Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] A federal grand jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Monday returned a five-count indictment against nine suspected members of the Hutaree “militia” group accused of plotting to kill police officers. The group members allegedly planned to kill Michigan law enforcement officers by, among other methods, making phony 911 calls and ambushing those who responded. The members then planned to attack the funeral processions of the fallen officers. The charges against the nine individuals include seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. The FBI announced that eight of the nine members of the group are in custody and had been indicted, and the ninth member is a currently at-large. Andrew Arena, the Special Agent in Charge, commented on the national interest in these arrests, saying, “he FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States.” One of the counts of the indictment, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, carries a possible sentence of life in prison.
Right-wing nativist and so-called “patriot” anti-government militias such as the Hutaree are on the rise in the US, and a recent report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center suggests that a lack of regulation on the Internet is fueling this increased prevalence. A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), released last year, noted that these groups are making a comeback after declining in number for a number of years. The SPLC said that such groups are generally anti-tax, anti-immigration, and increasingly racially motivated since the election of the country’s first African-American president, Barack Obama. The SPLC also warned that these groups could soon pose a security risk to the country, quoting one official as saying “ll it’s lacking is a spark. I think it’s only a matter of time before you see threats and violence.”

[JURIST] Nigerien police arrested a dozen former ministers and officials loyal to ousted president Mamadou Tandja late Sunday. The close aides to Tandja, including former finance minister Lamine Zeine, former justice minister Garba Lompo, and former minister of public works Lamido Oumarou, were detained and questioned on charges of plotting and carrying out subversive activities against the military junta. Interior Minister Cisse Ousmane asserted over state television that there would be strict enforcement against activities that disturb the peace and public order. After last month’s coup, acting head of state Major Salou Djibo pledged to clean up the corruption, and the military junta, which is calling itself the Supreme Council for Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), has promised to turn Niger into a democracy. While the CSRD announced the creation of a task force to draft a new constitution and electoral laws, a constitutional committee, and a court to replace those that were dissolved following the coup, it has given no time frame for the transition to civilian rule. International observers have urged the junta to hold elections and Niger has since been expelled from the African Union.
The February coup, which left at least three Nigerien soldiers dead, was in response to a referendum abolishing presidential term limits, allowing Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger’s opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution’s adoption. After the coup, Nigerien rights group United Front for the Safeguard of Democratic Assets (Fusad), called for the prosecution of Tandja on treason charges. Allied with the opposition party, Fusad claims that Tandja is guilty of corruption violating the constitution, and alleges that he gave out contracts to foreign oil and uranium firms. Niger, which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since it’s founding in 1960.

[JURIST] The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Monday that France had not violated the rights of detainees to be brought promptly before a judicial officer. In a case brought by crewmembers of a Cambodian ship intercepted by French authorities under suspicion of carrying significant quantities of narcotics, the ECHR found that while the French government had violated the crewmembers’ right to liberty under Article 5.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights by confining them to their quarters under guard for 13 days while still at sea, there was no violation of their Article 5.3 right to “be brought promptly before a judge.” The crewmembers were brought before investigating judges the same day they were brought on shore. The decision was much anticipated in French political and judiciary circles, since it is seen as having implications for the French government’s current project to reform French criminal procedure. Opponents of the reform plan to substitute public prosecutors for traditional investigating judges had relied on ECHR case law to argue that such a move would compromise the right of the suspect to a fair and impartial investigation. French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has interpreted the decision as favorable to the proposed reform.
The campaign for criminal procedure reform has gained momentum over the past few months as a result of other recent decisions by the ECHR in Salduz v. Turkey, Mooren v. Germany, Koslenik v. Ukraine, which called a lack of safeguards during police custody a violation of article 6 of the Convention. French lawyers and human rights groups have demanded that all suspects in police custody be given the right to see a lawyer immediately and access to a lawyer during interrogation, as well as be informed of their right to remain silent.

