Although the news is likely to be buried in the understandable hoopla over the same-sex marriage case, the Supreme Court today also agreed to review Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a case where property owners argue that the federal governments demand that they turn over large quantities of raisins is a taking for which they are entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The governments effort to seize the raisins is part of a program intended to increase the price of raisinsby creating an artificial scarcity on the market, thereby benefiting producers at the expense of consumers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the owners claim in large part because it concluded that the just compensation requirement of the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal [property] such as the raisins, than to real property.

Will Baude has a good post explaining the case in greater detail here. As he notes, I joined an amicus brief co-authored with several other property and constitutional law scholars urging the Supreme Court to take the case and overrule the Ninth Circuit. The brief explains in some detail why the Takings Clause protects personal property on par with real property, and demonstrates that that understanding goes all the way back to the Founding.

Horne is now one of the rare cases that has gone to the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the Court unanimously rejected the federal governments claim that the property owners should not even be allowed to present their Takings Clause argument in federal court without first paying some $483,000 in fines and pursuing various likely futile administrative remedies.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" (forthcoming) and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."

Read the original post:

Volokh Conspiracy: Raisin takings case returns to the Supreme Court

The Mexican government is throwing its weight behind a U.S. lawsuit filed by the parents of a Mexican teenager who was killed in his country when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired his weapon across the border.

When agents of the United States Government violate fundamental rights of Mexican nationals, it is one of Mexicos priorities to ensure that the United States has provided adequate means to hold the agents accountable and compensate the victims, lawyers for the Mexican governmentwrote in a brief filed on Thursday.

The case marks the first time a U.S. appeals court has considered the legal implications of a cross-border shooting. The question before the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the U.S. Constitution reaches into the Mexican side of the 2,000-mile border with the U.S.

The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in June that the parents ofSergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca could sueU.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. for alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be . . . deprived of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The panel threw out claims against the U.S. government and Mr. Mesas supervisors. The Fifth Circuit has agreed to rehear the case, with all active judges participating, at the request of the U.S. government and Mr. Mesa.

The Mexican government sought to assure the court that it had no qualms about the U.S. Constitution nosing into its territory, in this instance at least.

Any invasion of Mexicos sovereigntyoccurred when Agent Mesa shot his gun across the border at SergioHernndez. Requiring Agent Mesa to answer for that action in U.S. courttothe same extent as if Hernndez were a U.S. national or on U.S. soilonly shows respect for Mexicos sovereignty, the brief said.

The lawsuit alleges that in June 2010, Mr. Hernndez was playing with a group of friends in the cement culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The game involved touching the barbed-wire fence on the U.S. side of the border, and then running back down the incline of the culvert into Mexico.

When Mr. Mesa arrived on the scene, he detained one of Mr. Hernndezs friends on the U.S. side of the border. Still in U.S. territory, Mr. Mesa then shot Mr. Hernndez, who had retreated down the culvert back into Mexico, according to the complaint.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said after the incident that Mr. Mesa, who is still a member of the Border Patrol, used force because the group was throwing rocks at him, ignoring his commands to stop.

See the rest here:

Mexican Government Backs Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent

RACINE The federal lawsuit brought against the city by former owners of five shuttered Racine bars is continuing its slow march toward trial, but attorneys are still deep within the information-gathering process known as discovery. Meanwhile, one defendant has taken the Fifth Amendment for some claims.

Filed first on Feb. 25, and then amended on Aug. 21, the lawsuit accuses Mayor John Dickert and close to a dozen other defendants of engaging in an elaborate plot to drive minority tavern owners out of the city, violating the bar owners constitutional and civil rights, and running afoul of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as RICO.

In addition to claiming minority bar owners were held to different standards than their white counterparts, the lawsuit accuses some Racine City Tavern League members of engaging in an elaborate effort to bankroll Dickerts mayoral campaigns that resulted in minority-owned bars being targeted, and their licenses freed up for white bar owners.

When the suit was first filed, there were 20 defendants and eight plaintiffs. Since then one of the plaintiffs Cerafin C. Davalos, the owner of the former Ceras Tequila Bar has been dropped from the complaint, as have eight of the original defendants, including the tavern league itself.

Although attorneys for the remaining municipal defendants continue to deny the allegations, the case has proceeded to the discovery process.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled in November that while the civil rights conspiracy claims in the lawsuit should be dismissed, the RICO claims made against the municipal defendants and private defendant Doug Nicholson should proceed to discovery along with the civil rights complaints.

