[JURIST] The US Senate [official website] approved its version [S 3930] of the military commissions bill [JURIST news archive] in a 65-34 vote [roll call] late Thursday after narrowly rejecting several amendments, including one sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) [official website; JURIST news archive] which would have eliminated a highly-controversial provision stripping detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The 48-51 [roll call] rejection of that amendment and the success of the bill as a whole represent major victories for the Bush Administration, which lobbied for and reached a deal [JURIST report] with Senate Republicans regarding provisions that would additionally make US interrogators subject to a limited range of "grave breaches" purporting to reflect the requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Republicans contend that the establishment of military commissions and the suspension of habeas rights enable the CIA and military to effectively prevent terrorist attacks, but Specter and nine former federal judges [JURIST reports] publicly questioned the bill's constitutionality, which will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts.

The US House of Representatives [official website] passed [JURIST report] similar military commissions legislation [HR 6166 text] on Wednesday and will vote on the Senate measure next.

[JURIST] Members of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee [committee website] lambasted [chairman's statement] executives of the Hewlett-Packard Corporation [corporate website; JURIST news archive] Thursday for their role in a corporate espionage scandal and demanded to know why company executives and attorneys did not put a stop to the program. In a special hearing [agenda] committee members grilled the executives seeking answers to how controversial surveillance tactics such as pretexting [FTC backgrounder] could occur at the company, but few of the committee's questions were actually answered. HP CEO Mark Hurd [profile] read a prepared statement to the committee, saying "I requested and received assurance that the investigation was being performed in the HP standard way, legally and properly." Former Chairwoman Patricia Dunn [Forbes profile], who resigned last week, also told the Committee that she thought the information deemed relevant to an investigation of leaks of board information had been obtained lawfully from public sources. Ann Baskins [profile], the company's former general counsel whose resignation from that position was made public [JURIST report] just before the start of Thursday's hearing, invoked her the Fifth Amendment rightto refuse to testify.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) compared the scandal to Watergate, saying it was "a plumbers' operation that would make Richard Nixon blush.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said "that some in a position of authority may now be saying, 'I heard nothing, I saw nothing, I knew nothing'...It is not believable.'' The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

[JURIST] Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli [official profile] made a formal apology [text] Thursday to Maher Arar [advocacy website; CBC timeline], the Canadian citizen who on suspicion of being linked to Al Qaeda was deported from the US to Syria in 2002 and tortured there. Zaccardelli publicly accepted all of the recently-released findings [commission materials] of the Arar Commission [official website], which concluded early this month that the US "very likely" acted upon inaccurate and misleading information about Arar provided by the RCMP. In remarks to the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Public Safety and National Security [official website], Zaccardelli said:

Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured.

[JURIST] Lawyers for Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] called for an end to Saddam's genocide trial [JURIST news archive] in a statement issued Thursday, rejecting the proceeding as nothing more than a "farce" used to "offend the dignity of president Saddam and his comrades." As quoted by AFP, the statement claimed that the "trial has nothing to do with law or with seeking justice, a value which is being crushed down by the invading foreign boots," and referred to the court as a creature of the American-Persian occupation of Iraq." The defense team added that the court is "an instrument in the hands of the politicians and occupiers of Iraq designed to quench the thirst for revenge against the president [Saddam], his comrades and the Iraqi people."

Lawyers defending Saddam and his cohorts have been boycotting the genocide trial [JURIST report] since new chief judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa took over following last week's removal of the previous chief judge by the Iraqi government [JURIST report]. Saddam faces genocide charges [JURIST report] for the 1988 deaths of 180,000 Kurdish villagers in the so-called "Anfal" campaign [HRW backgrounder]. A verdict is also expected next month in Saddam's previous trial for crimes against humanity [JURIST report] in connection with the murder, torture and illegal arrest of hundreds of people in Dujail as part of a crackdown in the town after an assassination attempt on Hussein's life. The trial has been adjourned for two weeks until October 9 to provide time for the defendants to instruct court-appointed counsel or to persuade their own lawyers to end their boycott of the proceedings. AFP has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on Thursday rejected the Bush Administration’s proposal to continue its domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive; US DOJ fact sheet, PDF] while her August 17 decision [opinion, PDF] finding the program unconstitutional and ordering its shutdown is being appealed, but did allow the program to continue for one more week to allow the government to contest her refusal before the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website]. The US Justice Department (DOJ) [official website] had requested that the court permit the surveillance program during appeal - a process that would likely take months - because it said it was a crucial tool in preventing terrorist attacks. DOJ lawyer Anthony J. Coppolino argued “[w]hen the stakes are so great, we ask the court not to override the security judgment of the president and his security advisers.”

On August 17, Taylor ruled [JURIST report] that electronic surveillance of US residents ordered by President Bush following the Sept. 11 attacks [JURIST news archive] violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution, separation of powers principles, the Administrative Procedures Act [text] and statutory law. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] and other advocacy groups who claimed that the government should be required to obtain warrants. Bloomberg News has more.

[JURIST] The Belgian Data Privacy Commission [official website] released an advisory report Thursday concluding [press release] that the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) [official website], the Belgium-based international banking cooperative, has been supplying the US Department of Treasury [official website] with "massive amounts of personal data for surveillance without effective and clear legal basis and independent controls in line with Belgian and European law." Following the release of the report, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt [official profile] acknowledged [press release, in French] that SWIFT found itself in conflict between American and European law and underscored the importance of respecting privacy rights, saying, "There is no doubt that there is an absolute necessity that we can look through personal data if you want to fight against terrorism, but we have to do it in a good framework."

The European Commission's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party [official website] is already conducting an investigation into SWIFT's data transfers to the US and plans to adopt a formal position [JURIST report] on the matter in November 2006. Earlier this week Working Party chairman Peter Schaar criticized [JURIST report] the White House-authorized financial transactions monitoring program [NYT report; JURIST report], questioning its legality under European law. SWIFT argues [press release] that its compliance with the US initiative was "legal, limited, targeted, protected, audited and overseen" and has expressed its willingness to work with authorities to resolve any data privacy concerns. AP has more.

[JURIST] Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang [official website] has denied a BBC report [text] that human organs were being routinely taken from executed prisoners and sold to foreigners, saying that the donors must first give written consent [JURIST report] to the sale of their organs before any such transaction takes place. Gang said the use of prisoners' organs is "very cautious" since the provincial health department and the local provincial high court must approve each organ donation.

Earlier this year, the British Transplantation Society [organization website] also accused [JURIST report] China of harvesting and selling the organs of executed prisoners. The country has responded to such allegations by approving new regulations [JURIST report] governing the use and international transport of corpses. Amnesty International [advocacy website] has meanwhile criticized [JURIST report] China for leading the world in its number of executions. In 2005, the group counted 1,700 executions, while Chinese academics have asserted that the number may actually be closer to 10,000 per year since the Chinese government has previously declined to release execution numbers. AFP has more.

[JURIST] Hewlett-Packard [corporate website] announced [HP press release] the immediate resignation of its general counsel Thursday prior to a hearing [JURIST report] held by a US House Energy and Commerce Committee [official website] panel to question key company officials on their knowledge of a telephone spying scandal. Ann Baskins [profile] was still scheduled to testify before the committee Thursday but her lawyers said she would invoke her right not to testify in order to avoid self-incrimination. The hearing relates to an admission [SEC filing] by the computer supplier that company investigators used "pretexting" by impersonating board members, employees and reporters in order to gain their phone records and potentially uncover who was leaking confidential information from board meetings. Baskins' resignation follows that of former Board Chairman Patricia Dunn [HP press release; JURIST report].

The US Department of Justice, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official websites] are all conducting probes into the actions of HP employees. One legal team tasked with investigating the spying scheme has said HP associates followed board members and rummaged through their trash to acquire information on the leaks. The US Senate [official website] and House of Representatives [official website] are currently at odds over whether a bill should be passed to criminalize the act of secretly obtaining or selling telephone records, or whether a law to create additional safeguards for those records is more appropriate. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge Susan Dlott [official profile] ruled Wednesday that an Ohio law prohibiting use of the abortion-inducing pill RU-486 [Wikipedia backgrounder] is unconstitutional. The law was modeled after a regulation issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] six years ago that warned against administering the drug after the seventh week of a woman's pregnancy. Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [organization website] challenged the law saying that the FDA rules are subject to change and that it infringed upon doctors' rights to make medical decisions regarding their patients by criminalizing such a medical practice. Dlott agreed with the opposition saying the law was vague because it fails to provide clear, reasonable guidelines for doctors to use when determining whether to prescribe the medication.

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro [official website] has defended the law, saying it was written to prevent women from suffering adverse effects from a potentially dangerous drug after their seventh week of pregnancy. The state of Ohio may appeal Judge Dlott's decision to the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [official website], which has previously ruled that unless the law provides an exception for women who would face a greater risk via an abortion surgery, it would be unconstitutional. The Cincinnati Enquirer has local coverage.

[JURIST] US District Judge Edward Lodge of the District of Idaho [official website] on Wednesday ruled that former US Attorney General John Ashcroft [official profile] does not have absolute immunity from a lawsuit alleging that the government wrongfully arrested plaintiff Abdullah al Kidd as a material witness [HRW backgrounder] in a failed computer terrorism case [indictment, PDF] against a classmate of Kidd. Lodge also denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, forcing the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling, reach settlement, or proceed to trial. If the government chooses to move forward with the trial, Ashcroft and other defendants could potentially face questions about their actions after the Sept. 11 attacks [JURIST news archive]. A trial would also create the task of defending against allegations that Ashcroft was personally liable for violating Kidd's rights by creating "a national policy to improperly seek material witness warrants" in an effort to arrest individuals without probable cause. Lodge refused to grant Ashcroft immunity on the grounds that Ashcroft does not qualify because his own actions are at issue in the case and "the development and practice of using the material witness statute to detain individuals while investigating possible criminal activity" is a police activity and not prosecutorial advocacy. Earlier this month, Lodge ruled that the government cannot use federal material witness statutes [ACLU press release] to preventively detain suspects.

Both Kidd and Sami Omar al Hussayen [Wikipedia profile], who was acquitted of terrorism charges but ultimately deported to Saudi Arabia before completing his doctoral work at the University of Idaho, worked on behalf of the Islamic Assembly of North America [advocacy website], a charitable organization that federal investigators believed supported terrorism activities in the US. A former college football standout, Kidd was not charged with a crime nor asked to testify before his release, and lost a scholarship as a result of his imprisonment [JURIST report]. AP has more.

[JURIST] French judge Jean-Claude Kross Wednesday postponed a verdict in the trial [JURIST report] of six former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees accused of attending combat training at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan [JURIST news archive], saying the court needs more information on French intelligence missions to Guantanamo. Defense lawyers for the six men, all French nationals, accuse the French government of colluding with US authorities over the detentions and seeking to use inadmissible evidence obtained through secret service interviews with the detainees without their lawyers present. Kross scheduled new hearings for May 2, calling the former head of counterterrorism at the French DST intelligence agency [official backgrounder] to testify.

France released five of the suspects after their repatriation to France from Guantanamo in July 2004 and March 2005 [BBC reports]. The prosecution alleges that the six suspects were recruited by Rachid Boukhalfa, an Algerian held in a British prison also known as Abu Doha. France formally charged the six defendants in April [JURIST report] with criminal conspiracy relating to terrorism, and began the trial in July. During the trial, prosecutors called for lenient one-year prison sentences given the suspect nature of their detention at Guantanamo. AFP has more. Reuters has additional coverage.

[JURIST] US State Department [official website] officials testified [press release; witness list] Wednesday that the number of refugees [JURIST news archive] admitted to the US has fallen by 23 percent as a result of provisions in the USA Patriot Act [text, PDF; JURIST report] and the Real ID Act [text, PDF] that deny entry to any person that has provided material support for armed rebel groups, including those that have aided American troops or opposed authoritarian governments. Ellen Sauerberry, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration [official website], told the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship [official website] that the provisions, which primarily impact refugees trying to flee from Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba [JURIST news archives], broaden the definition of terrorist groups by referring to armed rebel groups as terrorist groups. The State Department will now resettle only 41,200 of 54,000 refugees expected to be admitted by the end of the current fiscal year, which ends this Saturday, marking the lowest number of refugee admissions since the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks [JURIST news archive].

