View previous stories
	Shielding the Powerful by New York Times, AP USA   February 21, 2007   The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday overturning a nearly $80 million punitive damage award against Philip Morris is a win for corporate wrongdoers. It stretches the Constitution’s guarantee of due process in a way that will make it easier for companies that act reprehensibly to sidestep serious punishments.   It also provides unsettling new evidence that the court is more concerned about — and more willing to protect — the powerful than the powerless.   An Oregon jury awarded Mayola Williams, the widow of a cigarette smoker, about $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages. Ms. Williams argued that Philip Morris had spent 40 years denying the connection between smoking and cancer, even though it knew cigarettes were deadly. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the punitive damages award, saying that Philip Morris’s actions had been “extraordinarily reprehensible.” By keeping Oregonians smoking longer than they otherwise would have, the court said, the company’s actions would, “naturally and inevitably, lead to significant injury or death.”   By a 5-to-4 vote that did not follow the usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the award was improper because it punished Philip Morris for harm done to people who were not part of the lawsuit. There is nothing unusual, or wrong, about courts considering the broader impact of a wrongdoer’s misdeeds. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent, “A murderer who kills his victim by throwing a bomb that injures dozens of bystanders should be punished more severely than one who harms no one other than his intended victim.” The fact that Philip Morris hurt so many other smokers along with Jesse Williams is surely relevant to its punishment.   The court in recent years has become increasingly activist when it comes to defending the rights of corporations by striking down punitive damage awards. And yesterday’s ruling continues that trend. It expands the notion of due process. And it overturns the decisions of a jury and a state supreme court.   Unfortunately, the court has been far less activist when ordinary people seek protection or challenge their punishments. The ruling stands in particular contrast with the court’s 2003 decision that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” did not bar California, under its “three strikes” law, from sentencing a man to 50 years in prison for stealing $153.53 worth of videotapes. Yesterday’s decision is another disturbing sign that — as the current court reads the Constitution — powerful parties have more rights than regular people.
	Timor truth hearings begin by AAP / The Age Indonesia / East Timor   Jakarta. February 2007   Timor truth hearings begin. (AAP)   Alleged perpetrators and victims of the violence that surrounded East Timor"s historic 1999 vote for independence are expected to appear before a landmark public hearing in Indonesia today.   The Indonesia-East Timor Commission of Truth and Friendship (CTF) will call its first witnesses on the resort island of Bali, as it seeks to establish the truth behind the violence and clarify the history of the two countries.   Up to 1,500 people were killed when militia gangs linked to Indonesia"s military went on arson and killing sprees before and after the United Nations sponsored ballot.   The commission will focus on 14 violent incidents from 1999, with the first hearing to examine attacks on Dili"s Diocese, Maliana and Manuel Carrascalao"s house.   Witnesses are expected to include former Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas, and AITARAK militia member Mateus Carvalho, who allegedly attacked the Dili Diocese.   The truth and friendship commission was established in 2005 to foster reconciliation, rather than recrimination.   It will submit its findings to both governments, and can recommend amnesties of perpetrators if they are found to be "fully cooperative" with the commission.   "We (have) invited people that we consider understand the incidents before and during the referendum in 1999, to explain if there has been a human rights violation," the commission spokesman Chalief Akbar said.   "We only try to reveal the truth of what happened in 1999, but not for judicial prosecution ... only for history."   The commission plans to hold five public hearings from February through June, and hear from 78 people including Indonesian General Wiranto, former president Baharuddin Habibie, former militia leader Eurico Guterres and East Timor president Xanana Gusmao. Gutteres is the only person serving a prison sentence for his role in the 1999 violence.   Denpasar. February 21, 2007   Timor horror stories aired at truth hearing, Mark Forbes.   Tales of blood and tears are flowing from a Commission of Truth and Friendship hearing into atrocities during East Timor"s 1999 independence vote.   Stories of cold-blooded killings of civilians and of the Indonesian military"s role in organising and arming murderous anti-independence militia squads are emerging. But privately, participants question if the commission"s goals of revealing the truth and promoting reconciliation are achievable.   Yesterday, Florindo de Jesus Brites spoke of being hacked with swords by militia members who had joined Indonesian soldiers to attack the home of independence leader Manuel Carrascalao in April 1999.   Mr Brites, a high school student at the time, fell next to his brother"s body. "I couldn"t move, I closed my eyes and everything went dark. I think that"s why they left me."   He named the man, who came from his village, who first stabbed him. He named the soldier he saw shoot his brother in the chest and described militia and troops firing into Mr Carrascalao"s house, killing 12 adults and Mr Carrascalao"s 16-year-old son.   Militia and troops had surrounded the house after a radio call for those loyal to Indonesia to "find the CNRT (independence) people; we have to finish them off".   This was the incident an earlier witness, Mateus Carvalho, leader of Dili"s notorious Aitarak militia, discounted as a family vendetta.   Mr Carvalho was an army officer ordered to return to his village and form Aitarak. He claims to have only acted to protect the community from independence fighters. "I never kill — if I did kill anyone, show me where I dispose of the corpses."   Mr Carvalho"s evidence contradicted Indonesian claims the military had no role in the carnage that killed more than 1400 civilians. He admitted the army funded, armed and monitored militia activities.   The commission"s terms of reference state it should recommend amnesties, not prosecutions. Exchanges between witness and the Indonesian-appointed members of the commission reveal a continuing gulf.   Mr Brites said he was taken to a military hospital after worms infested his wounds, but could only eat if he first sang the Indonesian national anthem. Witnesses were asked why they were attacked.
	View more stories