[JURIST] Myanmar’s largest opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), announced Monday that it will not participate in the nation’s first elections in 20 years because of “unjust” election laws. A spokesperson for the NLD explained that the party had unanimously decided not to register for the elections because they viewed the nation’s electoral laws as “undemocratic.” Most notably, the Political Parties Registration Law bars the NLD’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi from participating in the election and prevents the NLD from participating if Suu Kyi remains the leader of the party. The NLD’s refusal to take part in the elections could decrease the legitimacy of the elections in light of pressure on the current government to ensure that all groups are involved in the electoral process.
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning Myanmar for rights violations and urging the ruling junta to conduct fair and free elections. Also last week, the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. Earlier this month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the election laws do not meet international standards for an inclusive political process, and the laws have also drawn criticism from Human Rights Watch, which said ” continues the sham political process that is aimed at creating the appearance of civilian rule with a military spine.”

[JURIST] A Quezon City court on Monday dismissed rebellion charges against 24 people, including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Philippines Department of Justice had implicated Ampatuan and several of his followers in the November slayings of 57 campaign workers, journalists, and supporters of family political rival Esmael Mangudadatu. Prosecutors claimed that in response to a police crackdown on the family following the massacre, Ampatuan, his three sons, his brother, and other members of his clan plotted to stage an armed rebellion against the Philippine government. Regional Trial Court judge Vivencio Baclig cleared the rebellion charges against the Ampatuans and 19 others due to a lack of evidence. Acting Philippine Justice Secretary Alberto Agra said that the ruling would not effect the rebellion prosecution of more than 600 members of the Ampatuan clan. The Ampatuans remain in custody awaiting trial on 57 counts of murder.
The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Mangudadatu’s convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans’ group killed and buried them. Following the killings, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo imposed martial law and suspended habeas corpus in Maguindanao. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Sunday urged the Afghan government to reduce corruption and institute an effective judicial system. During a surprise visit to the country, Obama called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to take steps to promote good governance, end cronyism, and curtail the opium trade. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen echoed these sentiments on Monday, linking the success of the coming offensive against the Taliban in Kandahar and the wider US military campaign in Afghanistan with the ability to reduce corruption and establish a legitimate government. National Security Advisor James Jones also emphasized the importance of reducing corruption to US officials.
In January, Afghanistan’s lower house of parliament, narrowly approved Habibullah Galib as the country’s new Minister of Justice after rejecting the renomination of then incumbent Sarwar Danish. Galib’s appointment was described by the director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission as a step backwards. In November, Afghan authorities announced that they had questioned two cabinet ministers on corruption charges. Karzai had previously vowed to fight corruption in his second term inaugural address amid pressure from the international community. Late last year, Afghanistan was ranked the second most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International, behind only Somalia.

[JURIST] A Chinese court on Monday convicted four employees of Australian mining company Rio Tinto of receiving bribes and stealing commercial secretes. Rio Tinto’s Shanghai manager, Australian national Stern Hu, and three Chinese colleagues were sentenced to between seven and 14 years in prison for accepting around USD $13.5 million in bribes and using “improper means” to gain secret commercial information that gave the company an advantage when bargaining with China over the importation of steel. The court concluded that Chinese companies paid an additional 1.02 billion yuan (USD $150 million) for steel last year because of the actions the four men. Rio Tinto said they were unable to comment on the conviction for stealing commercial secrets because that portion of the trial was held in a closed court. The statement also condemned the actions of the men and indicated they would be fired, stating:
Receiving bribes is a clear violation of Chinese law and Rio Tinto’s code of conduct, The Way We Work. We have been informed of the clear evidence presented in court that showed beyond doubt that the four convicted employees had accepted bribes. By doing this they engaged in deplorable behaviour that is totally at odds with our strong ethical culture. In accordance with our policies we will terminate their employment.The company also denied any internal wrongdoing in relation to the charges. In its ruling, the court indicated that at least two Chinese officials would be charged with passing the commercial secrets to Rio Tinto. Hu and the three other defendants were accused last July of stealing “state secrets” during stalled iron ore price negotiations. One month before the men were detained, Chinese lawmakers considered a revised version of the country’s sweeping state secrets law to address Internet leaks of classified data. In June 2007, Human Rights in China said that the state secrets system in China gives the government virtually complete power to halt the free flow of information, “undermining healthy governance and rule of law.” In November 2006, Hong Kong reporter Ching Cheong began a five-year prison term for passing state secrets to Taiwanese intelligence, after the Beijing Higher People’s Court affirmed the sentence on appeal. He was released in 2008 after serving half of the sentence.

