[JURIST] US military judge Col. Peter Brownback on Friday ruled that interrogation materials, including names of interrogators, relevant to the case of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] must be turned over to Khadr's defense team. Earlier in the week it was unintentionally revealed [CP report] that one of Khadr's interrogators was Sgt. Joshua Claus, a US interrogator who later pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to maltreatment and assault of an Afghan detainee known as Dilawar [NYT report] who died in US custody. Brownback Friday also postponed a May 5 military commission trial date and compelled a US commander expected to testify on behalf of the government to be questioned by the Khadr defense team for alleging altering a combat report. On Thursday, Brownback ruled [JURIST report] that some correspondence between the US and Canadian government officials regarding Khadr had to be turned over to the defense. Prosecutors had argued that they had found no such correspondence in US State Department records, but Brownback ordered that they conduct another search. The Miami Herald has more.

Khadr, now 21, faces life imprisonment after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed US Sgt. Christopher Speer and wounded another while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002. He was charged [charge sheet, PDF; JURIST report] in April 2007 with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism, as well as spying. Khadr's military lawyer disclosed Thursday in preliminary proceedings that a US commander known only as "Lt. Col. W" changed key facts in a July 28, 2002 report on the incident in order to strengthen the government's case against Khadr. The original report said that the person who killed Speer was subsequently killed by US troops; the report was later altered to indicate that Speer's killer was merely "engaged" by US troops, and not killed. The report has been used to support the murder charges against Khadr. The Globe and Mail has more.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Friday remanded [PDF text] to district court a bid by Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Belbacha [BBC profile] to obtain a preliminary injunction barring his transfer back to his home country of Algeria. The court in January had initially stayed [JURIST report] his transfer against the urging of the Bush administration. Belbacha has been cleared for release from Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], but says he will be tortured or killed by either the government or al Qaeda if returned to Algeria.

The US Supreme Court in August denied [PDF text] Belbacha's emergency request to stay his transfer to Algeria [JURIST report]. Belbacha filed the emergency application for a stay [PDF text] after the DC Circuit appeals court lifted an earlier stay [order, PDF; JURIST report] on Belbacha's transfer. The court instead put the case on an expedited schedule. US District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled [AP report] in July the court lacked jurisdiction to block Belbacha's transfer. AP has more.

[JURIST] A former CIA "ghost detainee" [JURIST news archive] detailed torture and abuse by agency interrogators at Iraq's Abu Ghraib [JURIST news archive] prison and a secret CIA facility in Afghanistan in an Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] report [text] released Friday. Khaled Abdu Ahmed Saleh al-Maqtari, a Yemeni national, was held for a total of 32 months after being arrested in Fallujah in January 2004. He was flown from Afghanistan to another secret CIA prison believed to be in Eastern Europe before he was returned to Yemen and released in May 2007. Al-Maqtari says that while in US custody he was exposed to, among other things, beatings, sleep deprivation, and near freezing water meant to induce hypothermia.

Amnesty International said that at no time was al-Maqtari told why or where he was being held. Amnesty says that the US violated international human rights laws when al-Maqtari was barred from contacting his family, a lawyer, or the International Committee of the Red Cross. AFP has more.

[JURIST] A controversial bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Security Act [JURIST news archive] narrowly passed the US House of Representatives Friday in the face of a White House threat to veto it. By 213-197 [roll call] House Democrats pushed through new surveillance regulations [HR 3773 text as amended; summary] that would extend government power to eavesdrop on individuals within the United States under judicial oversight but not grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had previously allowed the government to eavesdrop on their lines as part of its warrantless wiretapping program. Fearing that telecoms would balk at future intelligence requests, the White House has repeatedly called for such a provision, and on Thursday President Bush said again that he would veto any FISA amendment legislation that did not include that [transcript]. The approved bill would defer the issue of immunity to the courts [JURIST report] to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

The vote on the bill followed a rare closed session of the House on Thursday evening as members of Congress discussed security-sensitive issues in secret for the first time in 25 years. The House measure now goes to the Senate, which previously passed [JURIST report] similar legislation [comparison of terms] including the immunity provision. AP has more.

