The court originally ordered the release [JURIST report] of Slahi in March. Slahi was once considered a key al Qaeda leader and prosecutors had sought the death penalty against him. A prominent government prosecutor stepped down from the case [PBS interview] because he did not support the alleged abusive treatment used against Slahi, which was investigated in a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] report [text, PDF]. Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the US government can indefinitely hold [JURIST report] an Afghan detainee accused of having ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Last month, a federal judge ordered the release [JURIST report] of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainee Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif [NYT profile], citing a lack of evidence proving that Latif was part of a terrorist organization. In July, the DC Circuit also released a redacted opinion [JURIST report] holding that evidence against Algerian Guantanamo detainee Belkacem Bensaya must be reviewed to determine if he was "part of" al Qaeda.

The district court based its findings almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs' experts, and simply ignored virtually everything - judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence - that ran counter to its conclusions. Most importantly, the court ignored an overwhelming body of evidence establishing the common-sense proposition that the institution of marriage has, virtually always and everywhere, been defined as a union of man and woman because its central animating societal purpose has always, and everywhere, been to channel potentially procreative sexual relations into enduring, stable family unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit issued a stay [JURIST report] of Walker's decision pending appeal. Earlier last month, Walker held that the same-sex marriage ban violated the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the US Constitution. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request, which led to Walker's refusal to issue a stay pending appeal. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, and their refusal to oppose the stay request left defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

There have been several moves toward nuclear non-proliferation [JURIST news archive] worldwide. Last month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official website] called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons [JURIST report] in a speech [text] delivered during a visit to the Japanese city of Nagasaki. In his speech, Ban emphasized the importance of eliminating existing nuclear weapons and using political pressure to create stronger nonproliferation treaties. The UN Security Council [official website] voted [JURIST report] in June to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran [press release] for its failure to disband the nation's uranium enrichment program. In April, US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedvev [official profiles] signed [JURIST report] the New START Treaty [text, PDF]. Under the terms of the treaty and its protocol [text, PDF], both countries would be allowed only 1,550 strategic warheads worldwide, a decrease from the 2,200 currently permitted.

The majority opinion deals a substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights. According to the rule my colleagues have created, one who earns profits by commercial exploitation of abuse of fundamental human rights can successfully shield those profits from victims' claims for compensation simply by taking the precaution of conducting the heinous operation in the corporate form. Without any support in either the precedents or the scholarship of international law, the majority take the position that corporations, and other juridical entities, are not subject to international law, and for that reason such violators of fundamental human rights are free to retain any profits so earned without liability to their victims.

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a jury verdict clearing Chevron [corporate website] of wrongdoing in the 1998 deaths of two protesters occupying a Nigerian oil platform operated by the company. Protesters Arolika Irowarinun and Bola Oyinbo were killed in May 1998 on Parabe Oil Platform and several others were injured when Nigerian government security forces, called in by Chevron Nigeria Limited, a subsidiary of Chevron, opened fire on the protesters. The families of Irowarinun and Oyinbo, as well as several injured protesters, subsequently filed a lawsuit under the ATCA, and Nigerian and California law. The appellate court ruled that there were no errors in jury instructions given by the trial court, the trial court properly dismissed the Alien Tort Act claims for wrongful death and survival and the Torture Victims Protection Act [text] does not apply to corporations.