[JURIST] The UN Human Rights Committee has called on Uzbekistan to carry out an independent investigation into the May 2005 Andijan clashes between Uzbek protesters, soldiers and police that human rights groups claim killed up to 500 people. Uzbek officials have officially put the death toll at 173. The Committee’s report comes a week before a visit by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The report urges Uzbekistan to comply with previous recommendations and supply the Committee with information regarding Uzbek laws on use of firearms by police against civilians, stating:he Committee is concerned at the absence of a comprehensive and fully independent investigation on the exact circumstances of the events during which several hundreds of civilians, including women and children, were killed by the military and security services. It also notes with regret that has not provided the requested information regarding the national rules on the use of firearms by security forces against civilians. should conduct a fully independent investigation and ensure that those responsible for the killings of persons in the Andijan events are prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished, and that victims and their relatives are given full compensation. The Committee also expressed concern over Uzbek laws and practices regarding torture, the treatment of refugees, the rights of suspected terrorists, judicial independence, and gender discrimination. Despite this, the Committee praised Uzbekistan’s abolition of the death penalty, the introduction of habeas corpus, and the steps that have been taken by the government to combat child labor and human trafficking.
Friday’s report is the first to be issued on Uzbekistan by the Human Rights Committee since the Andijan clashes, which were sparked when thousands of protesters gathered after rebels stormed a prison and freed a group of businessmen on trial for alleged Islamic extremism. The Committee is a panel of experts which meets three times a year to monitor compliance with the 1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by ratifying states, of which Uzbekistan has been a member since 1995. The European Union (EU) announced in October that it would be lifting the final sanctions imposed upon the country in November 2005 in the wake of the Andijan clashes. The sanctions were imposed due to the refusal to investigate the violent suppression of a protest of economic conditions in Andijan. The sanctions included suspending a cooperation accord, imposing an arms embargo, cutting aid to the country, and banning some Uzbek officials from traveling to Western Europe.

[JURIST] A top Japanese judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC) Sunday called on more Asian governments to participate in the tribunal so its regional representation would be more balanced. Judge Kuniko Ozaki, who was elected to the ICC in January, said that both Asia and the Middle East are underrepresented on the court. Of the body’s 18 judges only two are Asian: Ozaki and current ICC president judge Song Sang-Hyun. Ozaki’s comments echo statements made by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton which encouraged other Asian countries to join the ICC following the ratification of the the Rome Statute by Bangladesh earlier this week.
On Monday, the Bangladesh Cabinet ratified the Rome Statute of ICC. The ratification will not, however, aid in Bangladesh’s pending war crimes trials in connection with the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan, as the ICC can only prosecute crimes that took place on or after the date the statute took effect in 2002.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) released information Friday on hundreds of people tried and convicted in federal courts on charges related to international terrorism since 9/11. The National Security Division (NSD) chart has been maintained since the September 2001 attacks, and includes the name, charges, and sentences of 403 people, according to a letter describing its contents. The chart divides the list into two categories. The first, including 159 names, comprises those convicted of crimes directly related to international terrorism, such as the use of weapons of mass destruction or terrorist acts against US nationals. The second category, including 244 names, is made up of those convicted of crimes not directly related to international terrorism, but with demonstrable links to it. In the letter, addressed to Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs Ronald Weich explained the inclusion of the second category and outlined the benefits of federal trials: Prosecuting terror-related targets using … offenses is often an effective method … of deterring and disrupting potential terrorist planning and support activities. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the criminal justice system is the broad range of offenses that are available to arrest and convict individuals believed to be linked to terrorism, even if a terrorism offense cannot be established. … Arresting and convicting both major and minor operatives, supporters, and facilitators can have crippling effects on terrorists’ ability to carry out their plans. Sessions has been highly critical of the composition of the NSD chart, noting that few of the convicts included on the list have committed acts on the level of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged 9/11 planner, and noted problems with the criminal prosecution of terror suspects. Sessions explained: The great majority of the terrorism cases cited … are in no way comparable to. Most of the convictions in this list are for far lesser offenses, such as document fraud and immigration violations, while only a small handful concern conduct even remotely similar to a mass-casualty terrorist attack. … Among the cases cited is that of Zacarias Moussaoui, which was fraught with procedural problems, delays, appeals, risks to classified evidence, and even a lone holdout juror who spared the 20th hijacker the death penalty. Due to gaps in federal law, many of the problems prosecutors encountered in the Moussaoui trial will be experienced in future terrorism trials. In addition to Zaccarias Moussaoui, those listed in the first category include David Headley, Najibullah Zazi, and Richard Reid.
The Obama administration has faced intense criticism over its plans to try those held at Guantanamo Bay and others accused of terrorist acts in federal courts, as opposed to the military commissions favored by the previous administration. Two weeks ago, US Attorney General Eric Holder, appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee, defended his intention to try suspected terrorists, including Mohammed, in federal court. In January, New York University’s Center on Law and Security found that federal courts have had an 89 percent conviction rate in terrorism cases since 2001.

[JURIST] Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng spoke to a reporter from Reuters Sunday verifying that he is alive and is living in Wutai mountain in China’s Shanxi province. Gao, who had been missing for more than a year, said he had been released last year and that he wanted to “live a quiet life for a while.” Another Chinese human rights lawyer, Li Heping, said that he had also spoken to Gao and confirmed his identity. Gao still appeared to be under some form of restraint in his interview, however, since he would not give details of his location nor did he answer any detailed questions about his current situation.
Gao drew international attention in September 2007 when he wrote a letter to the US Congress requesting assistance in improving human rights in China. Gao, who has also defended Christians and coal miners in China, claimed that he was tortured after being arrested earlier that year 2007. He was originally part of the Chinese Communist Party and handled prominent cases involving the outlawed Falun Gong movement, but fell into disfavor with the government in 2006 when he was convicted of subversion and placed under house arrest. Gao had been most recently detained since February 2009.

[JURIST] A US military judge Friday denied a motion to dismiss charges against US Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the leader of the squad implicated in the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha in November 2005. Lt. Col. David Jones ruled that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that officers handling the case were improperly influenced by receiving information from an aide that had previously investigated the incident. Per military policy, the aide’s prior involvement barred him from participating in the decisions to file charges or initiate court-martial proceedings. Jones found, however, that the officers overseeing both decisions conducted ample independent research before reaching their conclusions. Wuterich’s trial is now scheduled to begin September 13.
Wuterich’s court-martial was postponed in March 2008 to allow prosecutors time to appeal a judge’s decision to throw out a subpoena for unaired footage from a CBS interview with the Marine. Wuterich was initially charged with unpremeditated murder, but the investigating officer recommended in 2007 that the more serious charge be dropped. Of the eight Marines initially charged in connection to the Haditha incident, all but Wuterich have either had their charges dismissed or been found not guilty. Charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani were dropped in June 2008, a decision that was upheld the following March. Also in June 2008, 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson was cleared on all counts, including charges that he ordered a subordinate officer to delete photographic evidence of the killings. In August 2007, all charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone were dismissed. An official report on the Haditha incident by US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell found “serious misconduct” at all levels of the US Marine Corps chain of command.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled Friday that limiting contributions from individuals to independent political advocacy organizations is unconstitutional. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which eased restrictions on political and campaign spending by corporations on First Amendment grounds. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) contended that the Citizens United ruling was not applicable because it involved expenditure limits as opposed to contribution limits. The court rejected this argument and found the latter to be in violation of the First Amendment, saying:Because Citizens United holds that independent expenditures do not corrupt or give the appearance of corruption as a matter of law, then the government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations. No matter which standard of review governs contribution limits, the limits on contributions to cannot stand.Prior to the ruling, donations to such organizations could not exceed $5,000 from any one person. The decision also upheld reporting and organizational requirements on the basis that the public has a valid interest in knowing the sources of a group’s funding.
President Barack Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United, most notably in his 2010 State of the Union address. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. Citizen’s United overturned Section 203 of the BCRA, which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Earlier this month, the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the effects of the Citizens United decision.

[JURIST] A federal judge ruled Friday that firearms regulations in Washington DC, including a ban on assault weapons and a prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices, do not violate the US Second Amendment. The ruling by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the US District Court for the District of Columbia also upholds new registration rules that require a gun owner to submit fingerprints, photographs, and pay for a ballistics test. In upholding the regulations, Urbina cited the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller which struck down an outright ban on handgun ownership in Washington DC nonetheless permitted the regulation of firearms. Urbina wrote:Because the Council provided ample evidence of the ways in which the registration requirements will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety, and because public safety is a quintessential matter of public regulation, the court concludes that there is at least a substantial nexus between the registration requirements and the important governmental interest underlying those requirements. As a result, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on Count One of the second amended complaint.Urbina said the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices is constitutional because such devices “fall outside the scope of the core second amendment right.” Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney for lead plaintiff Dick Heller, said that an appeal is likely.
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago to determine whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states, and not just the District of Columbia.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra claimed Friday that the Constitutional Court of Thailand had wrongfully ordered the seizure of assets belonging to Thaksin and asked for a reconsideration of his case. Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin’s legal advisor, said that new evidence had come to light showing that Thaksin did not abuse his power while in office to benefit himself. Lawyers for Thaksin’s children are expected to file separate appeals against the ruling. A five-judge Supreme Court panel will decide whether to accept the appeal.
The Thai Constitutional Court ruled last month that Thaksin was guilty of using his power in office to personally benefit himself and other family members. The Court ordered that $1.4 billion of his estimated $2.2 billion fortune be seized. The court found that Thaksin crafted government telecommunications policy to benefit his family by providing them with shares in Shin Corporation. The shares were then sold just three days after the the government raised the maximum foreign ownership of telecommunication companies from 20 percent to 49 percent. Thaksin has claimed that all of his wealth was obtained legitimately. Thaksin was also convicted in absentia on corruption charges related to a land purchase and sentenced to two years in prison. Thai officials have denied claims that the country’s judiciary is biased against the former prime minister.

[JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the Republican National Committee (RNC) cannot raise “soft money” to use in state elections. “Soft money” refers to contributions beyond the ceilings imposed by campaign finance laws. The case tests the limits of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which eased restrictions on political and campaign spending by corporations based on the First Amendment grounds. Specifically, the RNC tried to challenge Section 323(a) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which banned raising or spending “soft money,” defining it as donations greater than $30,400 during a federal campaign, and limited state and local campaigns from donations greater than $10,000 from any one donor. The RNC argued that since the money would be used for state campaign purposes, it did not fall under the restrictions of the 2002 ban. The court granted summary judgment for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), saying it was bound by the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which was partially overturned by Citizens United. However, the panel said Citizens United and campaign finance jurisprudence mean that Congress “may impose some limits on contributions to federal candidates and political parties because of the quid pro quo corruption or appearance of quid pro quo corruption that can be associated with such contributions.” The case will likely be appealed could reach the Supreme Court.
US President Barack Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United, most notably in this year’s State of the Union speech. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. Citizen’s United overturned Section 203 of the BCRA, which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Earlier this month, the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the effects of the Citizens United decision.

