Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada have risen 11.4 percent since 2008, according to a Wednesday report by B’nai Brith Canada. The group found that there were 1,264 incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, violence, and vandalism in Canada during 2009. It also said that anti-Semitic incidents increased globally in 2009, linking them to a rise in Middle East strife:t is becoming increasingly complex to isolate anti-Israel rhetoric, which has been intentionally entangled in antisemitic discourse – from a completely separate, more “traditional” anti-Jewish hatred unconnected in any way to the Middle East conflict.The group concluded by saying that the combination of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incidents has led to “creeping desensitization towards the defamation and resultant marginalization of the Jewish community,” but that the trends should not be ignored.In March 2009, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) found that there was a rise in European anti-Semitism incidents since December of that year. In November 2008, the German parliament passed a resolution requiring the government to track reports of anti-Semitism in the country and fund education to combat the problem. The Council of Europe released a report in July 2008 emphasizing the need for European countries to examine their human rights records.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Wednesday that the government can continue to hold indefinitely two Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainees, even though the men had been cleared for release by the Bush administration two years ago. Judge Gladys Kessler denied the petitions for habeas corpus filed by Fahmi Salem Al-Assani and Suleiman Awadh Bin Agil Al-Nahdi. The men had been notified of their release in 2008, but the decision was suspended when President Barack Obama took office. Full text of the opinions explaining Kessler’s reasoning will be made public after passing a security clearance.
Nearly half of the 188 prisoners remaining at Guantanamo Bay are from Yemen. Last month, a Yemeni government official said that Yemen will build a rehabilitation center for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Obama administration has suspended the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen after learning that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to ignite explosives on a US-bound plane in December, had allegedly received his training in Yemen. Earlier in January, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the detention of Yemeni Guantanamo detainee Ghaleb Nassar Al-Bihani, ruling that he can remain in US custody, but, in December, the US government transferred six detainees back to Yemen. Also in December, a federal judge granted Yemeni detainee Saeed Hatim’s petition for habeas corpus, ordering his release.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on Thursday convicted ex-army officer Ephrem Setako on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. The tribunal found that Setanko, a lieutenant colonel in the Rwandan Army who was also head of the legal affairs division of the Ministry of Defense, ordered the killing of around 50 Hutus at a military camp in northern Rwanda between April and May 1994. He was acquitted of complicity to commit genocide, murder as a crime against humanity, and pillage as a war crime.
Setako went on trial before the ICTR in 2008. He was arrested in the Netherlands in February 2004, and later transferred to a UN detention facility. He subsequently pleaded not guilty. Earlier this month, the tribunal convicted another ex-army officer, Tharcise Muvunyi, on similar charges and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. There are currently 24 cases in progress, and two others await trial. The ICTR was established to try genocide suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples, in which nearly 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed.

[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled Thursday that the death penalty does not violate the South Korean constitution. The court’s 5-4 decision could lead to a reinstatement of the death penalty in South Korea, which has held an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment since former president Kim Dae-Jung took office in 1998. Kim, who ruled from 1998 until his death in 2003, had opposed the death penalty, but it is unclear whether the new government will uphold his 12-year precedent. The South Korean parliament must vote on whether to reinstate capital punishment before any changes to the current system can take effect.
On Wednesday, UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze praised the increasing number of countries that have suspended or abolished the death penalty. Speaking at the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva, Ordzhonikidze expressed hope that countries that have not abolished the death penalty would adopt the 2007 UN Resolution 62/149, placing a moratorium on the use of capital punishment. Earlier this month, the Supreme People’s Court of China issued new guidelines for limiting capital punishment in Chinese courts. The new rules instruct courts to issue the death penalty only to those who commit “extremely serious” crimes and allows reprieves for certain cases as allowed by law. Last month, Mongolian President Elbegdorj Tsakhia announced that he would suspend the death penalty and commute the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to 30 years in prison. Tsakhia called for a permanent ban on the death penalty, saying that many mistakes are made in its administration, and that the system has been abused by those with power.

