Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Myanmar’s military junta on Tuesday unveiled the first of five laws that will set the stage for the country’s first election in 20 years. The Union Election Commission Law, the first of the five laws enacted Monday to be published in state-run newspapers, states that the military government will appoint the five-member commission that will supervise and have the final say on all electoral matters. The remaining four laws cover the polls for the Pyithu Hluttaw, or House of Representatives; the polls for the Amyotha Hluttaw, or House of Nationalities, the other house of parliament; the polls for Region and State parliaments; and the Political Parties Registration Law. The National League for Democracy (NLD), the opposition party of Aung San Suu Kyi, has not committed to taking part in the polls, claiming that the 2008 constitution is unfair because it bans Suu Kyi from taking part in the polls and reserves a quarter of parliamentary seats for the military.
Last month, UN High Representative for Human Rights Tomas Ojea Quintana expressed great disappointment during his visit to Myanmar, stating that without certain action the elections “will not be credible.” Quintana met with 15 prisoners during visits to three prisons, but his requests to meet with imprisoned opposition leader Suu Kyi and junta leader Senior General Than Shwe were denied. The ruling military junta released 82-year old democracy activist U Tin Oo, a decorated general and Vice-Chairman of the NLD, from six years of house arrest just days before Quintana’s arrival. Thant Zin Oo, the general’s son, said the release was a calculated political move designed to appease the UN. The government of Myanmar announced last year that it was processing grants of immunity to allow prisoners to participate in the upcoming elections. Home Minister Major General Maung Oo announced in January that Suu Kyi will be released from house arrest in November when her sentence is scheduled to expire. The announcement has been seen as an indication that she will not be allowed to participate in the elections.

[JURIST] The Thai Cabinet on Tuesday approved the invocation of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to allow for increased security measures in anticipation of large anti-government protests. The law will provide more power to security forces and allow for the movement of protesters to be restricted through the imposition of curfews, checkpoints, and restrictions on the size of gatherings, in the event demonstrations turn violent. The law will be in effect in the capital of Bangkok and the surrounding provinces from March 11 to March 23. The protests that sparked the effort to increase security are being planned by the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), or the red shirts, supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was removed from power in 2006 following a coup. The group has called for a peaceful march to begin throughout the nation on Friday and culminate in Bangkok on Sunday.
Last month, the Thai Constitutional Court seized 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) in assets from Thaksin for abuses of power while in office. Thaksin has been convicted of corruption in Thailand, but Cambodia has refused to extradite him. Last April, current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva instituted a state of emergency in Bangkok and several provinces following an outbreak of protests lead by the UDD calling for his resignation. He also canceled the summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations leaders, which was being held in the country. Abhisit called for an inquiry into the violent clashes sparked by the UDD protests, in which two died and more than 100 were injured.

[JURIST] Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill into law on Monday that would allow a woman to be charged with criminal homicide if she arranges for an illegal abortion. Bill HB 462 defines abortion and states that “he killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not an abortion shall be punished as provided in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 2, Criminal Homicide.” The legislation is in response to a case last year where a 17-year-old girl paid a man $150 to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. The judge in that case held that no law existed that would allow her to be charged with a crime. Also Monday, the governor vetoed the more controversial original version of the bill, HB 12, because it allowed for charges when the behavior was “reckless.” Legislators feared that this language would allow for unintended consequences, that women of accidental or natural miscarriages might be investigated.
Controversy over abortion laws has also continued in other states. Last week, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled that a state law imposing broad restrictions on abortion violates the state constitution. In February, Oklahoma state court judge Daniel Owens ruled that a different state law, making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender of a fetus and requiring numerous reporting requirements, also violated the state constitution’s single subject requirement. In November, an Illinois Cook County Circuit Court judge granted a temporary restraining order on the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 only hours after the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board had ruled to begin enforcing the law. Earlier that month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that created a layered zone structure to prevent protesters from gathering outside abortion facilities. In June 2007, the governor of New Hampshire signed a repeal of the state’s parental notification law, which never took effect.

