[JURIST] Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official profile; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday invited [press release and letter] former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) [official website] and federal judge Jay Bybee [official profile], who signed off on memos detailing the legal rationale for enhanced interrogation techniques, to testify before the committee. Leahy wants Bybee to explain apparently contradictory statements in which Bybee expressed regret [Washington Post report] for signing the memos and then defended [NYT report] his actions. Leahy wrote:

By coming forward to testify, you will be able to explain your position with regard to these matters, including your involvement and your knowledge regarding how these memos were written and approved, what considerations went into that process, who was consulted in that process and the roles of various individuals.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] The Mexican military is failing to hold its members accountable for human rights abuses, according to a report [text, PDF; press release] released Wednesday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. According to the report, the use of the military by President Felipe Calderon [official website] to combat drug cartels has resulted in human rights violations by soldiers, including killings, torture, rapes, and arbitrary detentions. The report states that these abuses have gone unpunished, with no convictions resulting from any investigations. The report underscores the importance of holding human rights violators accountable:

Such horrific abuses directly undermine the goal of stopping drug-related violence and improving public security. The army is currently deployed in the areas of the country most torn by drug-related violence. It would be in the military’s best interest to act and be seen to act in a manner that is professional and respectful of civilians and human rights. When soldiers commit serious human rights crimes, they damage that image, alienating civilians and generating distrust and fear of the army in populations that otherwise are best placed to assist law enforcement efforts. The abuses also run counter to one of the main purposes that
the armed forces are charged with serving in public security operations: enforcing the law and protecting members of the public—not harming them.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] JURIST has been nominated in New York for a prestigious Webby Award as the best Law website of 2009. By virtue of being a nominee, JURIST is eligible for the Webby People's Voice award in addition to the judge's award. We hope you'll support JURIST and our staff of dedicated law students by voting for us! This your last chance to vote, as polls close Thursday, April 30.

Here's how to vote:

1. Register to vote: click here;

2. Once you register, an activation code will be sent to your e-mail (check to make sure it's not misdirected to your "junk" folder);

3. Log on here and click on "Website: Vote now";

4. Scroll down to "Society" and click on the "Law" category;

5. Vote for JURIST!

[JURIST] Officials from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] said Wednesday that Congress should eliminate the sentencing disparities [recorded audio] between crimes committed involving crack and powder cocaine. The statements came during a hearing [materials] of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs [official website]. Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer [official profile] testified that the disparity in sentencing guidelines has only increased the strain on the US prison system and has undermined the trust in the justice system, particularly among minorities where sentences for crack cocaine more common. Breuer and others also testified that the differences in sentences, which were instituted in 1986, were based on an incorrect belief that crack cocaine users were more violent and more damaging to society than powder cocaine users.

The sentencing issue was previously addressed by the US Sentencing Commission (USSC) [official website] in 2007 when it voted unanimously [JURIST report] to give retroactive effect to an earlier amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines [USSC materials] that reduced penalties for crack cocaine offenders [press release]. The amendment, which took effect on November 1, 2007, was intended to narrow the disparity between sentences for powder and crack cocaine offenses. According to a study [text, PDF] released [JURIST report] by the USSC in April 2008, more than 3,000 prison inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses had their sentences reduced under the amendment.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official website] reaffirmed [press conference transcript] Wednesday his position that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to torture [JURIST news archives] and defended his decision to ban use of the technique [JURIST report]. Speaking at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office, Obama again said that the US has "rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception," affirming a statement from his inaugural address [text; JURIST report]. In response to a question about waterboarding, Obama said:

What I've said - and I will repeat - is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices. I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do - not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] on Wednesday approved a bill [HR 1913 materials] that would expand protection from hate crimes [JURIST news archive] by broadening the category of violations defined in the current law. The bill, which was approved by a vote of 249-175 [roll call vote], would expand the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim. The current federal hate crime law only protects crimes committed based on race, religion, color, or national origin. The legislation also includes a provision which directs the US attorney general [official website] to give priority to providing assistance in cases where an offender has committed a hate crime in more than one state and cases in rural jurisdictions. While the bill did meet some opposition, it had support of President Barack Obama [official profile], who said in statement [text] prior to the vote, "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association."

In 2007, the House had approved [JURIST report] a similar bill [text, PDF; HR 1592 summary], and the US Senate [official website] also passed [JURIST report] similar legislation in the form of an amendment to the 2008 Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill [HR 1585 materials]. However, the broadened language was ultimately removed [JURIST report] during House and Senate negotiations.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees who were captured as juveniles called for their release Wednesday, the same day as the UN Security Council [official website] held an open meeting on children in armed conflict. Lawyers for Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive], who was 14 or 15 when he allegedly killed a US soldier with a grenade in Afghanistan, and Mohammed Jawad [DOD materials; JURIST news archive], who was 16 or 17 when he allegedly injured soldiers with a grenade, argued [AP report] that their clients' detention violates the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict [text], to which the US is a signatory. The protocol prohibits a juvenile from being considered a member of an armed group. The lawyers urged the US government to take action at home as it seeks to protect children around the world, pointing to the statement [text] of US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice [official profile] at the Security Council meeting Wednesday, in which she said, "The United States is deeply committed to the welfare of children, and that includes protecting children from the scourge of war." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official website] also delivered an address [text] in which he urged the Security Council to expand a 2005 resolution to better protect children against physical and sexual violence.

Khadr's lawyers have previously argued [JURIST report] that his continued detention violates the optional protocol. In January, US President Barack Obama issued an executive order [text; JURIST report] ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility and halting military commission [JURIST news archive] proceedings, including Khadr's military commission. Khadr's lawyers have proposed a plan for his repatriation to Canada, and last week, a Canadian judge ordered [JURIST reports] Prime Minister Stephen Harper [official website] to seek Khadr's release and repatriation. Also last week, a judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ordered [text, PDF; JURIST report] that Jawad be allowed to challenge his detention in federal courts without delay.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday decided [writ, PDF, in Spanish] to initiate an investigation into torture allegations at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] made by four former prisoners held at the facility. Garzon said he based his decision on statements from Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamiel Abdul Latiff Al Banna, and Omar Deghayes, who claim they were subject to various forms of physical and mental abuse [El Pais report, in Spanish] during their imprisonment. Garzon also said that recently released CIA interrogation memos [JURIST report] detailed what had been previously suspected, a plan which authorized the systematic torture and mistreatment of persons who were deprived the basic rights of detainees. According to Garzon, the alleged abuse violates the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials], the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [UN materials], and other international treaties. Additionally, Garzon said the investigation is authorized under Spain's concept of universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder], which allows a Spanish court to pursue certain types of cases, such as torture, outside its national borders, but only when legal action has not already commenced [AFP report] within the other country involved.

The investigation is unrelated to Garzon's earlier request for Spanish prosecutors to examine the US lawyers [JURIST report] reportedly behind the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Garzon's request came after a criminal complaint [text, PDF, in Spanish] was filed [Publico report, in Spanish] in the Audiencia Nacional [official website] against six lawyers from the administration of former US president George W. Bush, including David Addington, John Yoo, and former attorney general Alberto Gonzales. Earlier this month Spanish prosecutors announced that they would not recommend trying any of the named defendants [JURIST report] because they had not committed acts of torture. Last week, Garzon was replaced [JURIST report] by Eloy Velasco after Garzon recommended that the provisional case of whether to pursue legal action be assigned to an investigating magistrate.

VOTE FOR JURIST JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!