Discovery began in earnest in November. The process, whereby plaintiffs and defendants can obtain evidence from the opposing party, is expected to wind on for several months, said Michael J. Cohen of Meissner, Tierney, Fisher & Nichols S.C., the attorney for the city, Dickert, and 10 other municipal defendants.

There is quite a bit of it that has been requested particularly from the municipal defendants, Cohen said. I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up being 2 million pages of paper that (the plaintiffs) have requested including electronic information.

On Jan. 6 Stadtmueller honored a request by both parties to keep certain personal information contained in the documents such as Social Security numbers of the parties, or identifying information of those not named in the suits, such as witnesses in police reports sealed to public.

But attorneys for the defendants havent spent all their time filling document requests and preparing for depositions. They have also filed answers to the plaintiffs amended complaint.

More:

Legal process continues in bars lawsuit, Fifth Amendment asserted

Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marchinova given immunity from prosecution Pleaded right to silence when asked if Andrew had sex with teenage girls Have now been reinvented as Sarah Kensington, 34 and Nadia Marcinko, 29 Ms Kensington renovates corporate apartments and dates a racing driver Miss Marcinko is chief executive of Aviloop, which sells discounted flights Both operate from 1.5m addresses in building owned by Epstein's brother Jeffrey Epstein, 61, allegedly made huge efforts to look after those who kept quiet about his crimes

By Sam Greenhill In Florida and Daniel Bates In New York For The Daily Mail

Published: 20:50 EST, 7 January 2015 | Updated: 03:55 EST, 8 January 2015

They were the glamorous Jeffrey Epstein aides who refused to testify about Prince Andrews visits to the House of Sin.

Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marchinova both pleaded their right to silence under the US Fifth Amendment when asked if the royal had sex with teenage girls earning themselves the nickname the blondes who took the Fifth.

Today, Epsteins former PA Miss Kellen and Miss Marchinova his on-off girlfriend have reinvented themselves as Sarah Kensington and Nadia Marcinko.

Scroll down for video

Sarah Kensington - formerly Sarah Kellen - and her racing driver boyfriend Brian Vickers (left) and Nadia Marchinova, who is now Nadia Marcinko (right)

Miss Kensington, 34, is an interior designer who boasts of renovating corporate apartments in New York, the Caribbean and Paris and dating a handsome racing car driver.

Miss Marcinko, 29, is a pilot and the chief executive of Aviloop, a company selling discounted flying lessons.

Read the original here:

New lives of the girls in Prince Andrew sex claim row

Joe Tex - Take the fifth amendment
A hidden gem on Joe Tex #39;s Happy Soul album, 1969.

By: mrsoulsatisfaction

See the original post:

Joe Tex - Take the fifth amendment - Video

FIFTH AMENDMENT I GOT YOU WHERE I WANT YOU
SOUL.

By: TheNickNicola

See the original post:

FIFTH AMENDMENT I GOT YOU WHERE I WANT YOU - Video

FIFTH AMENDMENT PLEASE DON #39;T LEAVE ME NOW
SOUL.

By: TheNickNicola

Here is the original post:

FIFTH AMENDMENT PLEASE DON'T LEAVE ME NOW - Video

Fifth Amendment: The Movie
Learning about the fifth amendment...

By: marie219219

Read the original here:

Fifth Amendment: The Movie - Video

Ex-model among women staying silent on dealings with Jeffrey Epstein Adriana Ross also refused to answer questions about Prince Andrew She was hired by billionaire Epstein and worked at his mansion in Florida Ross was asked if Prince slept with under-age girls but did not comment Twoother female employees of Epstein also refuse to answer questions

By Sam Marsden for the Daily Mail

Published: 17:54 EST, 4 January 2015 | Updated: 02:35 EST, 5 January 2015

A former top model is among several women who have refused to answer questions about their dealings with Jeffrey Epstein under oath, including whether Prince Andrew was involved with under-age girls.

Adriana Ross, who moved to Florida from her native Poland in 2002, was hired to work at billionaire Epsteins Florida mansion and helped to organise his diary.

She was interviewed on video in March 2010 by a lawyer for alleged abuse victims as part of civil proceedings against the paedophile financier. But she repeatedly invoked the US constitutions Fifth Amendment, which protects people against incriminating themselves.

Miss Ross was asked: Has Prince Andrew ever been involved with under-age minor females to your knowledge? She replied: I refuse to answer.

