Copenhagen Conundrum

We are only a week away from the beginning of the highly anticipated global climate summit in Copenhagen.  I recently took part in a mock negotiation session (I represented Mexico), and I can attest to just how difficult it will be to reach any agreement at the summit – even, as has been suggested lately, an agreement in principle without a formally binding treaty.  World leaders recognized as much at the recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, and admitted that it was unrealistic to expect that a legally binding international treaty could be negotiated at Copenhagen.  From the basics of climate science to poverty abatement, the issues that divide the parties are vast.  Those issues have been discussed extensively, so I will instead point out three recent events that may affect the likelihood of a deal:

November 20, 2009: An electronic break-in at the University of East Anglia reveals documents and e-mails that appear to show intent to withhold or manipulate certain data; quickly dubbed “Climategate” by climate skeptics, the leaks are at best embarrassing for prominent climate scientists.

November 25, 2009: President Obama announces that the United States will commit to emissions cuts of 17 percent by 2020 and about 83 percent by 2050; Obama also announced that he will personally attend part of the summit.  The pledges are expected to break a logjam of countries that had been waiting for a United States commitment. 

November 29, 2009: India and China indicate that they may walk out of the negotiations if the developed countries do not agree to the sharing of “green” technology and massive economic transfers for a variety of climate change mitigation and abatement purposes, such as stopping deforestation and forest degradation.

No matter what your position is, the challenges are daunting and the stakes are high.  Whatever happens, the Copenhagen summit will be a fascinating opportunity to observe international diplomacy in the environmental context.

Continue ReadingCopenhagen Conundrum

Musings on Torture and the Saving of Lives

1465e9731e43ae5aI was interested in Lisa LaPlante’s post on torture. It came hard upon my attendance at a conference on Christian Realism in which the matter of hard choices got quite the attention. My comment got so long that I’ve decided to make it a post. I offer it here in the interest of stirring up some controversy to wake us from the haze of our tryptophan coma.

Lisa, commenting on the recent film Men Who Stare At Goats, asks if we are Cassidy or Hooper? I haven’t seen the movie, but the question strikes me as too simple. We are  both and perhaps we should be.

Continue ReadingMusings on Torture and the Saving of Lives

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: More on Other Bad Acts Evidence

seventh-circuit5The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case this week, and it is not one in which the court broke new legal ground.  In United States v. Harris (No. 07-4017) (Williams, J.), the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for drug trafficking and unlawful gun possession.  The defendant raised various evidentiary objections on appeal, including a challenge to the use of other bad acts evidence against him.  Specifically, the government introduced evidence of prior drug sales perpetrated by Harris in order to show that he intended to distribute the drugs he was charged with possessing.

Litigation over other bad acts seems a routine feature of appeals in drug-trafficking cases.  As I suggested in this earlier post, it strikes me that the Seventh Circuit has pretty well interpreted the Rule 404(b) restrictions on evidence of other bad acts out of existence, at least in drug cases.  Although not as broadly worded as some other opinions, nothing in Harris seems inconsistent with the view that drug defendants are unlikely to find success with their Rule 404(b) arguments on appeal.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: More on Other Bad Acts Evidence