Law Library Life

Are American Indian Nations/reservations/rancherias truly given Sovereign Nation status?

bbaker@sjcl.edu — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:28:18 GMT

I read an interesting article today in the North County Times. Mr. Jim Trageser wrote a piece about a lawsuit over whether Indian casinos in California were paying enough money to the State of California for the privilege of operating their casinos.

Interestingly enough, the plaintiff in the law suit is not the State of California, but a non-Indian resident (how that gets him standing, I'm unsure). In fact, the State of California says that the casinos are paying the state exactly what they owe. This person simply believes it isn't enough.

The case was dismissed at the District Court level, but was reinstated by an Appeals Court yesterday.

The article raises other interesting concepts. By U.S. Treaty, these Indian Reservations are sovereign nations. Yet, the U.S. Government regularly meddles in their affairs, telling them what they can and cannot do.

Would the U.S. Government do this to any other sovereign nation, with the exception of Iraq? No.

Why, and by what authority, do we do it to the Indian Nations?

EDIT:

After I finished the above, I found an article stating that the United Nations had just passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This non-binding declaration "sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. . . .It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development."

Of course, with America's treatment of our indigenous peoples, the Native Americans, we had to be one of the four countries to vote against it - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

It is interesting that all four of these countries are former British colonies with abysmal records with regards to the rights of indigenous peoples.

The FBI's National Security Letters (NSL's) and you!

bbaker@sjcl.edu — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:08:37 GMT

National Security Leters (NSLs) "allow [FBI] agents in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations to secretly gather Americans' phone, bank and Internet records without a court order or a grand jury subpoena.

Wowser! Sounds like a fundamental violation of Constitutional Privacy rights to me! Fortunately, it sounded that way to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero as well.

The Washington Posts reports today, that Judge Marrero ruled, in the case of Doe v. Gonzales, that the Patriot Act's provisions on NSL's was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

The ruling strikes down all provisions in the Patriot Act regarding the use of NSL's, but Judge Marrero delayed the enforcement of his decision for 90 days so that the government could appeal.

The plaintiff in this case could not use their real name because acknowledging that you received an NSL is a violation of the Patriot Act.

This nation has had the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) Court in place for over 20 years. It is housed in a secure, fortified room within the Department of Justice. It is used to get secret warrants to wiretap security threats.

The FISA Court has NEVER turned down a request by the government. Yet, this administration, through the PATRIOT Act, aptly misnamed, felt the need to bypass their own private court. Why? Probably because they wanted warrant powers on such flimsy evidence that even their own private court would say no.

That should give all Americans pause.

I lived in Washington, DC during 9/11 and had 2 kids at a downtown day care near my wife's office at the time the Pentagon was hit. It was a very scary time. That said, I see no reason that this adminsitration had any need to force such draconian laws down our throats. I firmly believe it has all been about scaring Americans to stay in power than about protecting us.

Thank God the Judiciary and Cogress is finally starting to get a spine!
maerro_decision_090607.pdf

Please, help me save some lives!

bbaker@sjcl.edu — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 04:13:10 GMT

Dear Friends,

Greetings!!

Some of you may know that my younger brother, Jay Baker, is suffering through a particularly hard case of cancer.

I am raising money, in Jay's honor, for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society as a participant in their Team In Training program. I will be training to participate in a 100 mile bicycle ride, the "America's Most Beautiful Bicycle Ride," a Century race around Lake Tahoe in June, 2007.

I'm asking you to help by making a contribution. Each donation helps accelerate cures for leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma and brings hope to the patients and families who are on the front lines of the battle against these diseases.

Please use the link in this email to donate online quickly and securely. You will receive a confirmation by email of your donation and I will be notified as soon as you make your donation.

On behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Jay, and myself, thank you very much for your support. I truly appreciate your generosity!

You can learn more about my efforts, see a recent picture of Jay, and make a donation by visiting my Web site:

http://www.active.com/donate/tntccal/tntccalBBaker

In case anyone is interested, I am starting this training February 3rd. At the start of training I will weigh about 270 pounds. I hope this will change that, too.

Thank you for your patience and for reading this far.

Sincerely,

Brian L. Baker

P.S. Please forward this email to as many people as you can to encourage them to donate as well!

P.P.S. If you have any concerns or comments, please feel free to email me at bbaker@sjcl.edu

The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair?

bbaker@sjcl.edu — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:10:35 GMT

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe Saddam Hussein (SH) and his sons did some awful things to the people of Iraq when he was in power. That said, I have been against the war in Iraq from the start. I knew I was being lied to from the beginning. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan however as they, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11.

My questions revolve around why this trial was held in Iraq at all, was it a fair trial, and why was there such a rush to execution.

In the recent past, the US has gone to war (or at least had police actions) in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Somalia. In at least two of those actions/wars we have worked to have leaders suspected of genocide removed to be tried at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). With the Iraq war the US deliberately avoided sending SH to the ICJ. Why? Was the US not sure that SH could be convicted by the ICJ?

The ICJ could be impartial and has structured rules for prosecuting cases of genocide. Why would we avoid using the ICJ? Very curious.

During the trial at least two defence counsels were murdered and a number of defense counsel staff members were murdered as well. In addition, the presiding judge, the one that oversaw most of the trial quit. When a replacement was brought in that showed some sympathy to SH, and refused to tow the party line, he was removed immediately and another judge brought in. These events should, by any legal measure, constitute a mistrial.

Why was a new trial not granted?

Why didn't the US see the injustice and move the trial elsewhere - preferably to the ICJ?

Once the verdict was approved on appeal, the US turned SH over to the Iraqi government who executed him within 24 hours.

Despite Iraqi Constitutional Law that forbids the execution of prisoners on religious holy days, the Shia majority rushed SH to the gallows and executed him on the holy festival of Eid ul-Adha, during the Hajj.

What was the rush? Why did the US not want SH tried before the ICJ? What was everyone afraid of.

Now we have given the Sunni's in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Syria a reason to rise up and fight. Removing SH to the ICJ would have been the smart move. Unfortunately, there have been very few smart moves in this dismal war.

Former President Jimmy Carter on Israel, Palestine and Apartheid

bbaker@sjcl.edu — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:56:00 GMT

Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a book entitled "Palestine: Peace, Not Aprtheid." The title alone has stirred up a major controversy. The word "Apartheid" is a very loaded word and one, when applied to Israel brings swift rebuke. The Anti-Defamation League has taken out full page ads in newspapers attacking President Carter, saying, “Mr. Carter does not advance public debate. He diminishes it.”

The New York Times, in its "The Lede" blog authored by Tom Zeller, Jr. discusses the issues here. Be sure to read the intersting opinions in the comment section below the article.

My take?

Former President Carter is one of my heroes. He has proven his commitment of International Human Rights by traveling the world over helping people and countries in need. Sure there are some minor errors in dates in the book, but he is being attacked most for his interpretation of UN Security Counsel Resolution 242. This is a semantic arguement that has been going on since the Resolution was passed. Here is the complete text of the Resolution. Decide for your self if President Carter was correct in his use of the word "must.":

Text of Resolution

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.