Scroll down for video

Diary organiser: Former top model Adriana Ross (right) is among several women who have refused to answer questions about their dealings with Jeffrey Epstein (left)

No comment: Nadia Marcinkova, left, and Sarah Kellen, right, pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked about Prince Andrew

Link:

Silence of the Jeffrey Epstein women over Prince Andrew 'sex slave' allegations

BATAVIA After making headlines last year when he instructed his students that they had the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves before answering an in-class survey about emotional and at-risk behavior, former Batavia High School social studies teacher John Dryden is among eight candidates running for three seats on the Batavia School Board in April.

Dryden in October retired from Batavia School District 101. Dryden has said that in the days leading up to his retirement, he was facing a disciplinary action from a parent who complained about a lesson he gave on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Dryden said he was facing a three-day, unpaid suspension for teaching an unauthorized lesson.

The district told him he would have to use only school board-approved sources in the future, Dryden said. But, he said, the school boards only approved sources are textbooks.

In running for school board, Dryden has said that he wants to create an environment that is collaborative. He taught for Batavia School District 101 for 21 years.

There are three seats open on the Batavia School Board in Aprils election. The terms of board President Cathy Dremel, along with the terms of board members Gregg Hodge and Melanie Impastato, will expire next year.

Dremel filed to run for re-election, along with Impastato, who was appointed to the board in June 2013 after the resignation of school board member Kathleen Roberts.

Other Batavia School Board candidates include William Bill Gabriel, Ellen Knautz, Christopher Lowe, Michelle Olache and Ron Rechenmacher.

Eric Schelkopf

Read more:

Former teacher Dryden running for Batavia School Board

BATAVIA After making headlines last year when he instructed his students that they had the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves before answering an in-class survey about emotional and at-risk behavior, former Batavia High School social studies teacher John Dryden is among eight candidates running for three seats on the Batavia School Board in April.

Dryden in October retired from Batavia School District 101. Dryden has said that in the days leading up to his retirement, he was facing a disciplinary action from a parent who complained about a lesson he gave on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Dryden said he was facing a three-day, unpaid suspension for teaching an unauthorized lesson.

The district told him he would have to use only school board-approved sources in the future, Dryden said. But, he said, the school boards only approved sources are textbooks.

In running for school board, Dryden has said that he wants to create an environment that is collaborative. He taught for Batavia School District 101 for 21 years.

There are three seats open on the Batavia School Board in Aprils election. The terms of board President Cathy Dremel, along with the terms of board members Gregg Hodge and Melanie Impastato, will expire next year.

Dremel filed to run for re-election, along with Impastato, who was appointed to the board in June 2013 after the resignation of school board member Kathleen Roberts.

Other Batavia School Board candidates include William Bill Gabriel, Ellen Knautz, Christopher Lowe, Michelle Olache and Ron Rechenmacher.

Eric Schelkopf

Continue reading here:

Newsmakers: John Dryden

Jurors are not likely to see longtime Etan Patz murder suspect Jose Ramos at the upcoming trial of Pedro Hernandez the person charged with the notorious crime.

A Manhattan judge indicated he wont let Ramos, a convicted pedophile who was dating Patz's babysitter in 1979 when the 6-year-old went missing, take the stand at Hernandezs murder trial if he plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Ramos lawyer said he would.

It seems to be if the witness chooses to take the Fifth, that's it I just don't see that happening, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley said.

Hernandez's attorneys Harvey Fishbein and Alice Fontier can still present evidence relating to Ramos's history as a suspect in Patz's disappearance, including a 1988 statement in which he discusses his relationship to the sitter, the judge has said.

Ramos who was transferred last week from a Pennsylvania prison to New York City as a material witness for the impending trial is expected to be brought to court on Tuesday to formally be asked about his willingness to testify.

Hernandez gave police and prosecutors a full confession to the crime in 2012, which prosecutors argue is a reliable and key piece of evidence.

Hernandez's lawyers contend hes mentally ill and was coached into confessing.

Jury selection is slated to begin Jan. 5.

See the original post:

Longtime Etan Patz murder suspect might not testify

Fifth Amendment Example

By: SuperSeb124

The rest is here:

Fifth Amendment Example - Video

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) A convicted child molester who was long suspected in the 1979 missing child case of Etan Patz plans to invoke his right against self-incrimination if called to testify in the murder trial of a man now charged with the crime, his lawyer said Friday.

It was not yet clear Friday what questions Jose Ramos might ultimately be asked or have to answer in the trial stemming from Etan Patzs disappearance, or whether theres specific information he doesnt want to divulge. His lawyer, Frank Rothman, would only say that Ramos has no desire to speak to anybody about this.