[JURIST] The US Senate voted Wednesday night to authorize three key provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire on Sunday. The bill, passed by a voice vote, would allow federal authorities to conduct “roving” wiretaps, to compel the production of business, medical, and library records, and to track so-called “lone wolf” suspects who are not affiliated with an organization or country, so long as they are not US citizens. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized the lack of increased privacy protections:
I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced compromise legislation to the full Senate for consideration more than four months ago. Since then, I have worked with Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, members in the House, and the Senate leadership to make further improvements to this legislation, and the bill is strongly supported by the administration. The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act should be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when we work together but I understand some Republican Senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight, and judicial review provisions in this legislation.The House is scheduled to vote on extending the act Thursday.In September, the Obama administration asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to extend the Patriot Act. The Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize the three provisions in question in October. In December, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act due to lack of standing. The US District Court for the District of Oregon had previously ruled that certain provisions of the act were unconstitutional.

[JURIST] UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze on Wednesday praised the increasing number of countries that have suspended or abolished the death penalty. Speaking at the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva, Ordzhonikidze expressed hope that countries that have not abolished the death penalty would adopt the 2007 UN Resolution 62/149, placing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Ordzhonikidze urged pragmatism, stating:
We must not lose sight of the fact that abolishing the death penalty is a difficult and sensitive process for many societies. That is something we understand at the United Nations. Moving this process forward will require comprehensive and inclusive national debates. It is my hope that the discussions at this World Congress, which will highlight the practical experiences of countries that have either abolished the death penalty or instituted a moratorium, can help to stimulate such national debates.The congress, which opened Wednesday is organized by Contre la Peine de Mort in partnership with the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and is scheduled to last through Friday.Earlier this month, the Supreme People’s Court of China issued new guidelines for limiting capital punishment in Chinese courts, relying on a policy of “justice tempered with mercy.” In January, Mongolian President Elbegdorj Tsakhia announced that he would suspend the death penalty and commute the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to 30 years in prison. In November, the Russian Constitutional Court extended a moratorium on the death penalty until the country’s parliament ratifies an international treaty abolishing capital punishment. In July, Hands Off Cain, an anti-death penalty advocacy group, reported that the number of countries with capital punishment, as well as the total number of executions was down in 2008 from the previous year. According to Amnesty International, 95 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In March, New Mexico became the latest US state to abolish the death penalty.

[JURIST] The Venezuelan government is continuously violating basic human rights, particularly freedom of expression, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for the Organization of American States (OAS) said in a report released Wednesday. The Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela report provides a detailed analysis on the state of human rights in the country, led by President Hugo Chavez, and ultimately concludes that not all citizens are ensured full enjoyment of their basic human rights. The IACHR, which prepared the report without being able to visit Venezuela due to the country’s refusal, said that threats to human rights and democracy are serious issues. In particular, the report details the lack of freedom of expression, citing accounts in which the State is “punishing people based on their political convictions.” The report also notes a lack of punishment for cases involving violence:
Acts of retaliation to quash dissent; attacks against human rights defenders and against journalists; repression of peaceful protest; abuse by State agents and common and organized crime; violence in the prison system; violence against women; and other grave violations of human rights are all characterized in Venezuela by the high levels of impunity associated with them.The report cites improvements in the areas of economic, social, and cultural rights, but maintains that every citizen should be able to enjoy all basis rights, including civil and political rights. The report insists on Venezuela’s compliance with the obligations it “freely assumed under the American Convention” and with the recommendations laid out by the IACHR in its report. Venezuela has been criticized repeatedly for its limits on freedom of expression and religion. Last year, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) added Venezuela to its “watch list” of countries that limit religious freedom. Also last year, the US State Department criticized Venezuela for press restrictions in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In 2008, Venezuelan officials ordered two senior Human Rights Watch (HRW) staff to leave the country after the group released a report concluding that democracy and human rights have suffered during the Chavez administration.