[JURIST] A new executive order [text] weakens much of the authority of the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) [official backgrounder], the independent committee of private citizens which since 1976 has been responsible for reporting illegal US intelligence activities to both the president and the attorney general. The order, signed February 29, removes the IOB's oversight authority over each US intelligence agency's inspector general and general counsel, and also eliminates the requirement that each agency head file a report to the IOB every three months. The order now gives greater deference to intelligence agencies, permitting them to file reports to the IOB only if and when they think necessary. The executive order also narrows the scope of IOB reporting of agency violations, permitting it now only when other officials are not already "adequately" addressing the illegal activity.

The Board, whose members are appointed by the president, was vacant for the first two years of Bush's presidency. Last July, the Washington Post reported that the IOB sent no reports of illegal agency activity to the attorney general during the first 5 and a half years of Bush's presidency, even though the FBI alerted the board to hundreds of legal violations by its agents after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Boston Globe has more.

[JURIST] UK Home Office minister Tony McNulty [official profile] told members of Parliament in a written statement [text] to the House of Commons Thursday that control orders [JURIST news archive] limiting movement and restricting the rights of uncharged individuals are currently in force against 11 people suspected of terrorist activity, down from a previous 15. The names of the suspects were withheld for security reasons. Only four of the control order subjects are British citizens. He reported that three orders against individuals who absconded [JURIST report] last year have expired and have not been renewed. An additional order was revoked after that individual received a prison sentence for an unrelated offense.

McNulty said:

Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.

As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies.

[JURIST] Myanmar opposition group 88 Generation Students [Asia Times backgrounder] urged Burmese voters Friday to reject the country's new draft constitution in an upcoming national referendum [JURIST reports]. The group said in a public statement that the new constitution would only further legitimize military rule and that the procedures set in place to govern the referendum are a "sham". The statement also urged voters not to fear repercussions, saying that government authorities have no right to arrest voters. The group contends that the military government picked the drafters of the constitution and barred opposition groups from providing input during the drafting process. Supporters of the new constitution say that it is an integral step towards establishing a democratic Myanmar.

The constitution-drafting process has come under fire [JURIST report] from both local and international critics, including supporters of detained Nobel Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile], who have stopped just short of calling for a boycott. The 88 Generation Students staged massive protests [JURIST report] against the military government last April which resulted in the arrest of the group's leader and the death of another demonstrator. The country has been governed without a constitution since the military regime took power in 1988 and talks on a new national charter [JURIST report] have been underway for 14 years. Last week the military government rejected a UN proposal [JURIST report] that the referendum be observed by independent monitors, saying that it would infringe on the country's sovereignty. AP has more.

[JURIST] US Chief Justice John Roberts [Oyez profile] and Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas [LII profile] told a House Appropriations subcommittee Thursday that Congress should pass a bill to raise the pay of federal judges in an attempt to close the pay gap between the federal judiciary and their colleagues in private practice. If passed, the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007 [S 1638 materials] would mark the first significant raise federal judges have received since 1991. The bill stops judicial pay from being set at the same level as members of Congress and would raise salaries for district judges to $218,000 per year; federal appeals judges would earn $231,000 per year and associate Supreme Court justices would earn $267,900. The Chief Justice would earn $279,900.

Roberts has called for a federal judiciary pay raise [JURIST report] since he began his tenure on the Court, arguing that experienced district court judges receive salaries comparable to first year associates at many law firms. In January, Roberts used his 2007 year-end report [PDF text] on the federal judiciary to press his point on inadequate pay.

Roberts and Thomas also urged Congress not to pass the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007 [S 352 text] which would permit the Supreme Court to televise all open sessions, unless there is a majority vote amongst the justices that coverage in a particular case is determined to be a violation of the due process rights of any party. The Justices argued that the determination should be left solely to the judiciary and that televised proceedings would place undue emphasis on oral arguments over written court documents. In April 2006, Thomas spoke out against cameras in the Supreme Court [JURIST report], countering the Senate Judiciary Committee's call for greater transparency in court proceedings. AP has more.