All the pseudo-MilJus news you can handle.  All very interesting but tangential so I’ll keep it short.

  • WaPo reports on another potential source of concern for US military personnel, CIA employees, and US contractors in conducting covert counter-terrorism operations, the African Coimmission on Human and People’s Rights:

American and British human rights lawyers filed legal documents at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, urging it to require the government of Djibouti to “answer for abuses it committed” as part of the CIA’s secret program. The case made public Monday was filed confidentially in December 2009. . . . “It’s safe to say – without commenting on this specific matter – that much of what has been alleged about the former CIA detention and interrogation program, which ended over two years ago, is simply incorrect,” said CIA spokesman George Little. The commission, based in the Gambia, is a quasi-judicial body that has jurisdiction over nations that have ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which includes Djibouti.

The allegations are that:

Mohammed al-Asad . . . was arrested in late 2003 at his home in Tanzania, blindfolded and flown to a secret prison in Djibouti. He said he was subjected to two weeks of torture and inhuman treatment in a clandestine CIA rendition and detentions program designed to nab suspected terrorists. From Djibouti, human rights activists say, Asad was dispatched into a network of secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe, before being jailed in his native Yemen. In 2006, Asad was released, without being charged with a terrorism-related crime.

  • The Guardian (UK) reports that a Western contractor employee, a British national,  has been convicted in an Iraqi court and sentenced to 20 years for the murder of a fellow Brit and an Aussie in a “whisky-fueled” dispute.  This is the first conviction of a Westerner since the US-Iraq SOFA revoked most contractor immunity in Iraq.  According to the story, his PTSD-related evidence may have saved him from the death penalty.
  • SCOTUSBlog reports on anti-military bias SCOTUS case decided today.  In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 09-400, the Court held that an employer can be liable under USERRA “if a supervisor acts with [an anti-military] discriminatory motive, and the supervisor’s action is the proximate cause of an adverse action (eg, a firing) . . .  The fact that the company’s HR department conducted the firing, and it had no discriminatory motive, makes no difference.”

One Response to “Military “Justice” News”

  1. Cap'n Crunch says:

    I think some comment is deserving of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Henderson v. Shinseki, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that claims deadlines were not jurisdictional in light of the Article I court and a preference for the protection of rights by military members, and CAAF’s prouncement that the filing deadline in Article 67 is a jurisdictional bar to review.

    I think that the Henderson case may be grounds to revisit the jurisdictional bar.