[JURIST] The European Commission (EC) confirmed Wednesday that it has received three antitrust complaints against Google regarding the way the search engine ranks search results, but said it has not started a formal investigation. UK price comparison company Foundem, French legal website EJustice, and consumer review website Ciao claim that Google impedes users’ abilities to find companies’ websites to prevent the companies from competing with Google and that Google binds partners to unreasonable agreements. Two of the companies have ties to Microsoft – Foundem is a member of a group partially funded by the computer company, while Ciao is owned by Microsoft and runs with Microsoft’s search engine Bing. Google responded in a blog post, stating:
Though each case raises slightly different issues, the question they ultimately pose is whether Google is doing anything to choke off competition or hurt our users and partners. This is not the case. We always try to listen carefully if someone has a real concern and we work hard to put our users’ interests first and to compete fair and square in the market. We believe our business practices reflect those commitments.There was no word on whether the EC will initiate a formal investigation nor a timetable given for any possible investigations.Google has faced numerous legal issues. Last week, a US judge heard arguments on a proposed settlement over Google’s book-scanning initiative. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest urging to court to reject the settlement due to copyright and antitrust concerns. Also in February, a privacy group filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that the new Google social networking service Buzz violates privacy laws and requesting that the FTC investigate possible unfair business practices. Last year, a European Court of Justice advisory opinion found that Google’s AdWords advertising service does not violate European trademark law.

[JURIST] The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) briefed lawmakers between 2001 and 2007 on the specifics of enhanced interrogation techniques, according to declassified documents made public by Judicial Watch on Tuesday. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a court order, indicate that at least 68 members of congress were briefed on the use of controversial techniques such as waterboarding and include the dates on which these briefings took place. Some documents list the members of congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed. The heavily redacted documents, marked “Top Secret,” show that the CIA began the program after the 2002 capture of al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah, but that they did not use the enhanced interrogation techniques until after receiving legal advice from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in August 2002. Further documents are expected to be released.
Earlier this week, the DOJ overruled the findings of a report concluding that two Bush administration lawyers committed professional misconduct when they wrote memos authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques that critics have called torture. Instead, the DOJ said that John Yoo, and Jay Bybee were only guilty of “poor judgment” in writing the memos. In October, the CIA released letters and memoranda detailing overseas interrogations that included sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, and physical abuse. The documents, which analyzed the legality of “enhanced interrogation” procedures, were released pursuant to a court order resulting from ACLU litigation. In July, a former CIA counter-terrorism agent reported that waterboarding techniques were used prior to the issuance of legal memos authorizing the practice. In January 2009, President Barack Obama expressly banned the use of torture in interrogations.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Carr v. United States, the court heard arguments on whether the failure to register provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) can be applied retroactively to underlying offenses occurring before SORNA’s enactment. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that, since the violation of failing to register was not complete when SORNA became applicable to the defendant, his rights under the ex post facto clause were not violated. Counsel for the petitioner argued that statutory interpretation principles require that the provision not be applied retroactively:
When Congress uses ordinary words in the statute, those words should get their ordinary meaning. In SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Congress did use ordinary words, and it used them in an ordinary way. But the government proposes that those words be given a most extraordinary reading.Counsel for the US government argued that, “etitioner’s offense under 18 USC 2250(a) occurred when he failed to register as required by SORNA well after SORNA was enacted.”In United States v. Marcus, the court heard arguments on whether the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in its interpretation of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Second Circuit adopted as the appropriate standard for plain-error review of an asserted ex post facto violation whether “there is any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that the jury could have convicted based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct.” Counsel for the US government argued that, “nder Rule 52(b), a defendant asserting a forfeited claim of error may prevail only by showing at a minimum a reasonable possibility that the error actually affected the outcome of the case.” Counsel for the respondent argued for the application of the Second Circuit’s standard.