[JURIST] The Nigerian government must investigate the recent killings of more than 200 Christian villagers and prosecute those responsible, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Monday. Attacks blamed on Muslim herders took place near the city of Jos over the weekend, in apparent retaliation for violence between Muslims and Christians in January. HRW called on acting President Goodluck Jonathan to “ensure that the military and the police act swiftly to protect civilians of all ethnicities at risk of further attacks or reprisal killings, including by conducting regular patrols throughout the vulnerable region.” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said:The job facing the security forces and the judiciary is extremely sensitive. It is important to avoid stimulating new resentments, while at the same time ensuring that those responsible for these atrocious acts do not escape justice. This is the third round of deadly violence in the Jos region in three years, leading to a total number of deaths that may exceed 1,000. Clearly, previous efforts to tackle the underlying causes have been inadequate, and in the meantime the wounds have festered and grown deeperJonathan responded to the January violence by deploying more troops to the region, but HRW says the patrols have failed to protect many smaller communities.
Last month, HRW urged Jonathan to to “tackle the culture of impunity” in Nigeria. HRW’s letter came just days after Jonathan assumed the presidency in place of ailing president Umaru Yar’Adua. Yar’Adua, who suffers from a heart condition, was taken to a hospital in Saudi Arabia in November. He has since returned to Nigeria but has not resumed his duties as president. While HRW has called on Jonathan directly, other rights groups have petitioned international authorities to take action to prevent recurring rights abuses. Earlier in February, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) called for an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the violence that took place in Jos in January. The ICC is considering the petition.

[JURIST] The Sri Lankan Parliament voted Tuesday to extend the country’s current state of emergency until after next month’s parliamentary elections. The measure, passed by a vote of 93-24, was opposed by the Janatha Vimukthi Perumana, the country’s main opposition party. President Mahinda Rajapaksa dissolved parliament in February to prepare for the April elections, but, under the Sri Lankan Constitution, the president’s emergency powers can only be extended for one month at a time, and the extension must be approved by parliament within ten days of the president’s declaration. Rajapaksa announced last week that he would reconvene parliament to seek an extension of emergency powers, claiming that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elan (LTTE) still pose a threat, despite an end to the country’s decades-long civil war last May.
Last month, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court rejected a petition to release opposition presidential candidate and former general Sarath Fonseka, who is being held over an alleged coup plot. It is believed that Rajapaksa called early parliamentary elections to harness momentum from the presidential election in January, in which he defeated Fonseka, to gain more seats in parliament for his political party, Freedom Alliance. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court ruled last month that Rajapaksa’s second term will begin in November. The apparent victor in January’s elections, Rajapaksa defeated Fonseka by an official margin of 18 points, winning re-election to a second term in office. Fonseka has disputed the results, saying violence and vote-counting irregularities invalidated the outcome. Sri Lanka has been under a state of emergency for most of the past 27 years.

[JURIST] Indian lawmakers on Monday introduced a bill to ensure that one-third of seats in parliament are reserved for women, marking International Women’s Day. The Women’s Reservations Bill, introduced in the Rajya Sabha, or Council of States, would increase the number of women serving in the 543-seat legislature, which currently has no gender quota, from 59 to at least 181. The bill is supported by the ruling Congress Party and also has support in the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Communist parties. The bill would require a constitutional amendment, meaning it must be passed by at least a two-thirds majority. Voting was postponed until Tuesday after opposition MP’s tore up the bill in protest.
The controversial legislation was originally proposed in 1996, but has been repeatedly blocked. Last year, India elected its first woman president and first woman speaker of parliament. India currently reserves one-third of seats on local governing bodies for women, and, last year, increased the quota to 50 percent.

[JURIST] A Haitian judge on Monday ordered the release of one of the last two US missionaries out of a group of 10 who were arrested on kidnapping charges following the January 12 earthquake. The judge announced last month that both missionaries would be released, following the release of the other eight members of the missionary group affiliated with the Central Valley Baptist Church of Idaho and the New Life Children’s Refuge Charity. Charisa Coulter was released from prison Monday, while Laura Silsby, the group’s leader remains behind bars. Silsby and Coulter have consistently denied any wrongdoing and said they only sought to help children who were suffering after the quake.
The Americans were charged in connection with their attempt to take 33 children across the Haitian border into the Dominican Republic, where the group stated they hoped to start an orphanage. Haitian authorities asserted, however, that many of the children were not orphans, but had been given up by their parents when the missionaries promised a better life for the children. The 10 were each charged with one count of kidnapping and one count of criminal association. The 7.0 magnitude earthquake caused massive damage to property and infrastructure in Haiti, and the death toll has been estimated at 230,000.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday postponed the trial of former Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) vice-president Jean-Pierre Bemba, originally set to begin April 27, until July 5. The trial was delayed to allow the court more time to consider the defense’s motion on the admissibility of the case, filed in February. The prosecutor and the victims’ legal representatives will have until March 29 to submit their observations. The court will hold a status conference on April 27 to hear arguments on the defense motion.
In December, the ICC ordered Bemba to remain in custody until his trial. The ruling reversed a decision issued in August ordering Bemba’s conditional release. The order for release was opposed by ICC prosecutors who appealed the original decision. The ICC in June ordered Bemba to stand trial for war crimes allegedly committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) from October 2002 to May 2003. Bemba was arrested in Belgium in May 2008 after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest for his actions in the CAR. He was indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and transferred to the ICC in July 2008.

[JURIST] The top rights official at the Council of Europe on Monday rejected the notion of banning Muslim burqa and niqab garments. Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg noted in a written statement marking International Women’s Day: Those who have argued for a general ban of the burqa and the niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals. The fact that a very small number of women wear such clothing has made proposals in such a direction even less convincing.
Nor has it been possible to prove that these women in general are victims of more gender repression than others. Those who have been interviewed in the media have presented a diversity of religious, political and personal arguments for their decision to dress themselves as they do. There may of course be cases where they are under undue pressure – but it is not shown that a ban would be welcomed by these women.Hammarberg stressed that European governments considering bans on burqas and niqabs should first look to Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights before making any decision. Hammarberg’s remarks come as fierce debate continues in France and other European nations over the legality of banning traditional Muslim body coverings. Last month, French political candidate Ilham Moussaid ignited controversy by running for office on a left-wing platform while wearing a headscarf. In January, a French parliamentary commission recommended banning the burqa in public places. Currently, headscarves are banned in French schools.

[JURIST] Thousands of Spaniards gathered Sunday to protest recently approved changes to Spain’s abortion laws. Protesters marched in cities across Spain to protest the new law, which will allow abortion up to 14 weeks in most cases. Organizers in Madrid estimated that as many as 600,000 people took part in the protests. Pro-life activists urged the conservative Popular Party (PP) to make good on promises to seek the law’s repeal. The new law, set to take effect on July 5, replaces the current law dating back to 1985, which allowed abortions only in the case of rape, up to 12 weeks, severe fetal malformation, up to 22 weeks, or if the woman’s physical or mental health was in danger.
The Spanish Senate gave final approval to the law last month. Spain’s lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies, passed the bill in December after it received approval from the Council of State in September. In October, hundreds of thousands of protesters rallied in Madrid in opposition to the proposed legislation. The changes were proposed last March by a panel of legal and medical experts led by Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido, eliciting widespread protests throughout Spain. The panel was formed in September 2008 at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage and streamlined divorce proceedings. The PP has repeatedly expressed the opinion that relaxed abortion laws would stand in opposition to Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

[JURIST] The Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) on Monday opened consideration of election reforms designed to afford equal representation to residents of rural and urban administrative areas. China’s current electoral law provides more congressional representatives to residents of urban districts than residents of rural ones. The draft amendment aims to eliminate the disparity in representation. Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee Wang Zhaoguo offered this rationale for the presentation of the draft amendment:
Since 1995, China’s industrialization and urbanization have accelerated further, the economic and cultural level in rural areas has increased dramatically, and profound changes have taken place in the social structure. The urban population in China has increased from 29.04% in 1995 to 46.6% in 2009. At the same time, people’s congresses at all levels have gone through many terms of elections, accumulated abundant experience, achieved enormous results in developing socialist democratic politics and a socialist legal system, and the class base and mass foundation for the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the Party has been consolidated and expanded. The objective conditions are in place for revising the Electoral Law and electing deputies to the people’s congresses based on the same population ratio in urban and rural areas.Currently, 960,000 rural residents receive the same representation as 240,000 urban residents, leading to calls for reform.Deliberation over the measure will continue in the Third Session of the Eleventh National People’s Congress from March 5-14 in Beijing. Also on the agenda are budgetary, social, and economic development measures. Despite reforms, China continues to face international criticism over human rights issues. The government decided in February to tighten restrictions on Internet use. China has also received criticism for its treatment of rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who was last seen in public on February 4, 2009.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in three cases. In Snyder v. Phelps, the court will take up the controversial issue of picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat. Reverend Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church have been traveling around the country picketing military funerals in recent years, claiming US soldiers have been killed because America tolerates homosexuals. The court has been asked to consider three issues:1. Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter?
2. Does the First Amendment’s freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and peaceful assembly?3. Does an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication?The suit was brought by the family of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder after Phelps and members of his church picketed his funeral. A federal judge awarded the family almost $11 million in damages, but the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Phelps’s speech was protected under the First Amendment.In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the court will consider whether § 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings,” preempts all vaccine design defect claims. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the act preempts all design defect claims.In National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson, the court will determine whether the government violates a federal contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year. The court will also consider whether the government violates a federal contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks the employee’s designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for employment at a federal facility. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government had violated the employee’s right to privacy, and denied a petition for an en banc rehearing.

[JURIST] Vietnamese human rights lawyer and activist Le Thi Cong Nhan was released from prison on Saturday after serving a three-year sentence for allegedly spreading propaganda against the state. Although she has been released from jail, she will now serve an additional three years of house arrest. Nhan was convicted and imprisoned in 2007 for allegedly violating Article 88 of the Vietnamese criminal code by advocating for a multi-party system in Vietnam with her activism, which included posting articles on the Internet and hosting discussions on human rights law. Nhan was convicted alongside another human rights lawyer, Nguyen Van Dai who is still serving his jail sentence.
Nhan and Dai were arrested in early 2007 after hosting a discussion on human rights. They were convicted a few months later of spreading propaganda against the state, and Nhan was sentenced to four years in prison while Dai was convicted to five. In late 2007, an appeals court lowered their sentences by a year, citing both lawyers’s lack of a prior criminal record and because their activism had not yet caused serious damage to the country. During their appeal, both lawyers challenged the Vietnamese government’s lack of democracy and human rights. Le Cong Dhin, who represented Nhan in 2007, was convicted and jailed in January on unrelated charges of subversion for allegedly “colluding with foreign reactionaries to sabotage the Vietnamese state.”

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 7-2 in Bloate v. United States that time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable under the Speedy Trial Act. The court held that such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld Taylor Bloate’s conviction, ruling that time granted to file pretrial motions is automatically excludable. In reversing that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:This case requires us to decide the narrow question whether time granted to a party to prepare pretrial motions is automatically excludable from the Act’s 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1), or whether such time may be excluded only if a court makes case-specific findings under subsection (h)(7). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that pretrial motion preparation time is automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1). We granted certiorari and now reverse.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.
The Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal defendant’s trial begin within 70 days after he is charged or makes an initial appearance, whichever is later, and entitles him to dismissal of the charges if that deadline is not met. The act excludes from the 70-day period delays due to certain enumerated events. In the time leading up to Taylor Bloate’s trial, the district court granted Bloate’s request for extra time to prepare pretrial motions, and the appeals court ruled that the time was automatically excludable. Monday’s ruling resolves a circuit split on the issue.

[JURIST] The Malaysian Federal Court ruled Monday that the 1998 removal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim as deputy prime minister was constitutional. Anwar had challenged his removal on the grounds that the removal was unconstitutional because then-prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who fired Anwar alleging that he had notified the king, lacked the authority to do so. According to Malaysia’s constitution, “the appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the on the advice of the Prime Minister…” The three-judge panel of the Federal Court unanimously rejected Anwar’s claim, reasoning that the Agong, or constitutional monarch, has very limited powers to appoint ministers, and that his role is only a formality. The judges also emphasized that no provision in the laws specifies procedures to remove a minister. Anwar’s counsel, Karpal Singh, commented that the judgment renders the prime minister’s powers akin to those of a dictator.
Anwar is currently facing trial on sodomy charges after his appeal to dismiss the charges was rejected in February. Anwar is charged of sodomizing his former aid Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan in 2008. He contends that the charge is a politically-motivated government conspiracy seeking to undermine his political career, and has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. Anwar was Malaysia’s deputy prime minister until he was fired and then jailed in 1998 following corruption and sodomy charges, of which he was acquitted in 2004. He recently reentered Malaysian politics following the expiration of a ten-year ban against him for unrelated corruption charges.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States that attorneys are considered debt relief agencies under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) when they provide qualifying services. The court also held that the BAPCPA, which requires certain disclosures in advertisements, does not violate attorneys’ First Amendment rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that, while bankruptcy attorneys meet the definition of a debt relief agency, the BAPCPA provisions codified in 11 USC § 526(a)(4) are unconstitutional as applied to attorneys. In partially reversing the opinion below, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:Because § 528’s requirements that Milavetz identify itself as a debt relief agency and include certain information about its bankruptcy-assistance and related services are “reasonably related to the interest in preventing deception of consumers,” we uphold those provisions as applied to Milavetz.Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed separate opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The case arose when Minnesota law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, PA filed suit against the US government seeking a declaratory judgment that attorneys were not debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA and that certain provisions of the BAPCPA were unconstitutional as applied to attorneys. The district court ruled in favor of Milavetz, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part, causing both parties to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[JURIST] An Italian appeals court on Friday upheld the convictions of 15 police officers, prison guards, and medical staff found guilty of abusing anti-globalization protesters taken into custody during the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa. The court also reversed the acquittals of 29 others. Amnesty International (AI) noted that “the lack of the crime of torture in the Italian criminal code has prevented judges from punishing perpetrators in a manner proportionate to the gravity of the conduct attributed to them,” and called on Italian authorities to introduce a crime of torture. None of the convicted will serve any prison time because of the expired statute of limitations for lesser crimes. The director of Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia Programme nonetheless called the ruling, “an important step towards ensuring accountability for some of the grave human rights violations occurred in Genoa in 2001.”
In August, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy was negligent in completing an accurate investigation of the death of a protester at the 2001 G8 summit. The court awarded 40,000 euros to the family of Carlo Giuliani, the protester who died after being shot by an Italian police officer as his van was mobbed. On the night of July 21, 2001, police forces conducted a raid on the Diaz school, which was being used as headquarters by some of the protesters. Over the course of the summit as a whole, more than 100 protesters were injured and one was killed. Immediately after the protests and reports of abuse, AI called for a full investigation into the mistreatment. In July 2006, the group urged the Italian government to institute reforms to prevent future abuses, but said that the government had not done so in the five years since the incident.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on Sunday, imploring President Barack Obama to fulfill his pledge to try suspected 9/11 terrorists in federal courts. The ad, which features a series of pictures that morph Obama’s picture to one of former president George W. Bush, extols the virtues of the US criminal justice system and outlines the fact that the vast majority of suspected terrorists have been tried in non-military courts. The ACLU also sent a letter to Obama on Sunday, conveying a similar message to that in the advertisement. In the letter, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero discussed many of the problems associated with military tribunals:
Most of the attention on the legal problems with the military commissions has focused on the looser evidentiary statute, particularly the admissibility of coerced evidence and hearsay evidence that would be barred from every federal or state criminal trial or court martial in the United States, but there are also fundamental constitutional questions that could jeopardize the use of military commissions and could result in the reversal of any conviction. I believe these challenges are significant enough that the risk of such challenges succeeding should alone be sufficient reason to reject military commissions, particularly for defendants alleged to have had a role in the September 11 attacks.With the venue for these trials in limbo, it is unclear when the trials of many linked to the 9/11 attacks, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will begin.It was reported on Friday that White House advisers are considering recommending that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system. Attorney General Eric Holder announced in November that Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court in Manhattan, drawing intense criticism. Last month, Holder defended his decision to charge suspected terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas Day bomber, in US federal court. Holder, who has resisted calls from high-level Republicans to try Abdulmutallab in front of a military tribunal, said that the civilian criminal justice system was capable of handling his trial.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Friday denied a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. Judge Wayne Andersen dismissed two other counts but allowed the count alleging the plaintiffs were subject to cruel and degrading treatment methods during their detention. The plaintiffs, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were working for a private Iraqi security firm called Shield Group Security. There they witnessed suspicious activity that they reported to US authorities, but they were later arrested by US forces and detained without representation. The plaintiffs brought a cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics against Rumsfeld, claiming that he was personally responsible for the alleged unconstitutional treatment they faced while in detention. While allowing the suit seems in conflict with the recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which extended heightened pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) beyond antitrust cases, the judge wrote that Iqbal “requires vigilance on our part to ensure that claims which do not state a plausible claim for relief are not allowed to occupy the time of high-ranking government officials,” but is not supposed to be a “categorical bar on claims against” them.
Rumsfeld has faced multiple suits brought in relation to treatment of detainees. Last month, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that claims of unlawful treatment and wrongful death brought on behalf of two former Guantanamo Bay detainees are barred by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The claim was brought against Rumsfeld and more than 100 military officers and personnel under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which provides that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear claims for torts “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In another suit last December, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit against Rumsfeld and other military officials brought by four UK citizens who were detained at Guantanamo.

[JURIST] Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa on Saturday rejected the plan of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a panel of experts to look into alleged rights abuses in the island nation’s civil war, saying it “is totally uncalled for and unwarranted.” Rajapaksa said that establishing this panel:
would certainly be perceived as an interference with the current general election campaign being held island wide; where the people of the North and of the East who were not free to participate in such elections earlier were being given the opportunity to do so, respecting the highest standards of democracy.Rajapaksa noted that the elections were generally considered peaceful, free, and fair, and that he had already appointed a panel to investigate human rights abuses.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Thursday criticized the state of human rights in Sri Lanka, while presenting her annual report to the 13th Session of the Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations originating from incidents that took place during the final months of the civil war by both the government and the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In October, the US State Department released a report on the conflict, urging Sri Lankan officials to investigate reports of human rights abuses and war crimes and to prosecute those responsible. While the government of Sri Lanka rejected the findings of the report, President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided in October to appoint an independent committee to investigate allegations of human rights violations.