ILNews

International law CLE to be webcast

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A free CLE program featuring discussion about the international prosecution of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity will take place in the Indiana Supreme Court's Courtroom from 3 to 4:30 p.m. May 7. Event organizers have received enough RSVPs to fill the room, but stand-by reservations are still being accepted as of today for what planners say is a short waiting list so far.

This program has been approved for 1.5 CLE credit hours. For those unable to make it, there will also be a webcast, which will be live and archived for viewing after the event. Those that view the webcast but are not in the courtroom are not eligible for CLE credit.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik will be one of the speakers. She recently returned from teaching a seven-day seminar in Arusha, Tanzania, to attorneys who are prosecuting genocide and crimes against humanity that occurred in Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia in the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court. A story about her work was published in the Feb. 20 - March 4, 2008, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

The other speaker is the director of the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis' Program in International Human Rights Law professor George Edwards. He has worked on a variety of international cases including for the defense side of Slobodan Milosevic, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and Omar Khadr. A group of his students recently presented reports to U.N. human rights experts as reported in the April 30 - May 13, 2008, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

Judge Vaidik and Edwards will address the differences between and among war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity; what bodies of international and domestic law apply during civil war, international armed conflict, and/or peacetime; what are the trial and appellate procedures in international criminal tribunals; and who chooses and trains those tribunals' prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges.

For more information or to add your name to the waiting list, contact Sarah Hachey at (317) 232-2550 or e-mail, at shachey@courts.state.in.us, or go to the event's Web site.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT