[JURIST] A British judge Wednesday night gave Scotland Yard [website] five to seven more days to question and hold without charge 23 men currently in custody in connection with an alleged plot to bomb US planes leaving the UK for US destinations [JURIST report; BBC Q&A]. Detectives may now question 21 of the suspects until August 23 and two of the suspects until August 21. The Terrorism Act of 2006 [text, PDF] allows police to hold someone suspected of terrorist activity without charge for a maximum of 28 days from arrest.

A total of 24 men were arrested during raids on properties in London, High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, and Birmingham early last Thursday. One of those men was released without charge [JURIST report] Friday, but police arrested another man [JURIST report] in the Thames Valley area Tuesday. He was not involved in Wednesday's custody hearing. In connection with the investigation police have executed a total of 46 property searches, 22 of which remain ongoing, Scotland Yard said Tuesday. Nineteen of the named suspects [list] have had their assets frozen by the Bank of England [corporate website]. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] A US federal appeals court has ruled that a non-citizen cannot sue a US corporation for discrimination that allegedly occurred while he was working outside the US. The decision [text, PDF] by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] issued on Tuesday is significant because it means non-citizens employed outside the country are not protected by the equal rights provision of Section 1981 [text] of the US Code, as well as being outside the traditional scope of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [text; EEOC backgrounder].

The case involves a black Connecticut resident named John Ofori-Tenkorang, who accused his employer, American International Group Inc. (AIG) [corporate website], the world's largest insurance company, of discriminating against him based on race both before and after he was sent in 2003 to work temporarily in one of AIG's South African offices [corporate website]. Ofori-Tenkorang maintains that his Section 1981 claims should survive because the "center of gravity" of his employment relationship with AIG was in the US. While the court disagreed with Ofori-Tenkorang on this point, it concluded that US District Judge Denise Cote improperly dismissed some of Ofori-Tenkorang's claims at trial. Judge Jose Cabranes [official profile] wrote:

In categorically concluding that 'the alleged discrimination occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' the District Court did not take account of plaintiff's allegation that he was present in the United States when these particular acts of alleged discrimination occurred...In the circumstances presented here, a reasonable jury might conclude that AIG's decision to relocate Ofori to South Africa to work in unfavorable conditions amounted to racial discrimination while Ofori was still 'within the jurisdiction of the United States.'

[JURIST] Philippine legislators on Wednesday quashed a second impeachment complaint [press release] against Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo [official website; Wikipedia backgrounder]. The House Committee on Justice [official website] on voted 56-24 to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Arroyo for lack of evidence, though opposition leaders say they have seven boxes of documents to support allegations that Arroyo was guilty of "culpable violations of the constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust." The complaint was filed [JURIST report] in June on behalf of 300 opposition politicians.

Specifically, the complaint accused Arroyo of fixing the 2004 presidential election, a charge denied by Arroyo [JURIST report], and of depositing public monies into her campaign accounts. The complaint also accuses Arroyo of unconstitutionally "exercising dictatorial powers" to stifle dissent and refusing to participate in government investigation into corruption allegations. Arroyo's congressional supporters called the complaint groundless. The complaint was filed exactly one year after lawmakers first filed three impeachment charges [JURIST report] against Arroyo, which were formally dismissed [JURIST report] last September. DPA has more. The Philippine Star has local coverage.

[JURIST] Russia [JURIST news archive] has temporarily halted the extradition of 13 Uzbeks [JURIST report] accused of terrorist acts in connection with last year's uprising in Andijan [JURIST news archive] that resulted in the massacre of hundreds unarmed Uzbek civilians [BBC backgrounder] by Uzbek government troops, pending an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [official website]. The Russian Prosecutor-General [official website] decided to postpone the extradition because Russian law prohibits deportation during an appeal of an extradition request. Lawyers representing the Uzbek refugees appealed the extradition decision, fearing the refugees will face torture upon their return to Uzbekistan, according to Moscow-based human rights group Memorial [advocacy website].

Human Rights Watch [advocacy website], which recently objected [HRW press release] to the decision of neighboring Kyrgyzstan to forcibly return 5 Uzbeks to their home country, applauded Russia's decision to halt the extradition, but expressed concern that it required the "intervention of the European Court" to bring about the change, adding that Russia never should have complied with Uzbekistan's extradition request in the first place. Memorial argues that only one of the 13 refugees in Russia was actually in Uzbekistan [JURIST news archive] at the time of the Andijan uprising, and that the refugee was at his home at the time. Memorial has also asserted that the men have been determined to be refugees by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees [official website], but that the government has refused to recognize their refugee status. IRIN has more. RIA Novosti has local coverage.

[JURIST] The British government will likely pardon 306 British soldiers - a number that includes 25 Canadians, 22 Irishmen, and 5 New Zealanders - who were executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I [backgrounder], ending a 16-year campaign mounted by families to have the deceased posthumously pardoned, UK Defense Secretary Des Browne announced Wednesday. Supported by the Royal British Legion and Shot At Dawn [advocacy websites], several families had mounted court challenges to the World War I convictions, arguing that the soldiers had suffered from shell-shock [BBC backgrounder], a diagnosis not recognized at the time, and should not have been sent back into the trenches. Former Defense Secretary and current Home Secretary John Reid [official profile] initially decided against pardoning the soldiers in 1998, saying there was not enough evidence in their favor. Reid, however, began to reconsider pardoning one of the soldiers [BBC report] at the center of the legal challenge last March, right before he became the Home Secretary [JURIST report] in May. Critics of the move say the pardons will effectively rewrite history [BBC backgrounder].

The pardons will likely come as part of an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill [text] currently before parliament, and will apply only to the soldiers shot in World War I under the Army Act of 1881 and the Indian Army Act of 1911. AFP has more. BBC News has local coverage.

[JURIST] UK Home Secretary John Reid [official profile] told journalists on Wednesday that in response to threats of terrorism, the civil liberties of individuals must be "balanced" against the "collective right to security." Reid's comments followed his Wednesday appearance before a meeting of top European Union [official website] justice officials during which he briefed them on the UK investigation into a foiled terror plot [JURIST report] to allegedly blow up airplanes flying from Heathrow airport to destinations in the US. With Tuesday's arrest of another suspect [JURIST report], 24 suspects are now in custody, one other having been released [JURIST report] last week. Reid's comments Wednesday echoed some in a speech [Guardian report] Reid delivered the day before the first round of arrests were made where he said "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world."

During the EU meeting, Franco Frattini [official website], the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, suggested that member nations should consider using biometric data, such as fingerprints and voice recognition technology, to profile potential terrorists, rather than racial or religious characteristics as mooted in British media reports of UK government plans [JURIST report] Tuesday. In 2005, the UK launched Project Semaphore [Home Office backgrounder], a database project aimed at electronically tracking passengers who enter and leave the UK, has been credited with leading to a number of the recent arrests. AP has more.

9:04 PM ET - Scotland Yard announced late Wednesday that another suspect in the alleged airplane bombings plot has been released. A British judge ruled earlier Wednesday that 21 suspects could he held for an additional period without charge through August 21, and two more could be held until August 23. AP has more.

[JURIST] Patrick Chauke, chairperson of the South African Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs [official website], on Wednesday ruled out an amendment to the South African Constitution [text] legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. Chauke said, however, that a bill legalizing same-sex partnerships will be presented to Parliament by October, just prior to the deadline [JURIST report] set by the South African Constitutional Court [official website] for Parliament to amend the 1961 Marriage Act [1997 extension text, PDF]. The Court ruled [judgment,PDF; summary] last year that the definition of marriage, which restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, gay and human rights organizations voiced their support [IOL report] for an amendment to the Marriage Act on Monday, asking elected officials to adopt the proposed amendments to the bill. Once the legal definition is changed, South Africa will become the first African nation to legalize same-sex partnerships. South Africa's SABC News has more.

[JURIST] Lu Jianhua, a Chinese sociologist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences [academic website, English version] accused of an unspecified crime involving state secrets, went on trial Wednesday at the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court. Though the facts of the closed-door case were not disclosed to the public, Lu's wife Qu Ligiu told reporters that she suspects the trial is related to the trial of Ching Cheong [advocacy website; Wikipedia profile], chief China correspondent for Singapore's Straits Times [media website]. Ching's trial, on charges of selling state secrets and spying for Taiwan [BBC report], began behind closed doors [JURIST report] Tuesday.

Upon Ching's arrest [JURIST report] in April 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry [official website, English version], said "Ching admitted that in recent years he engaged in intelligence-gathering activities on the mainland on instructions from foreign intelligence agencies and accepted huge amounts of spying fees." Ching's wife, however, says her husband has been accused of stealing state secrets because he obtained unpublished interviews with late Communist Party chief Zhao Ziyang [Wikipedia profile]. A source close to Zhao's family said the authorities were determined to prevent the publication of the interviews of the former leader, purged for opposing the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre [BBC backgrounder], because it would undermine the legitimacy of the current leadership. Li Gang, a Hong Kong official, said Ching's verdict will be revealed in a few days. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] British police officials and rights groups have spoken out in response to reports that the UK Department For Transport (DFT) [official website] may implement an airplane passenger profiling program to identify potential terrorists in the wake of last week's foiled terror plot [JURIST report] to bomb US-bound passenger planes. Although DFT policy prevents it from commenting publicly on security measures, British media say the Department is considering a profiling system that would subject to security checks persons behaving unusually or traveling in a suspicious flight pattern, or those who appear to be Muslim or Middle Eastern. The Terrorism Act 2000 [text] already authorizes the DFT to consider certain passenger data in selecting persons for security searches. Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Ali Desai, a senior British Asian in the London police service, condemned any such move Tuesday night as racially discriminatory [CTV report], and British civil liberties groups have deplored the prospect of "flying while Asian."

The debate over the use of racial profiling in UK airports was first ignited over the weekend when outspoken former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens told the UK tabloid paper News of the World that security profiling would reduce terrorism risks [editorial]. Several advocacy groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, condemned Steven's position [press release] as discriminatory and ineffective, instead calling for a security approach informed by intelligence [Scotsman report] rather than passenger profiling. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] US District Court Judge Sim Lake on Tuesday granted a request [JURIST report] by a lawyer for former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay [Houston Chronicle profile; JURIST news archive] to supplant Lay's name in court records with Lay's estate. As probate law permits a legal representative of an estate to appear on behalf of the estate, the lawyer, Samuel Buffone, is now expected to move to have Lay's criminal record expunged.

Lay died [JURIST report] before his sentencing date and therefore was not afforded an opportunity to exhaust the appeals process, and no final judgment has been issued in the case. Without a final judgment entered against Lay, the court is expected to dismiss the indictment and the conviction because Lay's death renders the case moot. Last week, federal prosecutors requested [JURIST report] that Lay co-defendant and former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling [Houston Chronicle profile] be ordered to pay $182.2 million that prosecutors allege was obtained through securities fraud. The Houston Chronicle has more.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion text, PDF] Tuesday that a Bible included in a monument in front of a Harris County, Texas [official website] civil courthouse [official website] promotes Christianity and thereby violates the US Constitution. The monument [image] had a secular purpose when it was erected in 1956, but a former state district judge refurbished the monument in 1995 and highlighted the Bible in the monument, making the monument religious in nature, according to Judge E. Grady Jolly's written opinion. Tuesday's ruling upholds a 2004 district court ruling [opinion text, PDF] by US District Judge Sim Lake, which found the Bible in the monument to be an endorsement of religion by Texas. Harris County argued to the Fifth Circuit that the "purpose and effect" of the monument, which memorializes a successful Harris County businessman, is secular in nature, but Jolly declared that, "although the monument at one time may have passed constitutional scrutiny, its recent history would force an objective observer to conclude that it is a religious symbol of a particular faith, located on public grounds."

Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford said the county will likely seek an en banc review by the entire Fifth Circuit, but also suggested that the county may appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. In 2004, a Fifth Circuit panel stayed Lake's order to remove the Bible from the display pending an appeal of the decision, but later in 2005 ordered the Bible removed [JURIST reports]. The Houston Chronicle has more.

[JURIST] US Army Major General James Thurman [official profile] will decide in September whether four US soldiers accused of raping and murdering [JURIST report] a 14-year old Iraqi girl and killing three family members in Mahmudiya [JURIST news archive] will face a court-martial, a US military spokesman said Wednesday. Thurman, who is the commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, is awaiting recommendations from a US military panel that oversaw the Article 32 hearing [Navy JAG backgrounder] for Pfc. Jesse Spielman, Spc. James Barker, Sgt. Paul Cortez and Pfc. Bryan Howard. A fifth soldier, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, also faces charges of dereliction of duty for failing to report the incident and making a false statement. The four core defendants have been charged with rape and murder, while former soldier Steven Green faces the same charges [JURIST report] in federal court because he was discharged from the Army before the allegations arose. During the Article 32 hearing, one witness testified that Green admitted to raping and murdering the girl, and implicated the other four in the incident, while another witness described the effect of combat stress [JURIST reports] on the troops in a particularly dangerous region of Iraq.

In a separate case, Thurman is also deciding whether to proceed with a court-martial for four US soldiers accused of killing three detainees on May 9 during a morning raid near Tikrit. Those four soldiers, who are charged with premeditated murder, refused to testify at their Article 32 hearing [JURIST reports] earlier this month. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] A federal district court judge on Tuesday ordered San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada [SF Chronicle profiles] to reveal the source of leaked grand jury testimony they used as background for newspaper reports and a book the two wrote about Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds and the steroid controversy involving the now-defunct BALCO corporation. A separate grand jury has been convened to uncover the source of the leaked testimony transcripts, and as federal prosecutors have investigated the lawyers, government officials, and defendants who had access to the transcripts, prosecutors say Williams and Fainaru-Wada are the only remaining individuals who have knowledge of the source. In the order [PDF text] denying Williams and Fainaru-Wadas' motion to quash the subpoenas, US District Judge Jeffrey White cited the 1972 Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes [text] for the proposition that no one may refuse to testify before a federal grand jury.

In June, Williams and Fainaru-Wada submitted a motion to quash the subpoenas [PDF text], arguing that the First Amendment protects the rights of journalists to protect their sources. Similar arguments made by New York Times reporter Judith Miller were struck down [JURIST report] in May by a federal judge who ruled that "the First Amendment does not protect news reporters or news organizations from producing documents when the news reporters are themselves critical to both the indictment and prosecution of criminal activity." AP has more. The San Francisco Chronicle has ongoing coverage of the BALCO investigation.

[JURIST] An attorney representing Valerie Plame, the undercover operative whose revealed identity precipitated the CIA leak scandal [JURIST news archive], announced Tuesday he would use legal precedent from former President Bill Clinton's sexual harassment trial in a bid to force Vice President Dick Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove to testify in Plame's lawsuit [JURIST report] against Cheney, Rove and former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense profile]. In the 1997 Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton, the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion text] that government officials do not have immunity "beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity." Plame's attorney, Joseph Cotchett, said that defense attorneys will have to make an argument that leaking Plame's name to the media, if the defendants did so, was part of their government duties.

In the suit, Plame asserts that Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 unnamed administration officials violated her rights to privacy, free speech, and equal protection under the US Constitution, claiming that the defendants conspired to expose Plame, threatening her career and endangering her family. Plame contends that the defendants revealed her identity as an undercover CIA operative in retaliation for the statements made by her husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, in which he denied that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, as the Bush administration had claimed. Libby, the only government official facing criminal prosecution in the scandal, pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] in November to charges of obstruction of justice and perjury [indictment, PDF; JURIST report], and some believe President Bush may pardon him [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] An attorney representing Valerie Plame, the undercover operative whose revealed identity precipitated the CIA leak scandal [JURIST news archive], announced Tuesday he would use legal precedent from former President Bill Clinton's sexual harassment trial in a bid to force Vice President Dick Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove to testify in Plame's lawsuit [JURIST report] against Cheney, Rove and former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense profile]. In the 1997 Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton, the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion text] that government officials do not have immunity "beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity." Plame's attorney, Joseph Cotchett, said that defense attorneys will have to make an argument that leaking Plame's name to the media, if the defendants did so, was part of their government duties.

In the suit, Plame asserts that Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 unnamed administration officials violated her rights to privacy, free speech, and equal protection under the US Constitution, claiming that the defendants conspired to expose Plame, threatening her career and endangering her family. Plame contends that the defendants revealed her identity as an undercover CIA operative in retaliation for the statements made by her husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, in which he denied that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase materials for a nuclear weapon in Niger, as the Bush administration had claimed. Libby, the only government official facing criminal prosecution in the scandal, pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] in November to charges of obstruction of justice and perjury [indictment, PDF; JURIST report], and some believe President Bush may pardon him [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU) and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) [advocacy websites] on Tuesday sued the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania [ACLU press release; complaint, PDF; ACLU materials] on behalf of 11 city residents and business owners over the city's tough new Illegal Immigration Relief Act [text, PDF]. Last month, Hazleton voted to punish landlords and employers that lease property to or employ illegal immigrants [JURIST news archive], with or without knowledge of their illegal status. The ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect on September 11, will make English the official language of Hazleton and bar businesses from selling products to illegal immigrants. The ACLU and PRLDEF sued the city [PRLDEF press release, DOC] in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that the federal government maintains exclusive power to regulate immigration, adding that the city law is discriminatory under the US Constitution. PRLDEF cited a legal analysis [PDF] of the Hazleton ordinance by the Congressional Research Service, which concluded that "state and federal courts would be precluded on preemption grounds from enforcing many aspects of the proposed ordinance, as such matters are already regulated under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."

Witold Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said that the Hazleton ordinance invites discrimination by allowing authorities to question legal immigrants and even citizens. "You might as well just paint a target on every foreigners' forehead or a sign saying 'please treat me differently," Walczak added. PRLDEF added that this lawsuit is the first in the country to challenge a city's illegal immigration law [PRLDEF materials]. AP has more. The Los Angeles Times has additional coverage.