[JURIST] Four Guantanamo Bay detainees have been transferred to Albania and Spain, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday. Three detainees, Tunisia native Aleh Bin Hadi Asasi, Egypt native Sharif Fati Ali al Mishad, and Libya native Abdul Rauf Omar Mohammad Abu al Qusin, were transferred to Albania and the fourth, an unidentified detainee from the Palestinian territories, was transferred to Spain. The transfers, approved with unanimous consent by the Guantanamo Bay Task Force, add to the more than 580 Guantanamo detainees transferred to other nations since 2002. There are still 188 remaining at the Guantanamo facility in Cuba.
Earlier this month, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos announced that Spain would accept five Guantanamo detainees. The country had previously agreed to accept only two detainees, one Yemeni and one Palestinian, in response to a June request by the Obama administration, which continues its push to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, despite missing its self-imposed one-year deadline in January. The administration has run into several hurdles in closing the prison, including opposition from members of Congress and the suspension of detainee transfers to Yemen. Spain and Albania join the growing list of countries that have recently accepted transfers, including Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Afghanistan, Palau , Bermuda, Algeria and Somaliland.

[JURIST] Twelve high-ranking Turkish military officers were formally charged on Wednesday for their role in an alleged plot to overthrow Turkey’s government. Among those charged were four admirals, two retired colonels, and a retired brigadier general. More than 50 officers were arrested on Monday, including former Navy Commander Adm. Ozden Ornek and former Air Force Commander Gen. Ibrahim Firtina. Turkey’s Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug is scheduled to meet with President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday to discuss the detentions. The officers are accused of participating in the 2003 Balyoz Security Operation Plan, or “Sledgehammer plot,” revealed last month by the newspaper Taraf, which included detailed plans to bomb Istanbul mosques and provoke Greece into shooting down a Turkish plane.
Turkey’s secular nationalist establishment, including the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), has long conflicted with the ruling Justice Development Party (AKP). In July 2009, Gul approved a law that would allow the prosecution of military personnel in civilian courts and would prevent military prosecution of civilians during peacetime. Gul said that the law was necessary for accession to the European Union (EU). The Sledgehammer plot is similar to the Ergenekon conspiracy, in which the secular group is suspected of planning to overthrow the AKP. The Ergenekon group is also alleged to be involved in bombings, political assassination plots, and the death of journalist Hrant Dink. The probe into the Ergenekon conspiracy has been criticized as an attempt by the AKP to silence opposition and further its imposition of Islamic principles in violation of Turkey’s secular constitution. Trials against the Ergenekon group opened two years ago with more than 200 suspects in custody.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 in Maryland v. Shatzer that the Edwards v. Arizona prohibition against interrogation of a suspect who has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel does not require suppression of statements if, after the suspect asks for counsel, there is a break of more than two years before resuming interrogation. The Court of Appeals of Maryland had ruled that there was no break in custody and that the Edwards prohibition against interrogation still applied. Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:
It is easy to believe that a suspect may be coerced or badgered into abandoning his earlier refusal to be questioned without counsel in the paradigm Edwards case…in which the suspect has been arrested for a particular crime and is held in uninterrupted pretrial custody while that crime is being actively investigated. After the initial interrogation, and up to and including the second one, he remains cut off from his normal life and companions… a suspect has been released from his pretrial custody and has returned to his normal life for some time before the later attempted interrogation, there is little reason to think that his change of heart regarding interrogation without counsel has been coerced….In these circumstances, it is far fetched to think that a police officer’s asking the suspect whether he would like to waive his Miranda rights will any more “wear down the accused,” than did the first such request at the original attempted interrogation — which is of course not deemed coercive.Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, while Justice John Paul Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. In 1966, the court held in Miranda that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” Michael Shatzer was an inmate at a correctional institution when he was first questioned regarding allegations that he had sexually abused his son. He invoked his right to counsel under Miranda and was returned to the general prison population. No further questioning was conducted until another officer interrogated Shatzer more than two years later, at which time he waived his rights and made incriminating statements. Shatzer was still incarcerated during the second questioning, but the Court held that being lawfully imprisoned was not sufficient to create the coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation, since he had been allowed to return to his “normal life” in the general prison population.

[JURIST] The Hungarian Parliament passed a bill on Monday that prohibits denials of the Holocaust. The law, which passed 197-1 with 142 members abstaining, makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense punishable by up to 3 years in prison. The bill was proposed by Attila Mesterházy, the Hungarian Socialist Party candidate for prime minister, and was the final item considered before the parliament breaks for April elections. The bill now moves to Hungarian President László Sólyom for approval. A measure put forward by the opposition Fidesz party to similarly criminalize the denial of human rights violations committed by the country’s former Communist regime was defeated 178-146. Two previous proposals to criminalize hate speech were struck down by the Constitutional Court of Hungary in 2008 on the grounds that they were unconstitutional infringements on the freedom of expression, and that the targeted speech was already marginalized. Hungary is home to more than 50,000 Jews, giving it the largest Jewish population among the eastern members of the EU.
Hungary is not alone in attempting to criminalize denial of early 20th-century atrocities. In November, the German Federal Constitutional Court upheld legislation prohibiting public support and justification of the Nazi regime. In 2007, the European Union approved a framework aimed at criminalizing denial of the Holocaust and other genocides after six years of contentious debate. In 2006, British politicians, writers and comedians urged members of the UK House of Commons to accept freedom of speech revisions in the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which had been amended] by the British House of Lords to restrict punishable actions to “threatening words or behavior” rather than including words which may be insulting or abusive.

[JURIST] An Italian court on Wednesday found three Google executives guilty of privacy violations for allowing a video depicting bullying to be posted on its website. The court in Milan found that the three men, David Carl Drummond, George De Los Reyes, and Peter Fleitcher, violated the privacy rights of a young man with Down’s Syndrome when they allowed a video showing his classmates bullying him to remain on the Google Italy website from September to November 2006. All three men were given a suspended sentence, though prosecutors had asked for a one-year imprisonment. A fourth defendant, Arvind Desikan, was found not guilty of privacy invasion, and a defamation claim against all four defendants was dismissed. Google’s Deputy General Counsel reacted to the news quickly, with a strongly-worded statement calling the decision an attack on “the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built,” and promising to appeal the ruling.
Wednesday’s ruling is the latest in a string of privacy-related legal troubles for Google. Last week, an internet privacy group filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Google’s new Buzz service violates privacy laws and Google’s own terms of service. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner also raised concerns about the privacy protections present in the new social networking service. In January, Google threatened to withdraw its services from China after hackers based in that country accessed e-mail addresses and other information from the accounts of human rights activists in December 2009.

[JURIST] The Irish Special Criminal Court on Wednesday dismissed the case against the only man criminally convicted for a role in the 1998 Omagh bombing, finding that the evidence against Colm Murphy was not strong enough to support the conviction. In 2002, The Special Criminal Court originally sentenced Murphy to 14 years in prison for providing cell phones to those who planted the bomb. Murphy was granted a retrial in 2005 when the appeals court found that the evidence against him had been mishandled by the police. During the retrial, the court found that the tainted evidence, which included false statements and illegal references to Murphy’s previous convictions, could not support the case.
Despite the lack of criminal convictions related to the bombing, which killed twenty-nine people and injured hundreds more, a civil lawsuit was successfully brought against those involved. In June, the Belfast High Court found four men, including Murphy, responsible for the bombing and awarded £1.64 million to 12 plaintiffs. In December 2007, a Belfast judge found Sean Gerard Hoey not guilty of murder in relation to the bombing, ruling that there was insufficient DNA evidence linking Hoey to the bomb to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he made the device. In 2005, the Irish Public Prosecution Service dropped charges against another suspect, Anthony Joseph Donegan.

