[JURIST] Ten European Union (EU) nations have agreed to accept Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees, and five more are giving the matter serious consideration, according to a Thursday Washington Post report [text]. While Britain, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain [JURIST reports] have all either taken or publicly agreed to take detainees, administration officials said four other countries have privately agreed to accept detainees. Five other countries have not yet committed to accepting detainees, but are considering it. Belgium has sent a delegation [press release] to visit the facility and interview a detainee for potential transfer, and a second European delegation is reportedly also visiting the facility this week. Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende [official profile] said last month that the Netherlands would be willing to consider [JURIST report] accepting Guantanamo Bay detainees, despite earlier statements to the contrary.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the Obama administration has notified Congress of plans to transfer six Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees out of the country. The notifications were reportedly filed August 7, in accordance with a new law that requires risk assessments and notification of transfers. One of the six detainees is Mohammed Jawad [ACLU materials; JURIST news archive], who will be repatriated to Afghanistan. The other five have not been identified, but two are expected to be sent to Ireland, two to Portugual [JURIST reports], and the sixth to an undecided nation.

[JURIST] Tunisia continues to commit hundreds of human rights abuses [press release] despite previous vows to cease, according to a report [text, PDF] published Thursday by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website]. The report details the arrest, torture, and detention of prisoners in the name of national security, and even the kidnapping and forced return of Tunisians living abroad. The report urges Tunisian authorities to:

ensure that all allegations of torture and other ill-treatment are promptly, fully and independently investigated, with the outcome made public and officials responsible for torture or other serious abuses being held accountable and prosecuted before the courts, in conformity with international law.

[JURIST] Judge Reggie Walton of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] issued a ruling [opinion, PDF] Wednesday that severely curtails the federal government's ability to use hearsay evidence in trials against Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees. While in normal criminal and civil cases hearsay is not accepted as evidence unless it meets specific criteria, it has frequently been allowed in terrorism cases because there either was no other evidence or presenting alternative evidence would have been too burdensome. The government had argued that hearsay was broadly permitted by the US Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [opinion text]. In his opinion, Walton disagreed, holding:

Where the government is unable to produce non-hearsay evidence due to its own administrative or bureaucratic errors or lack of resources to amass such evidence, it cannot rely upon its shortage of resources or its own mistakes as justification for the use of hearsay. And the more significant a fact the government seeks to establish through the use of hearsay is, the heavier its burden will be to justify the Court's consideration of hearsay as a substitute for its non-hearsay alternative.

[JURIST] Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani [BBC profile] said Wednesday that the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) [party website] does not support treason charges against former president Pervez Musharraf [official profile; JURIST news archive], making the requisite consensus resolution extremely unlikely. Gilani told parliament that in order to try Musharraf under Article 6 [text] of the Pakistani Constitution, there would have to be a unanimous resolution [Daily Times report], which the PPP will not support. Opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) [party website], led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif [JURIST news archive], had called for treason charges [Dawn report] Wednesday, saying he had a draft resolution prepared. Gilani responded that revenge had already been taken through the democratic process and that no treason charges would be brought unless parliament reached a unanimous decision.

Last week, Pakistan's Awami National Party (ANP) [party website] said that it would support treason charges against Musharraf, one day after Pakistani police filed charges [JURIST reports] against Musharraf alleging that he illegally detained members of the judiciary after declaring emergency rule [proclamation, PDF] in November 2007. Last month, the Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] declared [judgment, PDF] that Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule violated the Constitution of Pakistan [text]. Musharraf resigned from office [JURIST report] last August in order to avoid impeachment proceedings by the country's parliament. Earlier that month, the country's coalition government said that it would push to impeach Musharraf because he had given a "clear commitment" to step down from office after his party was defeated in parliamentary elections [JURIST reports]. In June 2008, Sharif called for Musharraf to be tried for treason [JURIST report], labeling him a traitor disloyal to Pakistan and saying he should be punished for the "damage" that he had done to the country in the years since he led a military coup [BBC backgrounder] and unseated Sharif in 1999.

[JURIST] Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill [official profile] announced [press release] Thursday that convicted Pan Am Flight 103 [BBC backgrounder] bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi [BBC profile] is being released from prison on compassionate grounds and transferred to his native Libya. Megrahi was recently diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and his release comes days after the Scottish High Court of the Judiciary [official website] accepted a request to withdraw a pending appeal [JURIST report] to his 2001 conviction, which would have been an impediment to his transfer. MacAskill said:

In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Wednesday that several gay rights groups may not intervene in a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] challenging California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], Proposition 8 [text, PDF], on federal constitutional grounds. Judge Vaughn Walker denied requests to intervene filed by groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) [advocacy websites]. Walker also denied a similar request by the Campaign for California Families [advocacy website], which supported Proposition 8. Lambda Legal said in a statement [text] that it "anticipates continuing to support the case as an amicus." Walker set a trial date for January 11, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed [JURIST report] in May by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies [professional profiles], who were opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore [opinion], which decided the outcome of the contested 2000 US Presidential election [JURIST backgrounder]. The challenge was announced shortly after the California Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that state law challenges to the ban lacked merit. Proposition 8, approved by voters [JURIST report] in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision last year striking down [JURIST report] a statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution. The amendment has become a focal point for gay rights, prompting donors from across the US and several foreign countries to contribute $83 million in total for both sides of the issue, setting US fundraising records [JURIST report].

