[JURIST] The Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] on Friday heard arguments in a case challenging a proposed peace agreement between the country's government and rebels from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front [group website; BBC backgrounder]. The proposal would grant expanded boundaries to the country's southern Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) [official website], but opponents, including Mindanao Christians, say that the pact violates the country's constitution. The Supreme Court has not said whether it will address the constitutionality of the agreement or whether it might order a constitutional amendment to designate the ARMM expansion as a separate state. AP has more.

Last week, a Supreme Court judge enjoined [ruling, PDF; JURIST report] government agents from signing the peace agreement. The government of the Philippines first suggested that it might agree to increased autonomy for the region in 2005, and this month it announced [JURIST reports] that the sides had finalized the peace deal and would sign it on August 5. The court last week agreed with motions by two southern provincial governments for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the signing. Shortly after the deal was reached, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website] urged the country's lawmakers to push for long-term resolution in the region in her annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) [text; government materials].

[JURIST] Six US sailors have been charged for allegedly abusing Iraqi detainees held at Camp Bucca [GloalSecurity backgrounder], the US Naval Forces Central Command [official website] said Thursday. The six are said to have physically assaulted at least two detainees whom they were guarding, and locked eight others in a cell that had been covered with pepper spray. Seven other sailors reportedly faced non-judicial punishment for their involvement in the incidents. Al Jazeera has more. CNN has additional coverage.

Camp Bucca was at the center of controversy in 2003 when the so-called Taguba report [PDF text] detailed instances of detainee abuse and found that the detention camp was well over its carrying capacity. Many former Abu Ghraib [JURIST news archive] detainees were transferred to Camp Bucca after reports of detainee abuse in the Baghdad prison surfaced. In July, four former Abu Ghraib detainees filed lawsuits [CCR materials; JURIST report] against two private US military contractors and three of their employees, alleging torture, war crimes and civil conspiracy. The former detainees said that employees of CACI International and L-3 Communications [corporate websites], which performed interrogation and interpretation work for the US military, violated the Geneva Convention, the Army Field Manual [texts] and US law by torturing and conspiring to torture the detainees. They also alleged that CACI and L-3 were negligent in failing to prevent the torture.

[JURIST] The US Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles [JURIST news archive; case materials] will stand trial in the US for alleged immigration violations, effectively blocking extradition efforts by Cuba and Venezuela. Both countries say that the US is bound by international treaties, including the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation [texts], to hand over Carriles, but the US has so far refused to do so. Carriles, a Venezuelan-born Cuban citizen, is wanted in both Cuba and Venezuela on terrorism charges relating to the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airplane [Aviation Safety Network backgrounder]. The Los Angeles Times has more.

Carriles was arrested in 2005 for illegally entering the US and had been under the custody of immigration officials until his release on bail [JURIST reports] in April 2007. Cuba criticized Carriles' release, and accused the US of violating international anti-terrorism treaties by freeing him and dismissing charges [JURIST reports] against him. Also in April 2007, Venezuela announced plans to challenge the US [JURIST report] before the Organization of American States (OAS) [official website] and other international bodies for refusing to prosecute or extradite Carriles for the terrorist bombing. The US government has cited the UN Convention Against Torture [text] as justification for denying Cuban and Venezuelan requests [JURIST report] to extradite Carriles, asserting that Carriles could face torture in those countries.

[JURIST] A military judge on Thursday ordered that military commissions [JURIST news archive] legal advisor Gen. Thomas Hartmann [official profile] will not participate in the Guantanamo trial of Afghan detainee Mohammed Jawad [DOD materials; JURIST news archive]. The judge, Army Col. Steve Henley, held that Hartmann had made public statements suggesting he was overly favorable to prosecutors [JURIST report] despite the purported neutrality of his role. Former Guantanamo prosecutor Col. Morris D. Davis [official profile, PDF] testified that Hartmann has pressed prosecutors to bring charges against Jawad, believing that the trial would excite the American public. Jawad's lawyers sought to have charges against him dismissed due to alleged misconduct by Hartmann, but the judge denied their motion. AP has more.

Hartmann has previously been accused of bias towards prosecutors. At a Wednesday hearing, US Army Gen. Gregory Zanetti [official profile], deputy commander at Guantanamo Bay, testified [JURIST report] that Hartmann routinely bullied his counterparts and was inappropriately aggressive in seeking indictments against detainees. In May, lawyers for detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] unsuccessfully moved to have charges against their client dropped because of similar allegations [JURIST report] against Hartman. Earlier that month, Hartman was disqualified [JURIST report] from participating in the military commission trial of detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan [DOD materials; JURIST news archive], but he has refused to resign [JURIST report] from his post.

[JURIST] The United Nations Committee on Human Rights [official website] has criticized British libel laws for stifling freedom of speech, according to Thursday media reports. In a report [text linked under "Concluding Observations"] issued after its 93rd session in Geneva, the Committee said restrictive laws may encourage media agencies and scholars to abandon reporting on serious public issues, especially in cases involving the Internet. The report also expressed concern that the laws encourage the phenomenon know as "libel tourism," where petitioners use the London High Court [official website] to sue foreign publishers under laws that are seen as friendly to the claimant. The Committee said:

The State party should re-examine its technical doctrines of libel law, and consider the utility of a so-called "public figure" exception, requiring proof by the plaintiff of actual malice in order to go forward on actions concerning reporting on public officials and prominent public figures, as well as limiting the requirement that defendants reimburse a plaintiff's lawyers fees and costs regardless of scale, including Conditional Fee Agreements and so-called "success fees," especially insofar as these may have forced defendant publications to settle without airing valid defences. The ability to resolve cases through enhanced pleading requirements (e.g., requiring a plaintiff to make some preliminary showing of falsity and absence of ordinary journalistic standards) might also be considered.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit [opinion, PDF] brought by survivors of the 9/11 attacks against the nation of Saudi Arabia [JURIST news archives] and four of its princes, ruling that the defendants were protected from prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [text]. The plaintiffs accused the princes of donating money to anti-American charities, which then funneled the funds to al-Qaeda:

The plaintiffs ask the Court to draw a “reasonable inference” that because of sharia, there exists “an active, not passive, relationship among an Islamic bank, its owners, and its large depositors.” In other words, the owners of [Swiss bank] DMI and its subsidiaries “are close business partners with bank ‘customers’ in a partnership or collaboration to manage and invest customers’ capital in a mutually beneficial way.” Osama bin Laden, his bodyguard, and other al Qaeda operatives had deposits with DMI and its subsidiaries. (Also, bin Laden himself invested $50 million in one of DMI’s subsidiaries.) Therefore, argue the plaintiffs, the September 11 attacks “were a direct result of the material support that Prince Mohamed . . . provided al Qaeda.” Mohamed disputes this characterization of sharia banking; but even assuming its accuracy, it does not reflect that Mohamed engaged in “intentional” conduct “expressly aimed at the United States.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) announced [press release] on Friday that its researchers have proof that Russian forces have dropped cluster bombs on Georgian civilians [AP report] during the recent conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia [BBC report]. Cluster bombs release large numbers of smaller explosives which spread out before detonating upon impact, a design meant to maximize bodily injury of a large group of people. On Tuesday, Georgia filed a complaint [text, PDF; press release, PDF] against Russia with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website], alleging that invading Russian troops have also engaged in the murder, rape and mass displacement of civilians [JURIST report]. Russian officials have stated that they have their own evidence showing that Georgian forces have committed war crimes.