[JURIST] A Haitian judge on Tuesday announced the forthcoming release of the last two US missionaries out of a group of 10 who were arrested on kidnapping charges following the January 12 earthquake. Eight members of the missionary group affiliated with the Central Valley Baptist Church of Idaho and the New Life Children’s Refuge Charity were released last week. Laura Silsby, who is the leader of the group, and her assistant Charisa Coulter met with Judge Bernard Sainvil, who told reporters that the women would be freed because there was no evidence of a crime. Silsby and Coulter had 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. Even as American and Haitian lawyers worked toward their release last week, it was reported that the eight released missionaries accused Silsby and Coulter of misleading them. The 7.0 magnitude earthquake caused massive damage to property and infrastructure in Haiti, and the death toll has now been estimated at 230,000.

[JURIST] US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. said Tuesday that he would not support a moratorium on discharging individuals from the military pursuant to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy while Congress conducted a review of the practice. Casey, the highest-ranking officer in the US Army, made the statement while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the 2011 Defense Authorization Request. When asked by Committee Chairperson Carl Levin (D-MI) if he would oppose such a moratorium, Casey expressed concern that a moratorium would complicate the process of reviewing the policy, adding, “we would be put in the position of implementing while we were studying it.” Secretary of the Army John McHugh also testified, saying that the Department of the Army would not object to such a moratorium if passed by Congress, despite potential legal issues regarding ongoing discharges, but that his personal preference would be to not have a moratorium. Leaders from the Department of the Navy is scheduled to testify before the Armed Services Committee on Thursday, and they will likely face similar questions.
Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the creation of a panel to study the effects of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and to provide a plan for implementing such a repeal. That same day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen announced his support for repealing the policy. The possible change in policy has been an important issue for President Barack Obama, highlighted by its inclusion in the State of the Union address in January. Last month, Admiral Mullen’s legal advisers suggested that he delay any internal efforts to repeal the policy until 2011. In October, Obama pledged to end the controversial policy.

[JURIST] The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) announced Tuesday that another round of formal climate talks will be held April 9-11 in Bonn, Germany to follow up on the recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark. The decision to hold another session was made by the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties during its first meeting this year in Bonn. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer gave the reasoning for the new session:
Following the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, this constitutes a quick return to the negotiations. The decision to intensify the negotiating schedule underlines the commitment by governments to move the negotiations forward towards success in Cancun. This is further strengthened by the number of countries that have written to the secretariat with their country communications since Copenhagen.The UNFCCC has two other negotiation sessions scheduled for this year. A meeting of its subsidiary bodies is planned for the end of May, and the next formal UN Climate Change Conference, COP16, is to be held in Cancun, Mexico at the end of November. While no legally-binding agreement was reached at the conclusion of the COP15 in December, 192 UN member countries agreed to “take note” of a non-binding Copenhagen Accord developed by leaders from the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa in an effort to limit the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund was also established to assist poor nations in reducing the effects of climate change. The Accord creates Annexes by which countries will pledge to attain national emission reductions by 2020, but the pledges are not binding. Critics of the Copenhagen Accord have said it lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure compliance, and that it is unlikely to limit global temperature rise to the indicated levels.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in two cases. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the court heard arguments on whether a federal law that prohibits providing material support to terrorism violates the First Amendment. The challenge was filed by the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) on behalf on several groups that wanted to support the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), both of which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the US government. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down portions of the “material support” law and upheld others in 2007, leading both the US government and HLP to appeal. Several rights groups have filed briefs in support of HLP’s position. At Tuesday’s session, counsel for HLP argued that the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech, while US Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued that is a “vital weapon” for combating terrorism. Several justices appeared to express concern that the law was overly restrictive.
In United States v. O’Brien and Burgess, the court heard arguments on whether mandatory minimum sentencing enhancement for the use of a machine gun in a federal crime is an element of the underlying offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or if it is to be determined by a judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that such a determination should be made by a jury, relying on statutory interpretation and creating a circuit split. Counsel for the petitioner, the US government, argued that the language of the statute requires a judge to make the determination. Counsel for the respondents argued that such a result in foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation jurisprudence.