He plans on invoking whatever Fifth Amendment rights he has, Rothman said, referring to the constitutional provision against self-incrimination.

Former convenience store stock clerk Pedro Hernandez is set to go on trial next month in a case that helped propel the cause of missing children to the fore. Six-year-old Etan disappeared while walking to his Manhattan school bus stop. His body was never found.

Hernandez, 53, has pleaded not guilty to Etan, who vanished while walking to his school bus stop. Patz was one of the first missing children ever pictured on a milk carton. The anniversary of his disappearance became National Missing Childrens Day.

Hernandez became a suspect in 2012 after police got a tip that hed made statements to relatives and acquaintances about having harmed a child in New York years ago. He then gave police a videotaped confession saying he lured the boy into the convenience store basement and choked him.

The Maple Shade, New Jersey, man confessed on video after more than six hours of questioning, telling police he lured Etan to the store basement with the promise of a soda, choked the boy, put the body in a bag and a box and left it on the street several blocks away.

Police and prosecutors found his confession credible. Hernandezs lawyers say he falsely confessed because of mental problems.

No one else has ever been charged, but over the years, other suspects had come under scrutiny especially Ramos, who had been dating Etans baby sitter and who later was convicted of abusing two boys in Pennsylvania.

A former federal prosecutor said Ramos had given him a 90 percent confession in Etans case but stopped short of saying he had killed the boy or that it was definitely Etan _ and two jailhouse snitches said Ramos made admissions to them, though he has since denied involvement. Etans parents pursued a wrongful-death lawsuit against Ramos, and after he stopped cooperating with questioning, a court ruled him responsible.

Read the original:

Attorney: Convicted Child Abuser To Invoke 5th Amendment If Asked To Testify In Etan Patz Trial

Home Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Civil

Here you can get all information about Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Civil . This will also answer your question about Fifth amendment right against self incrimination in civil. Fifth amendment right against self incrimination in civil cases gary a u dashe n b arry s orrels, p c s or r el s & u dashe n 2301 c ed ar s pr i n gs r oa d.

Asserting the fifth amendment in civil proceedings

5th amendment us constitution--rights of persons

Volume 24 number 12, december 2010 securities litigation

The background of the fifth amendment in english law: a

California law review tention given to the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and an attempt to define the boundaries of the right to. Read explanation for Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Civil

Here i will explain about Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Civil . Many people have talked about Fifth amendment right against selfincrimination. But in this post i will explain Fifth amendment: right against self-incrimination (1791) the government cannot force citizens to testify against themselves. by allowing people to refuse to answer more clearly than another blog.

The fifth amendment to the us constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, when to do so would help establish. Fifth amendment right against self incrimination in civil cases gary a u dashe n b arry s orrels, p c s or r el s & u dashe n 2301 c ed ar s pr i n gs r oa d.

The fifth amendment (amendment v) to the united states constitution is part of the bill of rights and protects against unfair treatment in legal processes the. Read more on Fifth amendment right against self incrimination in civil.

See the article here:

Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination In Civil ...

Convicted murderer Charlie Ely refuses to answer questions based on fifth amendment rights during the third day of Amber Wright and her brother Kyle Hooper's first degree murder trial at the Marion County Judicial Center in Ocala, FL on Friday June 8, 2012. Wright and Hooper are accused in the brutal slaying of Wright's former boyfriend Seath Jackson in April 2011. The murder occurred at her trailer and she was convicted for her participation. (Alan Youngblood/Ocala Star-Banner)2012

As Michael Bargo's appeal remains pending before the Florida Supreme Court and Amber Wright's case ping-pongs between the trial and appellate courts, a third co-defendant Charlie Ely is trying to get some post-conviction relief of her own.

Ely recently filed a 45-page motion claiming her defense attorney was ineffective in handling her case. She said she is entitled to post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial.

Ely, now 22, was one of five young people charged with first-degree murder in the 2011 death of Seath Jackson, 15. She was found guilty on Sept. 23, 2011, and sentenced to life in prison.

In her motion, Ely, takes issue with her trial counsel's decision to take the case to trial only five months after the murder; failing to dismiss jurors from the panel who gave the appearance they couldn't be unbiased; failing to preserve objections for the appellate record and renew previous objections; and allowing certain incriminating evidence to come before the jury.

Ely argues that these mistakes constitute a violation of her civil rights. The cumulative effect of counsel's errors deprived the defendant of her right to a fair trial, Ely wrote in her motion. She is representing herself on appeal.