At the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions [official website] in May, diplomats agreed on a draft treaty [text, PDF; JURIST report] banning the use, manufacture, and stockpiling of cluster munitions [ICRC materials; JURIST news archive]. No representatives were sent to the conference from the US, China, Russia, Israel, India, or Pakistan, whose governments collectively make up the world's largest producers and users of cluster bombs. A loophole [HRW press release] allows continued military and other cooperation between parties and non-parties to the treaty, which must still be ratified by individual signatory nations before entering into full effect.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Thailand ruled on Friday that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and his wife Pojamarn Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] will be tried in absentia on corruption charges [AP report]. The couple are in the UK, where last week they announced their refusal to return to Thailand due to alleged judicial bias [JURIST reports]. The Supreme Court issued warrants for their arrest [Bangkok Post report] when they failed to make a court appearance. The Thai government is reportedly seeking their extradition [Bloomberg report] from the UK.

Earlier this month, the Constitutional Court of Thailand [official website, in Thai] rejected [JURIST report] Thaksin's challenge that the commission bringing charges against him is governed by a statute which violates the right to individual liberty. Last month, the Thai Attorney General's Office filed corruption charges [JURIST report] against Thaksin for his role in a 2003 resolution reducing fees paid by mobile phone companies to state telecommunications agencies. In April, Pojamarn pleaded not guilty to charges [JURIST reports] stemming from a 2003 agreement with the government-directed Financial Institutions Development Fund [official website] to purchase land said to be worth three times more than the $26 million she paid for it. Lawyers for Thaksin have been jailed [JURIST report] for attempting to bribe court officials in one of Thaksin's cases, and current Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej [BBC profile] is facing possible impeachment proceedings [JURIST report] due in part to his party's close association with Thaksin.

[JURIST] The AFL-CIO [official website] and three other labor groups filed a complaint [PDF text] with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] on Thursday, alleging that Wal-mart Inc. [corporate website; JURIST news archive], the largest employer in the US, violated federal election laws by forcing employees to attend meetings where political and presidential campaign issues were discussed. According to a report [text] by the Wall Street Journal , the labor groups Change to Win, WakeUpWalMart.com, Americans Rights at Work [official websites], and the AFL-CIO filed the complaint based on Wal-Mart meetings which were intended to convince lower-level department heads that electing a Democratic president would make it easier for workers to unionize, which in turn could lead to lower salaries and violations of privacy. According to the labor organizations, federal regulations allow companies to promote voting for a presidential candidate to high-level managers but not to lower-level managers and department heads. The Washington Post has more. The New York Times has additional coverage.

At issue is the Employee Free Choice Act [HR 800 materials], which would require a company to recognize a union as soon as a majority of a company's employees signed cards saying they want to organize a union. Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-Ill) [campaign website] supports the legislation, while Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.) [campaign website] does not. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled [opinion text; JURIST report] that a 2000 California law [Assembly Bill 1889 text] that prohibits employers from using certain funds they receive from the state to influence union elections is unconstitutional. Previously in 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld [PDF text] the California law, ruling that it was neither preempted by the National Labor Relations Act [text] nor rendered unenforceable by the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Thursday that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury [official profile] did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law [Oregon House Bill 2007, PDF] establishing same-sex domestic partnerships. Bradbury struck over 200 signatures from the petition after officials found that many of the signatures did not match those on voter registration cards. He then announced that the petition was approximately 100 signatures short of the required number. Voters were not permitted to contest the decision by introducing extrinsic evidence, and so signators brought suit, alleging violations of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Ninth Circuit held that any burden placed on the plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote was minimal and held that there had been no constitutional violations:

[T]he Secretary’s procedures already allow chief petitioners and members of the public to observe the signature verification process and challenge decisions by county elections officials. The value of additional procedural safeguards therefore
is negligible, and the burden on plaintiffs’ interests from the state’s failure to adopt their proposed procedures is slight at most.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Thursday refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus to convicted murder Khristian Oliver [Texas Criminal Justice profile], who had argued that his Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the jury took Bible passages into account when deliberating on his eventual death sentence. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas [official website] had made a factual finding that the Bible did not influence the jury’s decision, and the Fifth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Oliver did not present clear and convincing evidence rebutting that finding. The parties agreed that a particular Bible passage was consulted by jurors:

And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. Numbers 35:16-19 (King James).