Israel has faced ongoing criticism from the UN and international human rights groups for its action in the Palestinian territories, which have been under Israeli military control since 1967. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] this month condemned [press release] the killings of between 30 and 40 protesters had been killed by Israeli security forces along the ceasefire line between occupied borders. Nearly 20 civilian protesters were reportedly killed [Reuters report] during a protest on June 5 marking the anniversary of the 1967 Middle East war [NPR backgrounder]. In January, a UN official alleged [JURIST report] that Israeli authorities had committed several illegal acts [press release] in the Palestinian territories [UNICEF backgrounder] since the start of the year, making the prospect of a viable Palestinian state unlikely. In June 2010, Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [advocacy website] released its annual report [JURIST report], noting an advancement in the rights of Palestinians, but calling for greater improvement. The report found that fatalities had declined by 80 percent compared to the previous year, and the quality of life had improved in the West Bank. The report called on Israel to dismantle all settlements, saying that merely halting new settlements is insufficient. The rights organization also chided Israeli security forces for not adequately protecting Palestinians from violence at the hands of Israelis, criticizing a "history of leniency" against the perpetrators of that violence. In March 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank "illegal" [JURIST report], and supported a plan by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad [BBC profile] to build the institutions of an independent state by 2011.

Unquestionably, states have authority to exclude medical providers from participating in Medicaid under some circumstances. The question then becomes whether this is one of those circumstances. ... [I]t is well-settled that the "freedom of choice" provision does not give Medicaid recipients an absolutely unfettered right to choose their healthcare provider. ... The defunding provision, however, renders PPIN "unqualified" to serve as a Medicaid provider because, separate and apart from its basic health care services, PPIN also performs abortions. Thus, the question arises: Can Indiana pick and choose Medicaid providers based on the range of medical services they provide?

Last month, a federal judge refused to block the law [JURIST report] upon passage. But Friday's ruling is in line with a recent US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] brief that urged the court to grant an injunction [brief, PDF] to stop the enforcement of the Indiana law [JURIST report], which went into effect in May. The brief echoed arguments made earlier this month by the Obama administration, which argued against the law [JURIST report] in a letter to the state, which is one of several to have acted recently to tighten restrictions on abortions. Last month, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a South Dakota law requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion. Earlier that week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a pair of bills [JURIST report] that would have restricted state funding for abortions and banned them altogether after 20 weeks. Also in May, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram [JURIST report]. Multiple states have acted to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when some studies suggest a fetus can begin feeling pain, including Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports].

Florida is not alone in its quest to restrict access to abortions. Earlier this month, the Iowa House of Representatives voted in favor [JURIST report] of a bill [HF-1736 text, PDF] that would effectively ban abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy, making it the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The House's bill significantly amends a bill [SF-534 text, PDF] previously introduced by the state Senate and would ban abortions after the beginning of the gestation period, which occurs at a woman's last period before her pregnancy, thus potentially banning abortions as early as 18 weeks. There is no exception in the bill for the health of the mother, although there is for her life. In May, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy websites] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a South Dakota law [HB 1217 materials] requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion. The law, signed [JURIST report] by Governor Dennis Daugaard [official website] in March, is set to take effect July 1 and would impose the longest waiting period in the country.

It is not appellant's conduct in isolation that constitutes a law of war violation triable by military commission. Rather, it is his knowledge, intent, and conduct, in support of terrorism, and in the specific context of a conflict triggering application of U.S. treaty obligations per Common Article 3, which make it cognizable under the 2006 M.C.A. In enacting the 2006 M.C.A., Congress circumscribed the capacity of the military to unilaterally interpret the law of war and craft law of war offenses and punishments in connection with al Qaeda and terrorism offenses. The charges at bar are not the exercise of fiat or expediency by the executive branch; they are the product of closely prescribed statutes of limited application encompassing the peculiarities of the modern geopolitical environment.

In November 2008, Hamdan was released [JURIST report] to his native country Yemen to serve the last month of his prison sentence and is now living freely in Yemen. His release alleviated concerns that arose when government lawyers said he could be held indefinitely [JURIST report]. In October 2008, a US military judge denied [ruling, PDF; JURIST report] a request [motion, PDF] by prosecutors that he reconsider a decision that reduced Hamdan's sentence [JURIST report] from five-and-a-half years to six months because of credit for time already served. Hamdan was initially taken into custody in 2001, and in 2006 he successfully challenged President George W. Bush's military commission system when the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the commission system as initially construed violated US and international law. Congress subsequently passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [DOD materials], which established the current military commissions system.