She argues that, had her attorney done things differently, perhaps her case's outcome would have been different.

Trial evidence showed Ely aided Wright's attempts to lure Seath to Ely's Summerfield home, where co-defendants Michael Bargo, Justin Soto and Kyle Hooper were. The men were accused of helping beat, shoot and burn his body in a backyard fire pit before placing the ashes in paint buckets and dumping them into a lake at the bottom of a lime rock quarry.

Ely was the first of five teen co-defendants to stand trial. Her attorney did not waive her right to a speedy trial, and therefore the state had to prosecute her within 90 days.

Ely argues that this move left her with a biased jury pool selected from a community still enraged over the highly publicized crime.

Read more here:

Woman convicted in Seath Jackson murder seeks post-conviction relief

BATAVIA Former Batavia High School social studies teacher John Dryden is among eight candidates running for three seats on the Batavia School Board in April.

Monday was the first day for candidates to file for the April 7 consolidated election. They have until Monday to file their nominating petitions.

Because all Batavia school board candidates filed at 8:30 a.m., there will be a lottery at 10 a.m. Friday at the Kane County Clerks Office to determine ballot placement.

Dryden recently retired from Batavia School District 101. He made local and national headlines last year when he instructed his students that they had the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves before answering an in-class survey about emotional and at-risk behavior.

In addition, Batavia School Board President Cathy Dremel filed to run for re-election, along with board member Melanie Impastato, who was appointed to the board in June 2013 after the resignation of school board member Kathleen Roberts.

Other Batavia School Board candidates include William Bill Gabriel, Ellen Knautz, Christopher Lowe, Michelle Olache and Ron Rechenmacher.

Batavia City Council

In the city of Batavia, Carl Dinwiddie filed a nominating petition for the 1st Ward, and 3rd Ward Alderman Dan Chanzit, 4th Ward Alderman Susan Stark, 5th Ward Alderman Lucy Thelin Atac and 7th Ward Aldermen Dave Brown filed for re-election.

In addition, Michael Russotto and Ron Rechenmacher filed to run in the 6th Ward.

Messenger Library Board in North Aurora

Read the rest here:

8 candidates running for three seats on Batavia School Board

AP

The NFL Players Association intended to scrutinize immediately the new personal conduct policy for terms that permit potential legal challenges, either through arbitration or a claim with the National Labor Relations Board.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFLPA has identified multiple specific areas of concern and communicated those concerns to the Executive Committee and board of player representatives. The three biggest issues are summarized below.

First, the union disputes the leagues belief that Fifth Amendment rights have no relevance to the new policy. We disagree and will vigorously protect ALL players 5th Amendment rights; we will ensure that an NFLPA attorney and criminal attorney protect a player at every step of any NFL investigation, NFLPA management informed the Executive Committee and player representatives in a memo, a copy of which PFT has obtained. This is crucial for players protection because any information gathered in an employers investigation is not privileged, and law enforcement could obtain and make prosecutorial decisions based on such information. The NFLPA also will aggressively address the possibility that a player who invokes his Fifth Amendment right will be disciplined for failing to cooperate with the leagues investigation.

Second, the NFLPA disagrees with the plan to put players on paid leave when charged with a crime of violence. [W]e strongly object to such unilateral action by the Commissioner/Owners, in no small part because many players have contracts that include significant roster bonuses, etc., the NFLPA said. Moreover, the removal of a player from the field is a form of discipline regardless of whether he is paid his paragraph 5 salary. We do not believe that unilaterally placing players on the Commissioner Exempt list with pay before issuance of discipline in form of fine or suspension is permitted by the CBA or NFL Constitution.

Third, the NFLPA contends that the new approach to discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy, with the Commissioner delegating the initial decision to a to-be-hired Special Counsel for Investigations and Conduct, violates the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

This new disciplinary structure violates the CBA, the NFLPA explained to the players. Article 46 of the CBA, which was obviously collectively bargained, contains the specific agreement that the Commissioner issues the initial discipline, and the parties agreed that he can delegate appeal decision rights; the CBA language allowing for delegation is specific and its absence for the Commissioner to delegate to another NFL paid position is clear.

The NFLPA may challenge these and other provisions by pursuing a system arbitration under the labor deal or filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

Original post:

Union has multiple legal concerns regarding new conduct policy

Refugees from Africa line up at a makeshift immigrant processing center in Bnei Brak, the only one open to them in Israel. Photo by Simone Wilson

One hour before the 19th Israeli Knesset, or parliament, dissolved forever on Dec. 8, its members made a last-ditch effort to save Holot, the open desert prison they created one year prior to detain undocumented Eritrean and Sudanese immigrants.