[JURIST] The Obama administration on Friday defended the legality of its use of unmanned predator drone strikes. State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh explained the administration’s legal rationale in a speech to the American Society of International Law, saying the strikes “comply with all applicable law.” Koh said the drone strikes fit the administration’s principles governing targeting practices because the principle of distinction limits targeting for military objectives and not civilians or civilian structures, and the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that will cause too much incidental death or injury to civilians or destruction of civilian objects in relation to the advantage of the military objective. Koh further explained that because international law allows a country to use lethal force to defend itself, the drone strikes cannot be considered “unlawful extrajudicial killings.” Koh said the Obama administration is “committed” to ensuring its targeting practices are lawful but that:
recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks. There has been growing criticism for the use of unmanned drones. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit seeking information related to the US government’s use of unmanned drones. The ACLU alleges that the drones have been used by the military and CIA for unlawful killings in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. The ACLU also cites troubling reports indicating that US citizens may be targeted and killed by unmanned drones. In October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal. Alston said, “he onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons.” Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly’s human rights committee that was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.

[JURIST] US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday appointed retired Navy Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald as the convening authority for military commissions. Considered an expert in military law, MacDonald’s experience as a former Navy judge advocate general played a significant role in the appointment process. MacDonald replaces Susan Crawford, a Bush administration appointee. The position was created under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to oversee military commissions themselves, such as those at Guantanamo Bay, and also to oversee the Office of Military Commissions. Notably, the convening authority has the power to review and approve charges against “belligerents,” pursuant to the Military Commissions Act.
The appointment may indicate that the Obama administration is planning to try accused 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military trial rather than in civilian criminal court, as Attorney General Eric Holder had originally announced. Last week, Holder defended his decision to try the suspected terrorists in civilian court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a group that has been persistent in its advocacy of civilian trials for the 9/11 suspects, expressed support for Holder’s decision. Earlier this month, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. That release came just days after reports that White House advisers are considering recommending that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) would appeal a judge’s order to release a Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of involvement in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. In a decision released Monday, US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James Robinson had granted the habeas corpus petition of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, ordering his release. Slahi has been accused of recruiting for al Qaeda in Germany and ultimately helping alleged hijackers Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al Sehhi find training in Afghanistan. The prosecution believes that Slahi had a “significant” role in planning the 9/11 attacks and sought the death penalty, but a key prosecutor, Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, stepped down from the case after it was revealed that “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been used to compel his confessions. Robinson’s opinion is currently classified, but is expected to be publicly released at a later date.
Last year, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an application by Slahi requesting access to records of interrogations conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) both in Canada and at Guantanamo Bay. Slahi had sought the release of records to corroborate his allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay as part of his habeas petition.

[JURIST] Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and President Robert Mugabe agreed at belated International Women’s Day Celebrations on Friday that gay rights should not be constitutionally protected. While Zimbabwean “sexual deviancy” laws prohibit homosexual acts, some lawmakers have suggested that drafts of Zimbabwe’s new constitution decriminalize homosexual acts. Tsvangirai and Mugabe rejected such proposals, stating that the current law serves to promote unions between men and women. The leaders’ agreement signaled a rare alignment of opinion in what has become a contentious power-sharing arrangement.
Last year, the Zimbabwean parliament formed a committee to draft a new constitution as part of the power-sharing agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangirai. It was hoped that a draft of the new constitution would be completed by this February so that it could be decided upon via referendum in July and adopted by the end of the year. Zimbabwe last attempted a constitutional referendum in 2000, though it was rejected due to concerns about the extent of power that would be given to Mugabe. Once the constitution is ratified, Tsvangirai targets 2011 for a presidential election.