By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court declined without comment to hear the case Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc, ending a two-decade long legal battle. Even if the advocates had won, the legal grounds were decided on a procedural issue and therefore the team would have only lost trademark protection, but would not have been forced to change its name. The team is firm in its stance that it will not and would not change the team name.

The Petitioners only asked the Supreme Court to review whether the claim could be barred by laches when a suit is brought too late, and not whether the nickname was offensive. They cited a written decision by Justice Alito that supported the view that offensive trademark claims could be brought at any time, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The petitioners argued that the “Redskins” logo and mascot was not worthy of trademark protection, because it was very racially offensive and discriminatory. The Petitioners hoped to have a lower court’s procedural ruling that barred their suit based on time limitations.

Robert Raskopf, attorney for the Native American legal team, said “Obviously, we’re quite pleased; it’s been a long road. We’re not surprised the court didn’t see any issue worthy of review.” However, the advocates are disappointed. Speaking  about the new challengers of the same trademark issue but with slightly different circumstances, Raskopf said “I think we’re very confident with our likelihood of success.”

(PHOTO: Courtesy of the Washington Post)

The respondent, the sports team, have defended the use of the logo, stating that Native Americans should feel honored and not disparaged. In its legal brief, the team wrote that the name was “in honor of the team’s head coach, William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, who was a Native American.”

Nonetheless, in an amicus brief Native American associations wrote that the Redskins name is “patently offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype.”

For more information, please see:

Associated Press – Court Won’t Hear Complaint About Redskins Name – 17 November 2009

Wall Street Journal – Get Rare Win Over Name in Court – 17 November 2009

Washington Post – Court Won’t Hear Redskins Case – 17 November 2009

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – Since the United States Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, fifteen Federal District Court Judges have heard and assessed habeas corpus petitions filed by Guantanamo Prison Facility detainees. These hearings continue as President Obama announced that ten detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be prosecuted in the U.S. in either federal court or by military commission. The judges have ordered the release of thirty Guantanamo prisoners since the hearings began.

The judges hearing the prisoners cases cited many reasons in granting their release, the main rationale being that there was a lack of evidentiary material to support a conviction. Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in granting the release of one prisoner that much of the government’s evidence was suspect because it contained second- and third-hand hearsay statements that were obtained by way of torture. Also, some of the statements and documents offered by the government could not be authenticated.

An example of a detainee that was released was a prisoner name Janko. Before being captured by the U.S. military, Janko was tortured by Al-Qaida for three months and was forced to falsely confess that he was an American spy. He was then imprisoned by the Taliban for a year and a half. Despite this evidence, the government argued that Janko had ties to al-Qaida. In ordering his release, Judge Richard Leon wrote that “surely this extreme treatment of that nature evinces a total evisceration of whatever relationship might have existed” between Janko and the terrorist organization.

Not all of the detainees who have had their cases heard have been released. For example, Judge James Robinson wrote that Adham Mohammed Ali Awad was a part of Al-Qaida despite questionable evidence that indicated otherwise.

The habeas corpus hearings last approximately one to two days. The prisoners are allowed to present testimony in their own defense. They participate in their hearings by a secure video link. Those detainees that have been granted release have either been repatriated to their original country or have been released to other countries. Those prisoners that have had their habeas petitions denied await their trial in either a federal district court or by military commission.

For more information, please see:

MSNBC – Gitmo Detainees Finally Get Day in Court – 16 November 2009

AP – Excerpts From Rulings in Guantanamo Bay Cases – 15 November 2009

NYTIMES – Uighurs Leave Guantanamo for Palau – 31 October 2009