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] late Tuesday that the federal government cannot freeze the assets of an organization suspected of terrorism ties without probable cause. Judge James Carr also ruled that the government must tell the organization the basis for the asset freeze and give the organization the opportunity to defend itself. The ruling came in the case of Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development [ACLU materials], which sued the federal government in 2008 after the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) [official website] froze its assets in 2006, alleging it was providing support to US-designated terrorist group Hamas [JURIST news archive]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] brought the suit [complaint, PDF] on plaintiffs' behalf. ACLU cooperating attorney Hina Shamsi said [press release]:

This historic ruling rejects the government's argument that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply when a case raises national security and foreign policy concerns. The ruling provides a much-needed judicial check on executive power. Until now, the administration has been able to unilaterally and indefinitely freeze the assets of a U.S. corporation without probable cause and a warrant.

[JURIST] Eight years after 9/11 [JURIST news archive], counterterrorism efforts continue to dominate the operations and budget of the FBI [official website], according to a Tuesday report [text] by the New York Times. Since the attacks, the bureau has doubled the number of agents it assigns to counterterrorism efforts and has created specialized "threat squads" to investigate possible threats. Agents in those squads have said that 9/11 showed how important it is to follow credible leads, but noted that less than five percent of those they pursue are substantial enough to justify long-term investigation. FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profile] has also admitted that devoting 40 percent of agents to counterterrorism has reduced the amount of resources that can be devoted to fighting other crimes, but says that it remains the agency's top priority.

The report illustrates the how central counterterrorism remains to the FBI despite February statements [materials; JURIST report] by FBI Deputy Director John Pistole [official profile] that a number of agents from national security and counterterrorism activities would be reassigned to investigations involving financial fraud. In August 2008, the FBI proposed new investigation guidelines [JURIST report] designed to reflect the shift in the agency's focus. In September of that year, Mueller defended the proposed guidelines [JURIST report] before the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] as a "necessary step" in fighting terrorism. Opponents have argued [JURIST report] that the changes could allow inappropriate racial and ethnic profiling and would permit agents to open terror investigations without evidence of any crime having been committed.

[JURIST] Five Facebook [social networking website] users have filed suit [complaint; case materials] in the Superior Court of California for Orange County alleging that the social networking site violated their privacy. Among the claims put forth in the suit filed Monday are that Facebook disseminates users' private information and copyrighted photographs, and altered its Terms of Use without seeking approval of users. The plaintiffs, all Facebook users, claim these actions violate California Civil Code section 3344, the California Online Privacy Act, and the California constitutional right to privacy [texts]. Facebook called the complaint meritless [San Francisco Chronicle report] and indicated it will fight the suit.

This lawsuit is just the latest in a series of privacy-related challenges the social networking site has faced over the past year. In late July, Facebook closed a loophole that allowed individuals to see strangers' photos [CNET report] without those users' knowledge. In mid-July, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [official website] stated that Facebook does not comply [report, PDF] with Canadian privacy laws. In February, Facebook, facing a federal complaint [PC World report], reversed an earlier change to its Terms of Use that would have given it ownership of all data posted on the site, even if a user were to delete his or her page.

[JURIST] The US government on Wednesday reached an agreement [press release] with Switzerland that would grant the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [official website] access to information on thousands of Swiss bank accounts. As part of the agreement [text, PDF], the Swiss government will instruct banking giant UBS [corporate website] to begin to turn over information regarding certain anonymous bank accounts. In return, the US will cease unilateral efforts to seek account holder information, including withdrawing motions to enforce "John Doe" summons, although the summons will remain in effect. UBS will notify account holders that their information may be turned over the the IRS, though this will not necessarily make the individuals ineligible for the service's Voluntary Disclosure Program [text].

The agreement is the end of a contentious process by the IRS to seek out individuals who hide their income for the purpose of avoiding taxes. In early May, the Obama administration announced revisions to the tax code [JURIST report] designed to curb overseas tax havens. One week earlier, the Swiss government filed an amicus curiae brief in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the attempt to obtain account holder information by the US violated Swiss national sovereignty [JURIST report]. Earlier this year, the Swiss announced their intention to adopt a more stringent definition [JURIST report] of tax evasion and to work with other countries to investigate such claims.

[JURIST] Oklahoma state court judge Vicki Robertson ruled [transcript, PDF] Tuesday that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure violates the Oklahoma Constitution [text]. Without reaching the validity the of the ultrasound requirement itself, the judge held [transcript, PDF] that the law violated a constitutional requirement that legislation only address one issue. The law also included sections on requirements for abortion clinic signs, the administration of an early-term abortion pill, and rules on lawsuits relating to abortions. Attorneys for the state had argued that the law did not violate the constitution because its substance all related to the broader issue of abortion, and have indicated that they will likely appeal [NYT report] the ruling.

Controversy on abortion laws has also continued in other states. Earlier this month, the Illinois Department of Finance and Professional Regulation (DFPR) [official website] granted doctors a 90-day grace period [statement, PDF; JURIST report] for enforcement of the state's parental notification requirement for minors obtaining abortions, a law which one scholar has called "unnecessary" and "dangerous" [JURIST op-ed]. That announcement followed a decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] last month by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] that reversed a district court injunction [JURIST report] barring the law's enforcement. In June 2007, the governor of New Hampshire signed a repeal of the state's parental notification law [JURIST report], which never took effect. In 2006, voters in Oregon and California rejected statutes that would have required notification [JURIST report], although those measures allowed minors to request a judge to bypass the requirement.