Appellee/cross-appellant's motion to lift this court's November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court's judgment pending appeal is granted. In their briefs, appellants/cross-appellees do not contend that 10 USC § 654 is constitutional. In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 USC § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay.

In May, the US House of Representatives passed the $690 billion National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [HR 1540 materials], which contains a provision [Sec. 533] that would delay the repeal of DADT [JURIST report]. The repeal had reportedly been on track [JURIST report] to be completed by midsummer. The provision would require the chiefs of each military branch to provide written certification that the repeal of DADT be harmful to the "readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, and morale" of armed forces units. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was approved in the Senate in December after being passed [JURIST reports] by the House of Representatives the week before. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

Illinois has two convicted former governors as Rod Blagojevich [personal website; JURIST news archive] was convicted [JURIST report] on 17 of 20 counts including attempting to sell or trade the US Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. Blagojevich had also tried to cite Skilling, but a district judge denied a request [JURIST report] to delay the trial. In 2008, Ryan issued his first public apology [JURIST report] for the crimes that resulted in his imprisonment. Ryan was sentenced in 2007 and jailed [JURIST reports] on corruption charges. Ryan's trial began in 2005, and, in 2006, a jury found him guilty [JURIST reports] on multiple counts of corruption and fraud [indictment, PDF] in connection with a bribes-for-licenses scandal that occurred during Ryan's term as Illinois Secretary of State. Ryan made national headlines and won praise in some quarters in January 2003 when, just before leaving office, he commuted the executions [BBC report] of all Illinois inmates then on death row.

[F]or millions of women and girls, the reality is that the rule of law means little in practice. While law is intended to be a neutral set of rules to govern society, in all countries of the world, laws tend to reflect and reinforce the privilege and the interests of the powerful, whether on the basis of economic class, ethnicity, race, religion or gender. Justice systems also reflect these power imbalances. In all societies, women are less powerful than men and the two areas in which women's rights are least protected, where the rule of law is weakest and men's privilege is often most entrenched, are first, women's rights in the private and domestic sphere, including their rights to live free from violence and to make decisions about their sexuality, on marriage, divorce and reproductive health; and second, women's economic rights, including the right to decent work and the right to inherit and control land and other productive resources. There are challenges at every stage, starting with legal frameworks. In some cases, laws overtly discriminate against women, according them fewer rights than men. Examples of this include laws that limit women's rights within the family, or those that prohibit women from passing on their citizenship to their husband or children, impacting on their civil and political rights, and access to public services. In other cases, the protection of the rule of law is not extended to the private domain where millions of women work and where they are most likely to experience violence.

Equality and women's rights continue to be an issue for much of the world. UN Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo [official profile, DOC] released a report last month that said there is a continued prevalence of violence and discriminatory treatment of women in the US [JURIST report], with a heightened impact on poor, minority and immigrant women. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] pressed [JURIST report] Tunisia and Egypt on Tuesday to ensure that women's rights receive constitutional protection and to include women in the dialogue to shape the future of their countries. In January, a US Military panel recommended [JURIST report] that women should be allowed to serve on the front lines of combat. Last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [official website] called on the Afghan government to protect the rights of women [JURIST report] during integration and reconciliation efforts conducted with the Taliban [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] and other militants. Earlier in 2010, India's upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha [official website], approved a bill [JURIST report] to ensure that one-third of seats in parliament are reserved for women. The Women's Reservation Bill [2008 text, PDF] increased the number of women serving in the 543-seat legislature, which currently has no gender quota, from 59 to at least 181.

Earlier in June, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official website] presented the materials to Pre-Trial Chamber. He said his office had gathered "direct evidence" [JURIST report] that shows Gaddafi personally ordered attacks on civilian protestors and that his forces used live ammunition on crowds, attacked civilians in their homes, used heavy weapons against people in funeral processions and placed snipers to shoot those leaving mosques after prayer services. Moreno-Ocampo announced last month that his office was pursuing arrest warrants [JURIST report] against Gaddafi and the two others in his "inner circle." He said al-Islam was acting as Gaddafi's "de facto Prime Minister" and called al-Sanussi Gaddafi's "right-hand man" and "executioner." At that time, Moreno-Ocampo said his office was almost prepared for trial, having collected quality testimony from some who have fled Libya. There have been numerous allegations of war crimes and human rights violations over the Libyan revolt which has persisted since February. Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] decided to extend a mandate to an investigative panel instructing it to continue its investigation of human rights abuses in Libya, after it published a 92-page report [JURIST reports]. The report claims Libyan authorities have committed crimes against humanity such as acts constituting murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberties, torture, forced disappearances and rape "as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack."

