— Arikan Law

A tough new law in the state of Alabama has had the result of hundreds of parents signing legal documents to ensure that their children can be legally cared for by other relatives and friends should they find themselves in trouble with the law. Indeed, many are living in a state of constant fear over deportation.

The new legal code specifies that law enforcement can stop anyone and ask about their residential and legal status in the state and it also allows for stricter methods to detain and deport illegal immigrants. Many of the children in question are legal American citizens as they were born in the country however, in most cases their parents are not; having entered the states illegally many years ago. It leaves for a legal grey area whereby the child would be eligible to stay in the state but their parents would not hence the large rise in concerned parents essentially handing over control, legally anyway, to friends and relatives should the worst happen.

Civil rights campaigners have been protesting and demanding a federal block on the controversial bill however it is set to stay until at least the end of November when an appeal will begin to be heard. Indeed, many of the parents who had came to the United States illegally have no legal guardians for their children and the result would either be taking them back to their own country or leaving them in state care; an option that imposing on their fundamental rights opponents of the law argue.

A leading UN official on freedom of expression and human rights has called on the Asian nation of Thailand to seriously consider changing the law in regard to Lese Majeste. Frank La Rue is urging the country to have a serious public consultation and debate over the controversial law as he said that it may be coming into conflict with Thailand’s human rights obligations.

The Lese Majeste law means that anyone who offends or in some way insults the Thai monarchy can expect to serve a long and arduous prison sentence. Indeed, another controversial Thai law (The Computer Crimes Act) is also serving to prosecute and convict people under the harsh terms of the Lese Majeste law. Anyone found guilty of defamation against the Royal Family, and especially online due to the new legislation, can be imprisoned for up to 5 years in Thailand’s brutal penal system.

La Rue argues that it fundamentally violates the human right of freedom of expression something that Thailand is supposed to adhere to given that, since 1996, it has been a supporter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which legal binds the country to certain human rights obligations that La Rue believes it is breaking. Indeed the UN official further states that both Thai’s Lese Majeste law and the Computer Crimes Act are ambiguous in their wording and can lead to some very vague and unclear convictions; another breach of the international human rights charter that the country is supposedly following.

A startling rise in amount of foster children succumbing to identity theft has finally convinced law makers to address the problem. Recent studies have shown that foster children are far more likely to be the victim if identity theft and this can have adverse effects for them in later life as many grow up to find that their credit rating has been misused or that they owe thousands of dollars in their name.

A new amendment to the federal law now means that states are required to run checks on foster children’s names, especially older ones that are in care, so as to first determine whether any of them have been victims of having their identity stolen and secondly to resolve the issue before the child becomes an adult and has to deal with the repercussions of it all.

Some studies have estimated that around 30% of children in foster care have had their identity stolen at one time or another due to the fact that children are themselves too young to take out credit – therefore giving them a good credit rating – and have clean social security numbers. Indeed, children as a group are far more likely to fall victim to identity theft with around 10% having their names and details misused compared to only around 2% of adults.

The new law has been in circulation in some states (most notably California and Colorado) however the new federal legislation will make it compulsory for all children in foster care to have their details checked when they leave care and many are further campaigning for every foster care child to have an annual check against their name.

The unmanned drone has almost been a symbol of modern warfare; representing the shift from manpower to technological supremacy and how the 21st century conflict will be fought more with computers and intelligence than sheer strength in numbers. However, the legality of these devices has been called in question several times since the turn of the century and whether or not they are actually legal to use is somewhat of a grey area.

Christine Fair, a professor at Georgetown, argues that the use of drones is one of the United States’ most lucrative advantages over other countries when it comes to gathering intelligence and information. She goes on to say that it is one of the most successful tools ever in warfare and has foiled countless terrorists and militants giving credence to the argument that, if drones aren’t necessarily legal then they certainly should be.

However some argue that they are not a lawful weapon if used outside the theatre of war. While drones have been most popular in the recent conflicts of both Afghanistan and Iraq, they have also been deployed in Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen and it is here that Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame, has argued that they break international law. While O’Connell can justify the use of drones in combat situations where they provide a valuable service and can prevent casualties and human error, using them outside of the combat zone is unlawful although her critics respond with the assertion that if we are locked in a global war on terror then surely the whole world is a battlefield?

Stage 9 of the Tour de France was the scene of a horrific crash never seen before and probably will never be seen again. In the latter portion of the stage, leading riders were involved in a sensational crash that was caused by a TV car. The vehicle hit Team Sky rider Juan Antonio Fletcha causing him to violently crash and sent Dutch rider Johnny Hoogerland into a barbed wire fence.

Team Sky is considering legal actions against the television car as its actions were outside of race protocol. It also caused the team to lose the stage and impact their overall standings in the race. The two riders were bloodied but not seriously hurt and finished over 16 minutes behind.

After the stage, tour organizers got rid of the car and it’s driver. French police are opening an investigation into the crash to see if it was intentional. From replays it appeared that the car swerved to avoid a tree and ended up hitting Fletcha.
Team Sky is also launching an official investigation as they felt this accident was intentional and could go after the driver for criminal and civil damages. Both Fletcha and Hoogerland were in shock over how the accident happened. They got up bloodied and in disarray over the crash. Their respective teams were also in shock as they couldn’t believe what had just happened.
Race organizers will strongly remind the various TV crews of proper protocol and the safety of the cyclists. Both Fletcha and Hoogerland plan on competing in stage 10 on Tuesday.

Three different U.S. appeals courts are set to entertain the fight over President Barak Obama’s health-care law – federal judges were unable to come to a decision on the constitutionality of the law. Citizens that are over the age of 18, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act, are required to obtain health coverage as part of the Obama administration’s goal of unbiased, universal health care availability. Several federal judges have weighed in on the law – some striking down its legality, and others affirming it. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 26 states; however each of the four cases will be placed on equal grounds as the dispute moves toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Each case will be assigned to three-judge panels within the U.S. courts of appeal. The federal government may seek to implement the health-care law outside of certain judicial districts, as long as the appeals are pending.

The new law requires that insurers give coverage to people who are sick without bias, and are prohibited from imposing any sort of lifetime limits on costs. The Justice Department is interested in overturning the decision by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson to invalidate the purchase requirement. The U.S. is trying to analyze the current rulings and is considering what the next steps are pending the appeal. The federal government is expected to file its notice of appeal with the Atlanta U.S. court and then request to block enforcement of any disagreed decisions.