Though the laws do allow the State Department to grant waivers for specific populations of armed rebel supporters that pose no threat to the US, they do not allow waivers for refugees who received any kind of military training or actively participated in combat. Allowing resettlement only through waivers for specific populations places an indefinite delay on the resettlement of thousands of refugees, and modifying the waiver to include refugee combatants would entail a lengthy legislative process. The New York Times has more.

[JURIST] A writer of the draft constitution [JURIST report] for Thailand [JURIST news archive] confirmed Thursday that the country's military rulers, who seized control [JURIST report] in a bloodless coup on September 19, will have a continued role in the otherwise-civilian government after a new prime minister is appointed. Meechai Ruchupan, a former Senate speaker and the military's current chief lawyer who helped compose the draft charter, said that the military leaders will have the power to remove a future prime minister and the authority to call Cabinet meetings to resolve administrative matters. Sapa-AP has more.

The 39-article draft text published in Thai newspapers also calls for a Council of National Security (CNS) to be formed, which will be staffed by the military rulers, and allows the CNS chairman to counter-sign appointments of the new prime minister, his cabinet and other official roles. Army Commander-in-Chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin [BBC profile] is expected to become CNS chairman after the document receives royal approval, but Ruchupan said the CNS would not actually have the power to force the cabinet to do anything; rather, their role would be to give advice on critical situations and how they should be handled. Military leaders are expected to submit the draft constitution to King Bhumibol Adulyadej [profile] on Saturday and an announcement regarding a candidate to replace ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile] is also anticipated for this weekend. Reuters has more; the Press Trust of India has additional coverage.

[JURIST] A federal judge Wednesday set a 2009 trial date for the lawsuit [JURIST report; court documents via AMD] by computer chip-maker Advanced Micro Designs (AMD) [corporate website] against arch-rival Intel [corporate website] after ruling [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that AMD cannot proceed in US courts with a major portion of its case alleging Intel committed anticompetitive practices outside the United States. US District Judge Joseph Farnan said AMD did not show that Intel's activities in Great Britain, Germany and Japan had "direct, substantial and foreseeable effects" on AMD's' business in the US.

While the Tuesday ruling damaged a key part of AMD's case, many of the allegations in its complaint [PDF] remain and the company will argue on April 27, 2009 that Intel issued secret rebates to customers buying microprocessors in order to gain business over AMD and that Intel coerced buyers into exclusive deals. AMD has not yet decided if it will appeal the ruling. Japan has also scrutinized Intel's practices [JURIST report] abroad, with Japan's Fair Trade Commission [official website, English version] ruling [JFTC press release, PDF] last year that Intel violated antitrust laws by offering rebates to companies that either limited or avoided AMD purchases. AP has more.

[JURIST] The heirs of slaves, who filed federal lawsuits against companies that allegedly profited from slavery before the abolition of the practice in the United States, argued [recorded audio, MP3] Wednesday in front of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] that their cases should be heard. US District Judge Charles Norgle [official profile] dismissed [JURIST report] the consolidated cases last year, saying that the statute of limitations had expired and it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to show how they were personally damaged by the companies' actions 150 years ago. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies insured slaves and granted loans for their purchase and did not make their involvement known until recently, preventing the heirs from filing a claim earlier.

From the bench Judge Richard Posner [official profile] questioned how activities in the 1850s could affect the present day situation of the slaves' descendents. The plaintiffs' lawyers responded that the heirs would have had assets from their family members had they been able to work as free men and women, calling the impact "living history." The lawsuits were filed across the US and consolidated in Chicago naming such companies as Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, CSX Railroad, Aetna [corporate websites], and Brown and Williamson Tobacco. Two of the plaintiffs are children of slaves. The Chicago Tribune has more.