Based on available information, the Special Advisers consider that the scale and gravity of the violations indicate a serious possibility that crimes against humanity may have been committed and continue to be committed in Syria. They underline the need for an independent, thorough, and objective investigation of the events in the country. They call on the Government of Syria, as the Secretary-General has done, to allow humanitarian access to affect areas and to facilitate the visit of the Human Rights Council-mandated fact finding mission so that it can complete its work. Without these steps, it will be very difficult to defuse existing tensions and to prevent the escalation of violence.

There has been a major struggle to put an end to Syrian violence since the protests began earlier this year. Earlier this month, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] released a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] documenting alleged crimes against humanity during an operation to suppress demonstrations, including killings, mass arrests, arbitrary detentions and torture. 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 [JURIST report] the violence used by Syrian authorities against peaceful demonstrators and called for a full investigation. Days earlier, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called for Syria to immediately halt the killings [JURIST report] and violence against civilian protesters. Over one thousand people have been killed and 10,000 displaced since protests erupted in February.

Last week's order followed an emergency motion made by the Obama administration asking the court to reinstate DADT [JURIST report], arguing that the Ninth Circuit's decision earlier in the month to order a stop to the policy [JURIST report] was misguided and would hinder the repeal process already underway. In November, the court issued the original stay [JURIST report] suspending enforcement of the injunction against DADT. The government had requested that the litigation be placed on hold in light of the passage of legislation to repeal the policy [JURIST report]. After hearing seven months of arguments and briefs, the Ninth Circuit rejected that appeal and lifted the stay. Since DADT's 1993 enactment, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

The $1.5 million jury verdict against Thomas-Rasset was handed down in November 2010, during a third trial requested by RIAA based solely on the issue of damages. This request came after an order from Davis in January 2010, to reduce [JURIST report] a $1.92 million jury verdict against Thomas-Rasset to about $54,000. The $1.9 million verdict stemmed from a trial in June 2009, in which a federal jury in Minnesota assessed damages [JURIST report] at $80,000 per song. The jury found her to have willfully violated copyright law by sharing songs on KaZaA, which has since become a legitimate music purveyor. Those proceedings against Thomas-Rasset were a retrial of a previous judgment against her, granted by a federal judge on the grounds that the court erred by instructing the jury that making the music available on the KaZaA network was enough to violate the Copyright Act and that the $222,000 in damages [JURIST reports] was excessive. In 2008, the RIAA said that it would discontinue its controversial policy [JURIST report] of suing suspected file-sharers and instead will seek cooperation with major Internet service providers to cut off access to repeat offenders.

Gul and Hamad next argue that because they are designated enemy combatants, the United States does not consider them "civilians"; and, therefore, under the laws of war, it may recapture, again detain, and even kill them. This claim of injury is the most speculative of all: The appellants apparently have no basis whatsoever for believing the Government might pursue them because of their continuing designation (or for that matter, any other reason). Indeed, the Government no longer attaches any legal significance to the term "enemy combatant."

Earlier this month, an EU official told the Miami Herald that Europe is still willing to resettle [JURIST report] Guantanamo detainees despite Congress' efforts to prevent closure and transfers. In a display of commitment to a 2009 agreement [JURIST report] with the US, the EU reiterated that detainees would still be accepted on a case-by-case basis. So far, 27 detainees have been transferred to European countries including Germany, Italy, Maldives, Georgia, Albania, Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia and Belgium [JURIST reports]. With 171 detainees left at Guantanamo, the EU's support of transferring detainees comes just weeks after US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] defended his plans [JURIST report] to prosecute terror suspects in federal civilian courts, responding to harsh criticism from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [official website] urging two Iraqi-born terror suspects in Kentucky be sent to Guantanamo.