the free flow of information – as well as Beijing and local authorities’ changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system that reduce direct voting and preclude independent and pro-democracy party candidates from participating – have undermined Hong Kong’s democratic institutions and harmed Hong Kong’s reputation as an international business and financial hub,” Miller said in his statement.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘Regime of impunity’: Victims react to Fujimori’s prison release in Peru | Crimes Against Humanity News

Lima, Peru – He was horrible at math. Loved to play sports. And always seemed to be smiling. When Gisela Ortiz thinks back to her older brother Luis Enrique, she remembers someone who was kind and generous, willing to lend clothes out of his own closet to classmates in need.

But when Ortiz was 20, her brother disappeared. She later learned that soldiers had burst into the university residence hall where he was staying and abducted him, along with eight other students.

Together with a professor, they were taken into a field and executed, their bodies dumped in a mass grave. Luis Enrique was only 21 years old.

Now, more than three decades later, the person Ortiz holds responsible has been released from prison — and Ortiz is among those raising their voices in protest.

On December 6, former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori was freed, 16 years into a 25-year sentence.

In 2009, he had been convicted of ordering massacres between 1991 and 1992 that claimed the lives of 25 people, including Luis Enrique.

But critics have said that his record of human rights abuses stretches much further, to include allegations of torture, involuntary sterilisation and forced disappearances. The Inter-American Court had ordered Peruvian authorities to refrain from releasing Fujimori, given the severity of his crimes.

“A regime of impunity has been established,” Ortiz said after Fujimori’s release. “Ignoring the ruling of the Inter-American Court really makes us a country that does not respect human rights at the international level, and that is a step that is difficult to reverse.”

Families hold up photos of loved ones who disappeared under the presidency of Alberto Fujimori [Jacob Kessler/Al Jazeera]

Peru is a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and is legally bound by the decisions of the Inter-American Court.

But Fujimori has remained a towering figure in Peru’s conservative politics, with a broad base of popular support. Proponents credit him with stabilising the economy, combatting armed leftist groups and launching infrastructure projects that improved transportation, education and healthcare.

The former president was first granted a humanitarian pardon in 2017, though it was later nullified. Peru’s Constitutional Court reinstated the pardon this month, partially on the basis of Fujimori’s advanced age and poor health.

Still, César Muñoz, the Americas associate director at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera that Fujimori’s release is an “extremely serious setback” for rule of law, not to mention for those harmed.

“It’s a slap in the face to the victims,” Muñoz said.

He explained that, according to international law, humanitarian pardons may indeed be granted to human rights abusers, but two conditions must first be met.

The first condition requires countries to punish human rights abusers according to a consistent standard, without discrimination or favour.

“You cannot have rules that change depending on who the person is,” said Muñoz.

The second condition requires that medical professionals render an independent, thorough and impartial determination about the need for a humanitarian release.

“Those two elements were not there” in the case of Fujimori’s pardon, Muñoz explained.

Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, wearing a face mask, exits a prison on December 6 near Lima, Peru, where his daughter Keiko and Kenji guide him to a waiting car [Courtesy of Elio Riera/Reuters]

Following Fujimori’s release, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said it “rejects Peru’s decision” and called for the country “to take effective measures to guarantee the victims’ right to access justice”.

Cameras last week captured Fujimori, 85, stepping out of the prison gates and into the arms of his two children, Kenji Fujimori and Keiko Fujimori, both influential politicians.

The news left Javier Roca Obregón, also 85, feeling “indignant”. He has long since lost hope of ever seeing his son, Martin Roca Casas, again.

“I am 85 years old, and I have no hope,” Obregón told Al Jazeera. “I just want to die soon.”

In 1993, Casas was a student at the National University of Callao when he was tortured and detained by Peruvian military forces. His body has never been recovered.

Obregón and others believe Casas’s abduction was linked to his student activism. He remembers his son as a beacon of hope for other young people — “an example of overcoming” life’s obstacles.

Shortly before he went missing, Casas participated in a march against a tuition increase at his university. When two people started to film the protest, he and other students grabbed the camera and destroyed it — an act Obregón suspects precipitated his kidnapping.

“In Peru, the life of a poor person is worth nothing. The poor have no right to justice,” said Obregón, who originally hailed from the small, rural town of Yanama. “Just like a dog, they can kill it and then forget about it. That is what is being repeated.”

