The name America is synonymous with innovative product developments (Cole, para. 1) and application of various cutting-edge technologies. This has helped in revolutionalizing the world in very many spheres including the technological aspects. It is therefore imperative that the American government protect the intellectual property assets because her legacy, health and economy are hinged on it. When the people of America joined the rest of the world in commemorating World Intellectual Property day, on April 26, it marked the celebration of the input that the American people have made in music, literary work, film, and their continued inventive prowess. This has made America stand tall among her peers. Over the years, there has been continued growth in technological innovations. The citizens can access internet services than ever before because of increased broadband access. All these together with the current global manufacturing distribution channels have enhanced the rate at which American products and their creative contents are marketed in the world market. It is quite absurd that some people have capitalized on advancement in technology to enrich themselves albeit illegally. They further this by infringing copyright laws, counterfeiting trademark, and engaging in economic espionage. These are just some of the intellectual property offenses that have hit hard authors, artists and inventors. It is thought provoking that the American citizens who are supposed to be helping in abetting such criminal activities have helped further its course by buying these counterfeit products. National Crime Prevention Council purports that many Americans do not understand the gravity of engaging in infringement of copyright laws and espionage. Most of the people who engage in such activities cite tough economic times as a major driving factor. A perception that intellectual property crime is risk free and victims should be divorced from people’s faculty of thought by initiating legislations that would protect the citizenry and ensure they are consuming high quality products and services. Intellectual property crime leads to job losses as revenues to the tunes of billions of dollars are lost. Worse still, the American people continue to use low quality goods and services which impact negatively on their health and safety. When talks of intellectual property crime many tend to think that it is something that is a mirage away from them. They fail to recognize that it affects them basically in all aspects of their day to day lives from batteries used in homes to armed forces installations. Department’s Task Force on Intellectual Property intends to achieve their objectives by reigning in on perpetrators of such activities both locally and internationally by partnering with state and relevant law enforcement agencies. This body has managed to nab those who sell fake pharmaceuticals on on-line basis, all sorts of smugglers, proprietors of stores that stock pirated movies, and hackers. Many have been prosecuted and incarcerated this year alone for engaging in automobile specification design theft among other crimes. Arrests have also been made on people who allow for unlimited download of movies even before they are premier at the theatres. Money to the tune of 4 Million dollars has been disbursed to various agencies to help in combating IP crime. Counterfeiting has made the citizens to use prescription drugs that are merely imitations of the original drugs. Consumers part with their hard earned cash in exchange of substandard goods which are a health scare. The department has vowed to use much of its resources to frustrate foreign criminal counterfeiters. This has been characterized sending of high government delegations to places like China to impress on them the need for enforcing IP laws. The department also intends to partner with state department to conduct training of personnel from all over the world on IP issues. This war cannot be worn without the valuable input from the public.
Summit signs power contract
Seven months ago today Summit, a local power company, won three major power deals with the government. They have undertaken to formalize that deal by signing a final binding agreement to generate 1017 megawatt to the national grid within a time frame of three years. In the initial contract, summit was supposed to generate 341 mega watts each in both phase I and II projects. In the final phase, Summit was supposed to generate 335 mega watts. Protracted negotiations between the government and Summit then ensued. The contents of the negotiations dueled on the nature of the contract that was supposed to run for a record 22 years. Over this period, the government was supposed to buy a specific unit of electricity from Summit. This became the biggest first ever private sector contract the government had ever engaged in (Staff correspondent, para. 1). Many people attributed delay of signing contract between the government and Summit to Summit’s inability to finance the project. Summit however, downplayed this by saying that myriad financial institutions and corporate bodies had shown interest in their business and had in fact promised to extend funding to the tune of 800 million dollars, the amount that the three projects are supposed to cost. Some of the delays in signing the final contract between the government and the Summit have been attributed to inability of the law ministry to clear the contract documents in good time. The law ministry developed cold feet because they never wanted to allow British Law to be used in adjudication of two of the three contracts. The law ministry preferred Bangladeshi arbitration laws. However, the project financiers threatened not to fund the project if adjudications were not held under international legislation. The lenders strengthened their case by alluding that bidding documents were written according to international laws. The prime minister ruled in favor of British law. The contracts for the power projects were won by Summit in October 2011 as their prices were the lowest. The plants will begin operating fully in 2013. By 20th March this year, Summit had managed to build 102 mega watts rental plant in Narayanganj. This shows that they have managed to run their operations ahead of the stipulated time frame. Summit is through with 115 mega watts installation at Khulna and a 40 mega watt facility at Noapara. The facilities are currently undergoing running test operations. The installations power supply to the national grid will boost this month’s commercial operation.