We welcome the announcement that the Obama administration will prosecute Warsame in the criminal justice system. Unlike the discredited military commissions, federal courts are able to achieve justice and unquestionably have jurisdiction over the material support and conspiracy crimes with which Warsame is charged. But the Obama administration has put a criminal conviction at risk by holding Warsame in unlawful military detention for over two months. The government could have obtained intelligence through law enforcement rather than military interrogation, as it successfully has in hundreds of terrorism cases, without jeopardizing its criminal case. We are deeply concerned that the Obama administration continues to assert a worldwide war authority wherever terrorism suspects are found, and it is incumbent upon Congress to impose necessary and wise limitations on the administration.

It is truly astonishing that this administrations is determined—determined—to give foreign fighters all the rights and privileges of US citizens, regardless of where they are captured. ... It has become abundantly clear that the administration has no intention of utilizing Guantanamo unless an enemy combatant is already being held there. Instead, the administration has purposefully imported a terrorist into the US and is providing him of all the rights of a US citizen in court. This ideological rigidity being displayed by the administration is harming the national security of the United States of America.

US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] has consistently advocated [JURIST report] that terror suspects should be tried in civilian courts despite finding little support from Congress. Last month, Holder gave a speech defending the civil court system for terror suspects saying he will, "defend the exclusive right of the executive branch to determine appropriate venues and mechanisms for all criminal trials," and that he will, " continue to point—one indisputable fact ... proven repeatedly by this administration and the previous one: in disrupting potential attacks and effectively interrogating, prosecuting, and incarcerating terrorists, there is quite simply, no more powerful tool than our civilian court system." In April, Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and four other co-conspirators will be tried before a military commission [JURIST report] for their roles in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Holder, who wanted the accused be tried before a federal civilian court [JURIST report], referred the cases to the Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST report] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US. Holder refused to delay the trial any longer for the sake of the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families, explaining that the restrictions are not likely to be repealed in the immediate future. The Obama administration changed its position despite repeated appeals from rights groups to utilize civilian courts over military commissions for the trials of suspected terrorists. However, international pressure to use civilian courts remains. Last March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] called on the Obama administration to hold civilian trials [JURIST report] for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists saying that the military commissions system is fatally flawed and cannot be reformed.

In view of the consistent statements that were collected, the team can conclude that at least 387 civilians were raped, including 300 women, 23 men, 55 girls, and 9 boys during the attack on villages along the Kibua-Mpofi axis. It is highly likely that the number of victims is higher, as some victims did not come forward for the reasons given in paragraph 5 of this report. According to local sources, the attacks were a punitive strike intended to subjugate local communities living along the Kibua-Mpofi axis, considered as "traitors" for reportedly sympathizing with Government forces, and aimed at equipping the coalition of armed groups. The armed groups allegedly decided to scare them forever through extremely humiliating acts, hence the planning of mass rapes. According to the statement of a local victim from the Nianga ethnic group, "It is better to die than being raped by FDLR and their allies, because such rape is the worst humiliation against a human being."

DRC has been struggling with a number of human rights issues. Last month, a military court sentenced four policemen to death for killing prominent human rights activist Floribert Chebeya last year. In early October, Human Rights Watch called for the DRC government [JURIST report] to arrest general Bosco Ntaganda pursuant to an outstanding warrant for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. Earlier that same week French authorities arrested a leader [JURIST report] of the FDLR for crimes committed by that group in the DRC. In October, UN peacekeeping forces and the DRC government arrested Mai Mai Cheka [JURIST report] for allegedly leading a rebel group responsible for mass rapes in the country.

Time and time again, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the NLRB should serve as the principal arbiter of labor disputes. Thus the Court sees no justification for a court to abandon consideration of the threshold question, which is whether the matter at issue is peripheral to the concerns of the NLRA or a matter of particular local concern. This would require the Court to discard more than half a century of federal policy that places exclusive jurisdiction over issues of national labor relations in the hands of the agency created by Congress to deal with them. Absent more explicit direction from Congress or the Supreme Court, the Court sees no reason to do so.