Javier Roca Obregón, right, and his wife remember their son Martin Roca Casas, who disappeared after being detained by military officials [Jacob Kessler/Al Jazeera]

Critics have said Fujimori governed with relative impunity during his term in office, from 1990 to 2000. His presidency oversaw the dissolution of Congress and the suspension of Peru’s constitution, allowing him to consolidate power.

Carolina Oyague said it was a “terrible” feeling to see the video of a smiling Fujimori being released to his children.

Her older sister Dora, 21, was one of the nine students abducted from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education in 1993, alongside Luis Enrique Ortiz.

Oyague remembers her sister as “cheerful and creative”, a budding entrepreneur who sold everything from makeup to cakes to pay for her education.

It was not until September of this year that parts of Dora’s skeletal remains were recovered and presented to her family. To watch Fujimori walk free only a few months later left Oyague furious.

“There’s no mea culpa,” she said. “He doesn’t even have a modicum of remorse.”

Fujimori has issued vague apologies in the past but has never taken direct responsibility for the military killings or the other abuses that occurred under his administration.

If anything, Fujimori’s governing style and ideology — nicknamed “Fujimorismo” — has remained a dominant political force in Peru. His daughter Keiko was one of the leading candidates in the 2021 presidential election, as part of the conservative Fuerza Popular party.

Carolina Oyague remembers her sister Dora, who was killed when she was a 21-year-old university student [Jacob Kessler/Al Jazeera]

Inés Condori, president of the Association of Women Affected by Forced Sterilization of Chumbivilcas, was among the more than 200,000 Peruvians sterilised without their consent between 1996 and 2000, in what Fujimori’s government sought to portray as an anti-poverty measure.

Many of the victims were Quechua-speaking Indigenous women from rural communities, a fact that has fuelled accusations of ethnic cleansing. Condori, too, considers Fujimori’s release a miscarriage of justice.

“We have been fighting for 25 years, but there is no justice for us, the poor,” Condori wrote to Al Jazeera on WhatsApp. “[Fujimori] needs to be in prison forever.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Trump loses immunity bid in Carroll defamation suit | Donald Trump News

A US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an earlier decision by a federal judge saying that Trump cannot claim immunity.

Donald Trump cannot assert presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit by writer E Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, a US appeals court has ruled, dealing the former US president another legal setback.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Wednesday upheld a federal judge’s decision to reject Trump’s claim of immunity, finding Trump had waited too long to raise it as a defence.

Alina Habba, one of Trump’s lawyers in the case, called the ruling “fundamentally flawed” and said Trump would seek “immediate review” from the Supreme Court.

Carroll in the lawsuit sought at least $10m in damages from Trump over comments he made in June 2019, when he was president, after she first publicly accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump denied knowing Carroll, said she was not his “type,” and that she made up the rape claim to promote her upcoming memoir.

E Jean Carroll exits the Manhattan Federal Court following the verdict in the civil rape accusation case against former US President Donald Trump, in New York City on May 9 [File: Andrew Kelly/Reuters]

The former Elle magazine columnist sued in November 2019, but Trump waited until December 2022 before asserting that absolute presidential immunity shielded him from her lawsuit. Under this, a president has complete immunity from many types of civil lawsuits while in office.

In June, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss Carroll’s case and later refused to let Trump raise an immunity defence, citing the delay in seeking to invoke it and the public interest in accountability.

The 2nd Circuit on Wednesday said those decisions were correct.

“A three-year-delay is more than enough, under our precedents, to qualify as ‘undue’,” a three-judge panel wrote in its opinion.

Trump’s appeal was heard on an expedited basis, in advance of a scheduled January 16, 2024, trial.

He has pursued a similar immunity defence in his federal criminal case in Washington in which he is accused of unlawfully trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

Carroll has already won one civil trial against Trump. In May, a jury in a second lawsuit awarded her $5m for sexual assault and defamation after Trump last October again denied her accusations. Trump is appealing that verdict.

On September 6, Kaplan ruled that the jury’s findings in May applied to Carroll’s first lawsuit, making Trump’s denial defamatory. That left for trial only the issue of how much money Trump should pay Carroll in damages.

“We are pleased that the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Kaplan’s rulings and that we can now move forward with trial,” Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement.

Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the 2024 US election despite facing four federal and state criminal indictments. He has pleaded not guilty in those cases.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Australia inquiry raises hopes for six jailed over alleged 1981 bomb plot | Courts News

Melbourne, Australia – More than four decades after they were convicted in one of Australia’s longest-running criminal trials, the evidence used to jail six former Yugoslav migrants is being re-examined to determine if they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.

A rare judicial inquiry in the state of New South Wales (NSW) began investigating this month the convictions of six Croatian-Australian men found guilty in 1981 of plotting to bomb sites across Sydney, Australia’s biggest city.

A Supreme Court judge ordered the inquiry on the grounds that there were “doubts” and “questions” about the evidence provided to the trial by police officers and a key witness, who Australia’s domestic spy agency suspected may have been an informant for the state intelligence agency of the then-Yugoslavia, the Eastern European country that eventually broke up in a wave of nationalism in 1991.

“The members of the ‘Croatian Six’ for whom I act have always and steadfastly maintained their innocence,” said Sebastian De Brennan, one of the lawyers representing the three men on whose behalf the judicial review application was made: Vjekoslav Brajkovic, Maksimilian Bebic and the late Mile Nekic, who died last year in Croatia.

De Brennan told Al Jazeera the inquiry was “a vindication for my clients who wanted nothing more than to have their names, and those of the many other Croatian-Australians whose good reputations were tarnished by the case, cleared.”

The inquiry will also examine the cases of the three other members of the “Croatian Six”: Anton Zvirotic and brothers Ilija and Joseph Kokotovic.

All six men were recent migrants from Yugoslavia when they were arrested in Sydney and the NSW town of Lithgow in February 1979.

After a 172-day trial in the NSW Supreme Court, in February 1981, they were convicted of involvement in a conspiracy to bomb two travel agencies, a Serbian community club, a suburban theatre and Sydney water supply pipes. They were also convicted on charges of possessing explosives and each sentenced to a maximum of 15 years in prison. They served sentences of 10 years before being released in 1991.

Intelligence has been declassified for the inquiry [Courtesy of the National Archives of Australia]

Multiple legal appeals and applications for judicial review were unsuccessful but in 2022, after examining new information submitted to the NSW Supreme Court, Judge Robertson Wright ordered a judicial inquiry into the convictions.

Judge Wright said there were “doubts or questions as to parts of the evidence … and the guilt of the Croatian Six”, including whether a central witness gave “deliberately false” evidence in the original trial.

The man, known as Vico Virkez, told police that he was a member of the largely anti-communist Croatian-Australian community and involved in the alleged bombing plot with the convicted men. His confession to Lithgow police in 1979 led to their arrests.

Declassified government documents name him as Vito Misimovic or Mesimovic, a Bosnian-born migrant who was reported by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) as having links to the Yugoslav consulate in Sydney.

Yugoslavia’s eventual split following the collapse of the then-Soviet Union led to the independence of several countries including Croatia.

ASIO files describe the “Croatian Six” as belonging to a “Croatian nationalist movement dedicated to overthrowing the Yugoslav government and establishing an independent Croatian state”. In his decision, Judge Wright states there is a “real possibility that the Yugoslav Intelligence Service used Mr Virkez as an agent provocateur or informer, to cause false information to be given to the NSW Police, and possibly ASIO, as to the existence of a bombing conspiracy involving the Croatian Six, in order to discredit Croatians in Australia”.

Investigative journalist Hamish McDonald, who has written extensively on the “Croatian Six”, expects the declassified information on Virkez’s activities to have a significant impact on the inquiry. In 2018, McDonald’s research led to the intelligence agency files being declassified and included in the application for a judicial inquiry.

“The ASIO evidence shows that this information was given very early to the state police but none of it reached the defence counsel or was heard in the court,” McDonald recalled.

“The Crown Counsel assured the court there was not a scintilla of evidence that Virkez was a Yugoslav agent.”

In directing the inquiry, Judge Wright found that “the unavailability to the defence at the trial of the information of the type disclosed in the declassified ASIO documents may well have deprived each accused of a chance of acquittal”.

McDonald believes that if any of the surviving police officers involved in arresting the “Croatian Six” appear before the inquiry, they will be questioned “about the physical evidence they claim to have found on the premises of the six Croatian Australians and why they did not do certain things that would be routine procedures now, like photographing evidence and fingerprinting. They’d be asked whether they used violence in the interrogation of the arrested men”.