Did the United States government contravene International Law by killing Bin Laden
In less than a fortnight after United States specialized military unit SEALs oversaw the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a suburban Pakistani neighborhood, the relatives of Bin Laden have dared the United States government to prove that Osama is dead. They have suggested that investigations be carried out to ascertain how he was slain (Kernis, para. 1). They want to know what exactly transpired and why anybody never bothered to inform them. This has come only a few days when Omar Bin Laden and his brothers intimated to New York Times how they felt about their father’s death. They felt that their father had been summarily executed without due regard to international law. They allude that even the United States legal standards were not heeded. The statements replayed the mystery that shrouded the trial of both Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. They say that Bin should have been subjected to due process of law and should have been presumed innocent until proved guilty. Commentators in legal spheres have continually asked whether the US violated Article 51 of the United Nations charter. Definitions of events that have unfolded since the September eleventh terrorist attack on America and how the killing of Bin Laden in Abbotabad can help in giving insight into whether International law was indeed violated. All and sundry know that America has been at the forefront in combating international terrorism and Al Qaeda and Osama is the undisputed leader of Al Qaeda. Thus under the law of war Osama becomes the ultimate target of lethal assault wherever he is. If somebody feels that the CIA instigated attack targeting Bin Laden is legal it therefore follows that there is some legality in trying to avert civilian casualties. By the virtue of the fact that Bin Laden was being sought by the American federal agencies for wanton deaths on its citizens and personnel in American geographical territory he ought to have been captured and subjected to the American criminal justice system. The American government has been so passionate in sustaining war against terror and enforcing antiterrorism war. This is exemplified in their undertakings in Pakistan and Yemen. Indictment of Osama Bin Laden and his allies in the federal courts is a clear sign that federal criminal law is alive albeit under great duress. The activities that characterized the May 1st ordeal in Abbotabad clearly show that the war agenda superseded the law enforcement agenda. Many have kept asking why Osama could not be captured alive and subjected to due process of law as an international terrorist. CIA director has indicated that the navy SEAL 6 was pursuing a one way agendum: to capture Bin Laden alive if he showed the will to surrender, or be killed if he resisted arrest. If the order were that he be captured and killed when circumstances called for that, there would have been much stronger legal grounds. The alternative that the navy seal 6 team could capture Osama and kill him if necessary was open ended in the sense that they had the discretion to kill Bin Laden in split second impulse if they thought of him as a potential threat. In special operations, many criminal have been captured in many parts of the world and brought to justice. Was it justified to shoot Osama in the head rather than shooting his legs to incapacitate him bearing in mind that his wife was short in the legs? This is a major departure from federal indictments that presume suspects guilty until they are charged. On whether US violated Chapter 51 of UN Charter the Obama administration argues that Osama death occurred as a result of the elite team’s self defense. Terrorists deserve a right to be subjected to due process of law. However, when leaders of terrorist organizations are combatant they may be killed. War crimes Act of 1996 could have been used to prosecute Bin Laden in federal courts but it would be difficult to prosecute him on terrorism charges. The killing of Bin Laden is likely to complicate the issue of international law.
Works Cited
Cole, James. Protecting America’s Intellectual Property Assets. The Connecticut Law Tribune, 2011. Web.
Kernis, Jay. Did U.S. violate international law by killing bin Laden? Cable News Network, 2011. Web.
Staff Correspondent. Summit to sign biggest ever power deals today. The Daily Star, 2011. Web.