Anti-union fervor has been spreading among state legislatures. Last month, 10 Wisconsin unions filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] challenging the state's new collective bargaining law. The lawsuit alleges that the Budget Repair Bill [Senate Bill 11 text, PDF] violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments [texts]. According to the plaintiffs, the bill discriminates among groups of public employees and eliminates basic union rights, like bargaining, organizing and associating. Phil Neuenfeldt, president of Wisconsin State AFL-CIO [official website], condemned Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker [official website] for implementing the law and described the law as unconstitutional: "Not only have Scott Walker and his deep-pocketed corporate allies sought to silence the voices of Wisconsin workers, they have also violated those workers constitutional rights."

The Georgia suit does not mark the first time the ACLU and other groups have taken legal action against immigration laws in recent months. Last month, the ACLU filed a class action suit challenging an Indiana immigration law [JURIST report] that requires individuals to provide proof of their legal status at all times and calls for all public meetings, websites and documents to be in English only. Also last month, the ACLU and other groups filed a class action suit against a Utah immigration law [JURIST report] that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for an alleged felony or serious misdemeanor. Federal judges have enjoined both the Indiana and Utah laws [JURIST reports]. Similar legislation has been approved in Alabama, Virginia and Oklahoma [JURIST reports]. Arizona's legislation, signed into law last April, is currently enjoined, and Governor Jan Brewer has pledged to appeal to the US Supreme Court [JURIST reports].

On the basis of this and other research, Amnesty International considers that the Syrian army and security forces committed crimes and other violations during the security operation in Tell Kalakh that, when taken in the context of other crimes and human rights violations elsewhere in Syria, amount to crimes against humanity. This is because they appear to be part of a widespread, as well as systematic, attack against the civilian population involving multiple commission of a range of crimes against a multiplicity of victims in an organized manner and pursuant to a state policy to commit such an attack. These crimes include murder, torture, arbitrary detention and other severe deprivation of liberty, and other inhumane acts committed intentionally to cause great suffering or serious damage to mental or physical health.

Earlier this month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] said that the recent wave of Middle East and North African protests and revolutions showed a basic need for human rights. Pillay pointed to the efforts of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] in these conflict areas: fact finding missions in Libya, Ivory Coast and Syria [JURIST report] and country offices created in Tunisia and Egypt. There has been a major struggle to put an end to Syrian violence since the protests began earlier this year. In June, Syrian and international human rights groups urged the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to investigate the hundreds of civilian deaths during protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [Al Jazeera profile]. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website], in an emergency special session in April, publicly condemned [text, PDF; JURIST report] the violence used by Syrian authorities against peaceful protesters. Pillay called for Syria to immediately halt the killings [JURIST report] and violence against civilian protesters in response to the fatal shootings of peaceful anti-government protesters. Also in April, al-Assad ended [JURIST report] the country's 48-year-old state of emergency, but protests continue. Earlier in the same month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported [text] that Syrian security forces have stopped medical personnel [JURIST report], sometimes violently, from attending to injured protesters. A spokesperson for the group called the practice "both inhumane and illegal." Pillay urged the Syrian government [JURIST report] in March to ensure protesters' rights to peaceful expression and to work toward addressing their concerns instead of responding with violence.

Prior to his death, Magnitsky was held in prison for 358 days with little to no access to legal representation, his family or medical professionals. In February, the Council began investigating Magnitsky's death and the verdicts handed down against former Russian oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive] and his business partner Platon Lebedev [defense website]. The Council's goal is to submit to Medvedev, "expert legal analysis in connection with specific cases causing public outcry or defining trend of judicial practice." The Council began its work shortly after a group of independent UN human rights experts started its own investigation into the circumstances around Magnitsky's death. Last year, US lawmakers introduced a bill [JURIST report] that would prohibit the US State Department (DOS) [official website] from issuing visas to individuals, or their family members, who are connected to Magnitsky's death.

Last month, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF]. The complaint argued that the charges against Tymoshenko are politically engineered by current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], Tymoshenko's political rival. ECHR President Jean Paul Costa refused to comment on the complaint [Korrespondent report, in Russian], but said it was before the court. The current combined case against her is not the first time she has been prosecuted. Last May, prosecutors reopened a separate criminal investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that Tymoshenko attempted to bribe Supreme Court judges. Tymoshenko's government was dissolved in March 2010 after she narrowly lost the presidential election to Yanukovych. Tymoshenko had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed Yanukovych to win the election.