Four of the men alleged they were beaten while in police custody. Judge Wright said there were questions too about the evidence provided by NSW Police officers about the confessions attributed to all six men and the discovery of explosives linked to them.

“The inquiry will have a wider scope than a trial and examine the convictions in a different way to an appeals court,” explained Associate Professor Mehera San Roque, an expert in evidence law at the University of New South Wales.

“It is not bound by the rules of evidence. So, the judge will be able to receive evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible in a trial,” she said.

At the end of the inquiry, the judge will submit a report to the chief justice of the Supreme Court and “may refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal for consideration of whether the convictions should be quashed, or the sentence reconsidered”.

“If the convictions are quashed, it is possible to seek compensation,” added San Roque.

‘I was innocent’

The “Croatian Six” and their families have rarely spoken publicly about the trial and convictions.

But in his first testimony to the inquiry in early December, Vjekoslav Brajkovic declared: “I was innocent.” He described a transcript of his 1979 police interview as “a complete fabrication”.

“It was like tying up the hands of the men who were arrested behind their backs and telling them to go off and fight the trial,” Brajkovic, now in his 70s, told the hearing.

In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in 2022, Lydia Peraic, the former wife of Joseph Kokotovic, called for an “acknowledgment that wrong has been done”.

“My whole world fell apart,” Peraic told ABC Radio, describing the  “horrendous impact” of her ex-husband’s incarceration. “It’s not only wrong for Joe. It’s wrong for my daughters and their daughters because it has scarred us. All you want is a ‘sorry’.”

Other relatives of the six men share the sentiment, says Doris Bozin, a Canberra-based lawyer who has been advocating for the “Croatian Six” since the 1990s.

“Many of the families feel let down, disillusioned and bitter towards Australian institutions,” she said.

“Some are worried about repercussions during and after the inquiry on themselves, their families – particularly the children and grandchildren. They’re feeling trauma revisiting that past, those lost years and missed opportunities.”

“Yet some of them still feel a glimmer of hope,” Bozin added.

Bozin describes a sense of “apprehension” in the wider Croatian-Australian community “stemming from repeated let-downs and erosion of trust in some Australian institutions”.

“There is a collective hope the inquiry, through its insights and recommendations, will exonerate Australian Croatians from unjust extremist and terrorist labels,” she said.

Presiding over the inquiry is Judge Robert Allan Hulme. In 1985, he assisted in an inquiry into the convictions – later overturned – of three members of the Ananda Marga religious sect over a plot to murder a right-wing political figure.

The public hearings in the “Croatian Six” inquiry are set to continue in March.

Among those confirmed to give evidence is a former senior government lawyer who first raised concerns about intelligence information on Vico Virkez being withheld from the court to the federal attorney general in the mid-1980s. A seventh man who was arrested with the “Croatian Six” but did not stand trial is also due to appear but attention will be on the surviving convicted men, some of whom have been waiting for decades for their chance to be heard.

“Their desire is that justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done,” said lawyer De Brennan. “They, their families, Croatian Australians and the legal fraternity will be watching the inquiry with a keen eye.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Six French teenagers convicted in connection to beheading of school teacher | Courts News

The murder of history teacher Samuel Paty shocked France and fuelled contentious debates about freedom of expression.

A French court has convicted six teenagers in connection with the 2020 beheading of history teacher Samuel Paty, whose murder shocked the country.

In a decision on Friday, the court found five of the six defendants, aged 14 through 15 at the time of the attack, guilty of helping the attacker identify the teacher.

The sixth defendant was found guilty of lying about the content of a classroom debate that sparked anger at the teacher, who showed students caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad during a discussion about free expression. Most Muslims avoid depictions of prophets, considering them to be blasphemous.

Paty was killed and decapitated outside of a school in a Paris suburb on October 16, 2020, by an 18-year-old of Chechen origin named Abdoullakh Anzorov.

Five of the accused students were accused of staking out Paty as he left the school and pointing him out for Anzorov, who was shot and killed by police, in exchange for promises of 300-350 euros ($350-400).

In emotional testimony, the teenagers protested that they did not know that Paty would be killed. They face prison sentences of up to two and a half years.

The court found the sixth defendant guilty of false accusations and slanderous comments after it was established that she told her parents that Paty had asked Muslim students to exit the classroom before showing the cartoons. The court established that she was not in class on that day.

