[JURIST] Five prominent members of the Hindu Rights Action Force [organization website] who are being detained in Malaysia [JURIST report] "have been deprived of their personal liberty in defiance of the law," a defense lawyer argued at a Wednesday Federal Court hearing. The five activists are accused of being involved in orchestrating a November 2007 street demonstration [TIME report] in Kuala Lumpur by thousands of the nation's ethnic Indians to protest alleged discrimination by the predominantly Malay Muslim government. Last month, a Malaysian court rejected a bid to free the five [JURIST report], finding that they were lawfully detained under the country's controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) [HRW backgrounder]. In an appeal of that decision, the detainees' lawyer argued that the detentions are illegal as the five protesters should have been first held in police custody for 60 days before being sent to the detention center where they are currently imprisoned, which would have given the detainees an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. The Malaysia Star has more. The New Straits Times has additional coverage.

The 2007 arrests were the first time since 2001 that Malaysia has invoked the ISA against government critics. The ISA is a preventive detention law that allows the Malaysian government to detain suspects for two years without trial and to renew the detention indefinitely. Three Hindu activists originally arrested before the protest and charged with sedition were subsequently released [BBC reports]. In December, 26 ethnic Indians were charged with attempted murder [JURIST report] in connection with the Kuala Lumpur protest.

[JURIST] The US House Energy and Commerce Committee [official website] Wednesday voted 38-12 to approve the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [HR 1108 text and amendment, PDF; JURIST report], a bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory power over tobacco products. Supporters say the bill will help to better inform the public of the risks of smoking and make cigarettes safer, but opponents say it might give the public a false sense of security about smoking and that the FDA might not be able to handle the burden of regulation. The bill now goes to the House floor for consideration. Reuters has more.

The US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved a similar bill [JURIST report] in August 2007. Shortly before that, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan said that the FDA lacked the resources [JURIST report] to handle tobacco regulation. The FDA first began to regulate the tobacco industry in 1996, but in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. [text] that Congress had not provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Michael Mukasey [official profile] told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a letter [PDF text] Monday that the State Secrets Protection Act [S 2533 summary] currently before Congress, introduced by committee leaders to enact a "safe, fair, and responsible" state secrets privilege [JURIST news archive], would

needlessly and improperly interfere with the appropriate constitutional role of both the Judicial and Executive branches in state secrets cases; would alter decades of settled case law; and would likely result in the harmful disclosure of national security information that would not be disclosed under current doctrine.

[JURIST] Jury selection began Wednesday for the UK trial of eight men accused of plotting to blow up US-bound jetliners [JURIST report] over the Atlantic. In August 2006, prosecutors charged [press release; JURIST report] the eight with conspiracy to commit murder and endangering aircraft bound for the United States and Canada. The trial, which will begin Thursday [Telegraph report], is expected to last up to eight months. Reuters has more. BBC News has local coverage.

The foiled bomb plot prompted calls to extend the Terrorism Act 2006 [PDF text; official backgrounder], which permits British law enforcement officials to detain and question suspected terrorists for up to 28 days before suspects must be charged with a crime or released. Then UK Home Secretary John Reid told cabinet colleagues in February last year that the complexity of the airplane bombing investigation warranted extension [JURIST report] of the detention period. Parliament is currently considering a new bill [BBC report] that would give authorities the option of imposing up to 42 days detention on terror suspects.

[JURIST] An Egyptian prosecutor Wednesday appealed the six-month prison sentence [JURIST report] handed down last week against a former editor of the weekly al-Dustour [media website, in Arabic] newspaper, insisting it was too lenient. Ibrahim Eissa [al-Ahram profile] was convicted on charges of spreading "rumors" about the health of Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak [official profile] in an August 2007 newspaper report. Eissa originally faced a maximum sentence of three years in jail.

Mubarak has previously pledged to decriminalize press offenses [JURIST report] in Egypt, but has yet to do so. AP has more.

[JURIST] One of two alleged leaders of the Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] Wednesday denied involvement in a series of 2002 Bali night club bombings [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and other attacks allegedly committed by JI. At trial, Abu Dujana [BBC profile] blamed the media for spreading rumors that he was connected with the terror attacks. He and fellow alleged JI figure Zarkasih [BBC profile] first went to trial [JURIST report] in December on charges of training and equipping JI members and conspiracy to commit terrorism. Last week, Indonesian prosecutors recommended [JURIST report] that Zarkasih and Abu Dujana receive life sentences if convicted and asked the court to officially outlaw the group. It is not yet clear when the trial will conclude.

Dujana, who was arrested [JURIST report] in June, previously confessed to leading the JI's military wing, which has claimed responsibility for the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy [BBC report] in Jakarta and a series of 2005 Bali bombings [BBC report]. On Wednesday, he said this admission was made under duress. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] plans to file unspecified terrorism-related charges against one of two UK residents [JURIST report] still remaining at Guantanamo Bay, US and British officials told the New York Times Wednesday. UK officials have reportedly objected to plans to try Ethiopian detainee Binyam Mohamed [Reprieve profile] before a US military commission [JURIST news archive]. Mohamed has previously claimed that in 2002 US forces transferred him to Moroccan agents, who tortured him; he was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] in 2004. In December, in a letter [DOC text] sent by his lawyer to UK Foreign Secretary David Milliband, he asked the UK government [JURIST report] to ensure that photographic evidence of his alleged torture be preserved. The New York Times has more.

For most of 2007, Mohamed was one of five UK residents detained at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Three of those were released [press release; JURIST report] from US custody in December. The other UK resident still remaining at Guantanamo, Saudi Arabian Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, is expected to be allowed to return to his native country. There are currently no UK nationals being held by the US in its Cuba-based terror detention camp.

[JURIST] Seventeen states Wednesday filed a petition [PDF text; press release] in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit seeking to compel the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] to comply with last year's Supreme Court ruling [text; JURIST report] that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act [text] to regulate the emission of "greenhouse gases" by automobiles. The plaintiffs allege that the EPA has failed to issue any regulations for greenhouse gases and are asking the court to order the agency to take action within 60 days.

During March testimony [statement, PDF] before the Senate Appropriations Committee [official website], EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson [official profile] refused to disclose a timeline [JURIST report] for the agency's compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. AP has more.

[JURIST] Human rights groups Tuesday filed an appeal [PDF text; press release] of a March Federal Court of Canada ruling [PDF text; JURIST report] that the protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text] do not extend to Afghan detainees captured by Canadian soldiers. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] argued unsuccessfully that the Charter and international law obligate the Canadian government to prevent actual or foreseeable torture or ill treatment of prisoners under the complete control of Canadian forces and that the judgment "failed to accept the legal authority of the conclusions" of the United Nations Committee Against Torture and the United Nations Human Rights Committee [official websites].

In February 2007, the human rights organizations filed complaints [JURIST report] against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal [official website] in Federal Court, alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan as part of the NATO International Security Assistance Force. Amnesty alleged that Canada was violating its 1982 rights charter by turning Afghan detainees over to Afghan authorities without any protection against later cruel and unusual punishment. The Globe and Mail has more.

[JURIST] Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] have asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reverse a military Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) determination that their client is an "enemy combatant," arguing that the determination "was inconsistent with the laws of the United States, and inconsistent with the standards and procedures specified by CSRTs by the Secretary of Defense" because the determination was made while Khadr was still a juvenile. The motion for judgment as a matter of law [PDF text], filed Monday, requests that the court either order Khadr's release to his home country of Canada or order a new CSRT to determine on what basis he can still be held. In January, Khadr's lawyers asked the judge presiding over his military commission to dismiss the case [JURIST report], saying that the charges against Khadr violate the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [text], which gives special protection to children under 18 involved in armed conflicts. In Monday's federal court motion, Khadr's defense argued that, under US law, the fact that Khadr was only 15 years old when he allegedly committed the offenses underlying the charges against him means that "he cannot be treated as a valid, consenting 'member' of al-Qaeda, or (indeed) as an 'enemy combatant' at all." The argument is based on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [PDF text] and the Optional Protocol, which was ratified by the US in 2002.

In November 2007, UN Special Representative for the Children and Armed Conflict Unit Radhika Coomaraswamy [official profile] warned the US that prosecuting Khadr for alleged war crimes committed while he was a minor could set a dangerous precedent [JURIST report]. Khadr, now 21 but 15 when he was captured, faces life imprisonment after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier 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. SCOTUSblog has more.

[JURIST] Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine [official website] Tuesday issued a stay of all executions [press release] in the state until the US Supreme Court rules in Baze v. Rees (07-5439) [docket; merit briefs], a case challenging the constitutionality of using lethal injection [DPIC backgrounder] as a method of execution. Kaine's announcement came ahead of the scheduled April 8 execution of Virginia inmate Edward Nathaniel Bell, who was sentenced to die by lethal injection for the murder of a police officer.

The Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in Baze on January 7 and a decision is expected before the Court adjourns in June. Since the Court accepted the Baze case in September, courts have stayed executions in several states, including Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida [JURIST reports]. The Washington Post has more.

[JURIST] European Union Advocate General Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo on Monday advised [opinion, in French] the European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] that pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) [corporate website] has engaged in abusive practices that contravene EU antitrust laws in connection with a lawsuit filed by Greek drug wholesalers against GSK. The lawsuit stems from a three-month period in 2000 when GSK refused to provide the entire orders of Greek drug wholesalers for three patented products. In an apparent attempt to prevent the wholesalers from exporting the drugs and selling them at a lower price to European countries where the products command a higher price, GSK sold directly to hospitals and pharmacies in Greece and filled wholesalers' orders to the extent only that the Greek market required. In his opinion [press release, PDF], Ruiz-Jarabo found that any loss of income GSK has suffered due to the parallel importation of its products has not caused a reduction in the amount of capital available for research and development. He also asserted that GSK has failed to demonstrate that its policy of partially filling orders has positively affected the market or increased economic efficiency in any way. Ruiz-Jarabo, however, also opined that GSK could justify its dominant position by proving that its practices are necessary to protect its legitimate business interests.

This parallel importation from countries with lower drug prices to countries with higher drug prices has found support with the European Commission because it may decrease drug prices in general, but has predictably frustrated drug manufacturers, which have sought ways to prevent the practice. The opinions of advocates general are not binding, but ECJ decisions align with them about 80 percent of the time. The Wall Street Journal has more.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice advised the US Department of Defense [official websites] in 2003 that military interrogators could employ a wide range of interrogation methods when questioning foreign detainees outside the United States without fear of criminal liability or constitutional sanction, according to a 2003 memorandum [PDF text] made public for the first time Tuesday. The 81-page document, later rescinded by the DOJ, authorized the same broad limits that the DOJ had earlier approved for the CIA, saying that:

we conclude that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, do not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad... [S]everal canons of construction apply here. Those canons of construction indicate that federal criminal laws of general applicability to not apply to properly-authorized interrogations of enemy combatants, undertaken by military personnel in the course of an armed conflict. Such criminal statutes, if they were misconstrued to apply to the interrogation of enemy combatants, would conflict with the Constitution's grant of the Commander in Chief power solely to the President...

[W]e examine the international law applicable to the conduct of interrogations...[and] conclude that...the United States' obligation extends only to conduct that is "cruel and unusual" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment or otherwise "shocks the conscience" under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments...

[W]e discuss defenses to an allegation that an interrogation method might violate any of the various criminal prohibitions...We believe that necessity or self-defense could provide defenses to a prosecution.

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) is circumventing legal limits on its relatively narrow power to issue so-called national security letters (NSLs) [FAS backgrounder; example, PDF] by getting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to use its broader NSL-issuing powers on the DOD's behalf, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said [press release] Tuesday. The report follows review of thousands of documents [ACLU archive] released to the ACLU by the military as part of a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] filed by the ACLU last June to compel the DOD and CIA to hand over documents relating to the organizations' use of NSLs to obtain personal records. After reviewing the documents, the ACLU also concluded Tuesday that, contrary to previous claims, DOD use of NSLs has not been limited to investigation of military employees, and that the military failed to keep track of how many NSLs it had issued or what information had been obtained.

NSLs, which are used to obtain financial, telephone and Internet records without court approval, are issued secretly by the government. Under the Patriot Act, FBI-issued NSLs require mandatory compliance, but recipients of a military NSL are not required to comply in all circumstances. Both the FBI and the military have come under fire separately for improper use of NSLs. Last month, the Department of Justice released a follow-up review [JURIST report] citing increases in FBI abuse of NSLs in 2006, up from similar abuses reported between 2003 and 2005, but also recognizing recent efforts by the FBI to establish new draft guidelines [JURIST report] in 2007. The ACLU had chided the military for NSL abuse [JURIST report] in October, but had not yet reviewed all of the documents released by the military in connection with its 2007 lawsuit. AP has more.

[JURIST] The National League for Democracy (NLD), the main opposition party in Myanmar [JURIST news archive], on Wednesday urged citizens to reject the proposed constitution put forth by Myanmar's military government. In a statement to Reuters, an NLD spokesman appealed to citizens to vote against the constitution when they go to the polls next month, following similar calls by the opposition group 88 Generation Students [Asia Times backgrounder] labeling the referendum a "sham" to legalize military rule. In February, the military government announced in a television broadcast that it will hold the constitutional referendum in May [JURIST report], and promised that multi-party elections will follow in 2010.

On Monday, AP reported that it has obtained a copy of the proposed constitution [AP report; JURIST report] and said that the document would reserve 25 percent of parliamentary seats for the military and would also block pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] from seeking the presidency or a seat in parliament due to her foreign husband. According to AP, the draft constitution also provides a mechanism by which the president may cede legislative, executive, and judicial functions to the military for up to one year in the event of a state of emergency. Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, 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. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] passed a resolution [press release] by a 32-0 vote Tuesday "extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for three years," and adding extra oversight to require reporting when "abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitute[s] an act of racial or religious discrimination," in addition to reporting of government repression of free speech. The measure was strongly backed by Islamic countries, but 15 UNHRC member countries abstained from the vote to adopt the resolution.

The "racial or religious discrimination" language was proposed by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. According to the UN's summary of the proceedings, Pakistan noted that "although the sponsors supported freedom of opinion and expression, it was nevertheless their belief that rights carried within them an inherent responsibility and should not be used for negative objectives." The UNHRC also adopted a resolution [press release; AP report] last week urging governments to enact anti-defamation measures protecting attacks on Islam in the context of terrorism and human rights violations.

Both UNHRC resolutions follow on the heels of recent backlashes among the international Muslim community against the reprinting in February [JURIST report] of a cartoon depiction [image] of the Muslim prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Poste [media website] one day after Danish police arrested three people [JURIST reports] suspected in a plot to murder the original cartoonist. Protesters in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, and Pakistan [JURIST reports] saw the cartoons as a challenge to Muslim communities across the world. The newspaper defended its decision to reprint the cartoons, defending their freedoms of speech and expression. Similarly, far-right Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders last week released a controversial 15-minute film [JURIST report], which shows images of the Quran contrasted with images of violence and protest. The film has been dismissed by the UN secretary-general as "offensively anti-Islamic" [JURIST report] and has also been met with protests from the Muslim community. AP has more.