On the table was a fifth amendment to the half-century-old Anti-Infiltration Law created to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to Israel, but amended in recent years to govern the fate of 50,000 Africans who trekked to Israels southern border seeking work and asylum.

The latest amendment comes in response to a Supreme Court ruling in September that found Holot to be unconstitutional. Instead of closing it completely, Knesset members proposed that individual prison terms be limited to 20 months, and that prisoner check-ins be cut from three times per day to once each night.

After the final tally on the night of Dec. 8, the bill passed 41 to 29.

Members of the 19th Knesset, known for their high-drama plenum battles, used the vote to stage a final showdown of ideals.

[We must] keep this country as the nation-state of the Jewish people and not invite a situation in which thousands of infiltrators come here to find work, said right-wing Knesset member Miri Regev, a member of the prime ministers Likud Party. Its a disgrace that parties who call themselves Zionist, like the Labor Party, opposed this bill.

Knesset member Nitzan Horowitz, a former TV reporter belonging to the leftist Meretz Party, fired back. Its too bad Regev and the interior minister didnt read the High Courts first verdict overturning the law, he said. They would have understood that in a democratic state, it is impossible to imprison people without a trial. It doesnt matter whether theyre Blacks from Africa, blonds from Sweden or people from Tel Aviv or Yeruham.

The goal of the new legislation, as stated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when it was drafted on Nov. 30, is to continue driving undocumented Africans out of Israel.

It fits the reality, Netanyahu said of the law. It also fits the rulings of the High Court of Justice. I remind you that Israel has achieved the extraordinary, which Im very proud of, in blocking illegal migration across our borders zero illegal migrants. Part of this entails repatriating illegal migrants. This year we repatriated over 6,000 illegal migrants. This legislation is designed to enable us to continue this trend.

Link:

19th Knessets dying wish: Drive Africans from Israel

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA detention and interrogation program has quickly stirred up a white-hot debate on the use of torture to extract information from our enemies.

And though there is great passion on both sides, this is not a new topic to be argued.

In the late 16th century, some 200 years before the formation of our republic, the French nobleman Michel de Montaigne shifted the centuries-old debate about the use of torture from the question of its effectiveness to the question of its inhumanity. That is, while earlier writers had worried above all about the reliability of testimony extracted from tortured suspects, Montaigne was horrified that a civilized society would make use of such a barbaric practice.

Montaigne's new perspective would come to exercise considerable influence over the ways in which intellectuals and political elites viewed torture down to our own time.

But it was above all a thin volume titled Of Crimes and Punishments, first published anonymously in 1764, that served as the clarion call for the abolition of torture. The secret of the author's identity was not held for long. The Milanese philosopher Cesare Beccaria had completed this revolutionary work at the age of 26.

Beccaria's text would have a cascading influence. Its translation into many languages paralleled an era that saw regime after regime dismantle the use of torture: Prussia in 1754, Denmark in 1770, Poland in 1776, France in 1789, the Netherlands in 1798 and Portugal in 1826.

Beccaria was influential in the United States as well. Thomas Jefferson read him with appreciation, as did James Madison and John Adams. When the Founders crafted the Bill of Rights, Beccaria's ideas made themselves palpable. We see this in the Eight Amendment, which prohibited the use of "cruel and unusual punishments" one of the enduring bases to the principle that neither the courts nor the federal government may use torture.

But the Fifth Amendment, with its stipulation that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," was perhaps an even clearer constitutional obstacle to the use of torture. If a person suspected of a crime could not testify against himself, then torture could really play no role, since one of the key aims of torturers is to extricate self-incriminating evidence from a suspect, whether of a common criminal or a terrorist.

Historians are right therefore to stress that the period running from the Renaissance (the age of Montaigne) to the Enlightenment (the age of Beccaria) witnessed the emergence of new ideas about the person. These ideas would shape many contemporary values, as reformers drew on them not only to end torture but also slavery and religious repression.

These same ideas were, not incidentally, fundamental to shaping democratic and open institutions. This doesn't mean the ideas were always successful or without contradictions, but they unquestionably enabled a new notion of the human person and the political community to emerge. It is within this cluster of new ideas that men and women came to see torture not merely as ineffective but as fundamentally wrong. Torture degrades both the victim and its perpetuator. It strips both of their dignity and their humanity. The ends cannot justify the means.

See the original post here:

History foreshadows against the use of torture