The trial, which has been held behind closed doors and with media outlets barred from sharing the identity of the teenagers due to French laws regarding minors, has underscored contention in French society over topics such as “extremism”, Islamophobia, and freedom of expression.

The ruling comes several weeks after a teacher was fatally stabbed in northern France in a school attack by a young man.

Muslims and migrants from the Arab world say they face widespread discrimination and racism in French society, and that French traditions of keeping religion out of public spaces have been wielded selectively to crack down on expressions of Muslim identity.

Politicians in France, especially on the right, have frequently leaned into rhetoric that portrays Muslims and Arabs as violent and uncivilised.

 

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US says Russia rejected ‘substantial’ proposal to free two jailed Americans | Politics News

Washington says ‘no higher priority’ than effort to secure release from Russia of Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.

The United States has said Moscow rejected what it said was a “substantial” proposal to secure the freedom of Wall Street Journal correspondent Evan Gershkovich and former US Marine Paul Whelan who are jailed in Russia over alleged spying.

“We have made a number of proposals, including a substantial one in recent weeks,” US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters on Tuesday.

“That proposal was rejected by Russia,” he said, without going into further detail on the offer.

Miller said that Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Joe Biden would keep trying to find a way to free the pair, considered “wrongfully detained” by the State Department.

The designation means the US considers the charges against the two men to be bogus and politically motivated.

“They never should have been arrested in the first place. They should be released immediately,” Miller said.

“There is no prior higher priority for the secretary of state. There is no higher priority for the president.”

The United States, despite a sharp deterioration of ties since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, arranged a prisoner swap with Moscow a year ago that brought home basketball star Brittney Griner in exchange for jailed Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in July that it was in contact with the US about prisoner swaps but that such discussions needed to take place in “complete silence”.

Gershkovich was arrested during a reporting trip at the end of March and accused of spying, charges he and the Wall Street Journal deny.

The 32-year-old has been held in custody pending trial and a Moscow court last week extended his detention until January. He faces as long as 20 years in prison if found guilty.

Gershkovich’s sister in October urged the Biden administration to remain focused on trying to bring him home from a Russian prison, and expressed concern that the Middle East crisis may distract Washington from hostage diplomacy in other countries.

Whelan worked in security for a US vehicle parts company when he was arrested in Moscow in 2018. The former Marine was convicted of espionage in 2020 and jailed for 16 years. Whelan says the evidence against him was falsified and he and the US government have denied he is a spy.

Whelan’s family said last week that he had been assaulted in prison.

The 53-year-old was punched in the face and forced to defend himself at a sewing workshop in a high-security penal colony in Russia’s Mordovia region southeast of Moscow, his brother said in a statement.

The Mordovia regional prison service confirmed the attack to the Interfax news agency and that guards had intervened. Both men were taken to the medical bay with Whelan suffering an abrasion beneath one of his eyes.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Former US ambassador accused of acting as covert agent for Cuba | Espionage News

Former ambassador to Bolivia charged for allegedly collaborating with Cuban intelligence services over several decades.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has charged a former US ambassador to Bolivia for allegedly working with Cuban intelligence services as an undercover agent for several decades.

In court papers unsealed on Monday, the DOJ alleged that Manuel Rocha had taken part in “clandestine activity” with the Cuban government since at least 1981, sharing false information with the US and meeting with Cuban operatives.

The 73-year-old former ambassador worked in the US Foreign Service for 25 years, holding top posts in South American nations such as Bolivia and Argentina.

The case against Rocha “exposes one of the highest-reaching and longest-lasting infiltrations of the United States government by a foreign agent”, Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement explaining the charges.

“Those who have the privilege of serving in the government of the United States are given an enormous amount of trust by the public we serve,” Garland said.

“To betray that trust by falsely pledging loyalty to the United States while serving a foreign power is a crime that will be met with the full force of the Justice Department.”

The DOJ has charged Rocha with acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. US law requires those acting on behalf of foreign governments to register with the DOJ.

The Associated Press news agency reported that Rocha was arrested on Friday as part of a counterintelligence probe by the FBI, the US domestic intelligence agency.

The AP reported that Rocha was charged in a federal court in Miami, Florida, and that he is expected to appear in court on Monday.

The website of the US Department of State says that Rocha was sworn in as ambassador to Bolivia on July 14, 2000.

In 2002 he intervened in Bolivia’s presidential race, warning that the US would cut off aid if Bolivians elected Evo Morales, a left-wing candidate and former coca leaf grower.

Rocha’s speech, interpreted as an effort to shape the outcome of an election in a region where the US has a long history of subterfuge and interference, angered Bolivians and helped propel Morales to victory.

Since retiring from government service, Rocha has started a new career as the president of a Dominican gold mine owned partly by Canada’s Barrick Gold that has been accused of environmental degradation, the AP reported.

The company has also faced allegations that it was complicit in extrajudicial killings in Tanzania.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Legia Warsaw fans appear in UK court over violence before Aston Villa match | Football News

Police file charges against 46 people over unrest outside the stadium as Villa and Legia trade blame.

British police say 46 men have been charged after “serious disorder outside” Villa Park in the build-up to a Europa Conference League football match in which authorities said five officers were injured.

“Of those, 43 have been charged with a public order offence, while two have been charged with assaulting police officers and another has been charged with possession of a knife,” West Midland’s Police said in a statement on Saturday.

The unrest occurred on Thursday ahead of kickoff in a game between Aston Villa and Legia Warsaw. Villa won the match 2-1.

Five police officers sustained minor injuries. Two police dogs and two police horses are also recovering from injuries.

“Those charged are aged between 21 and 63, and around 40 are believed to be from Poland. A small number are believed to be UK residents,” West Midland’s Police said.

Police said all apart from one of the men were due in court on Saturday, and a special court had been set up at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to begin hearing the cases on Saturday morning.

Legia Warsaw fans let off flares as they clash with police officers outside Villa Park [Paul Childs/Action Images via Reuters]

On Friday, Aston Villa filed a complaint with UEFA over the conduct of Legia Warsaw officials and the “unprecedented violence” of the Polish team’s fans.

More than 1,000 Polish fans arrived at the stadium but were not given their tickets.

The Warsaw club had been upset that local officials who license all stadium events required the ticket allocation be reduced from 1,700 to 1,000 in response to disorder by Legia fans at a game against AZ Alkmaar in the Netherlands on October 5.

“Due to the inability to authenticate and distribute tickets effectively, Legia Warsaw returned the tickets to the host club,” Legia Warsaw said in a statement on Saturday.

“We emphasise that none of the individuals detained by the police had tickets for the match. Therefore, we strongly object to Legia Warsaw being blamed for Thursday’s incidents in Birmingham.”

In Friday’s statement, Villa said Legia Warsaw had been informed of the ticket allocation details four weeks before the match, adding that the Polish team’s officials had refused to confirm if they would accept their allocation until 4pm on Thursday.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Sandra Day O’Connor, first woman to sit on US Supreme Court, dies at 93 | Courts News

The former justice served from 1981 until 2006, during a time of transition for the nation’s highest court.

Former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a pivotal figure on the nation’s highest court during a period of transformation and the first woman appointed to that role, has died at the age of 93.

In a statement on Friday, the court said that O’Connor died in Phoenix, Arizona, from complications related to dementia and respiratory illness. She served on the Court from 1981 until 2006.

“A daughter of the American Southwest, Sandra Day O’Connor blazed a historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the statement.

O’Connor was appointed by Republican former President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, as the United States began a shift to the right and conservative groups fought to transform the country’s judicial landscape in their favour.

US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor holds up a copy of the US Constitution that she carried with her on September 17, 2005 [File: Matt York/AP Photo]

The former justice was known as a relatively moderate figure, focused on reaching consensus and frustrating critics from both left and right. Her middle-of-the-road approach often made her a key vote in close decisions.

Despite her personal conservatism, O’Connor helped reaffirm the 1973 decision Roe v Wade, which made abortion a constitutional right in the United States.

“Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that can’t control our decision,” O’Connor said in court, reading a summary of the decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

She was also part of a majority that handed the contested 2000 election to former President George W Bush, in a controversial decision that halted a recount effort that could have reversed Bush’s victory in the key state of Florida.

US President George W Bush greets retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor after presenting her with a medal during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington DC on February 10, 2008 [File: Yuri Gripas/Reuters]

O’Connor retired in 2006 during Bush’s second term and was replaced with the more rigidly conservative Samuel Alito as the already conservative court continued a shift to the right.

When the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority forged after decades of organising by the conservative judicial movement, overturned Roe v Wade in June 2022, Alito authored the majority opinion.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version