The provision was approved [JURIST report] earlier this month by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) [official website] in a unanimous vote after disagreements regarding the provision had blocked their passage for months [CNN report]. The passage by the SASC came shortly after an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] report [PDF] claiming that the US is diminishing its "core values" [JURIST report] with regard to various counterterrorism measures put in place during the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks [JURIST backgrounder]. To support this contention, the report cites to US policies regarding indefinite military detention for terrorism suspects, the use of torture on terrorism suspects and enemy combatants, racial and religious profiling and domestic surveillance and wiretapping. The report posits that certain US policies run deeper than what is known by the American people, civil liberties continue to be violated in secret and that future violations are imminent. The ACLU acknowledged that the government has sought to cease certain questionable practices, citing President Barack Obama's directive to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison [JURIST news archive], but stated that other questionable practices remain "core elements of [US] national security strategy today."

Facebook has always been committed to being transparent about the information you have stored with us - and we have led the internet in building tools to give people the ability to see and control what they share. But we can also always do better. I'm committed to making Facebook the leader in transparency and control around privacy.

In September, members of the Congressional Privacy Caucus [official website] asked the FTC to look into Facebook's privacy settings, including allegations that Facebook continued to track user's activities after they logged out [JURIST report] of the website. This is also not the first time Facebook has been the target of governmental review. In August, the Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information [official website, in German] accused Facebook of violating European data protection laws [JURIST report] through its facial recognition feature that automatically recognizes and "tags" users when others upload photos of them. In December 2010, South Korea alleged that Facebook failed to comply [JURIST report] with privacy laws and expressed concern over the handling of personal information and data. The Canadian Office of the Privacy Commissioner [official website] announced in January 2010 that it was launching a probe [JURIST report] into Facebook's privacy setting as a result of the new feature that allowed people to alter it, but left the default setting very much public.

When the Gbagbo refused to step down from his position as a president after his defeat in the November election by the current president Alassane Ouattara [BBC profile] violence resulted due to the arising fight between the two forces. Gbagbo was forced out and captured [JURIST report] in April. Last month, the ICC's Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] stated [JURIST report] that the court will focus their investigations specifically on three to six suspects most responsible in the alleged involvement in the post-election violence after he arrived [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast. The investigation was set in motion after the ICC granted [JURIST report] the prosecution's request to look into the crimes committed during the post-election period. In the same month, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report [JURIST report] related to the said incident and urged the Ivory Coast government to prosecute both sides of the post-election violence equally. Ivory Coast initiated a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [JURIST report] last month in order to resolve the conflicts arising out of the post-election violence in response to UN's call for investigation [JURIST report] in June and to HRW's request [JURIST report] for the same.

Tonight, the bill that is before the parliament seeks to strike a blow against prejudice and to strike a blow against discrimination. […] [T]hat is what this bill is about: dignity and respect for relationships that are precious in their own right. The arguments we hear from the opposition simply do not hold any weight. The first argument is that somehow this issue is not a priority—that is, that governments should only ever do things that are on the top of the list, that you should never do things that might be important to the minority, that governments should never concern themselves with issues that matter to some people but not everybody. I would argue that the fight against discrimination should be a priority of any government. I make the point that it may not be a priority for every member on the other side and it may not be a priority for every Queenslander, but it is a priority for those people who live with discrimination every single day of their lives.

Australia historically has had a tumultuous past regarding the legal rights of same-sex couples. In May 2008, the Australian government abandoned a proposal [JURIST report] to legally recognize same-sex civil union ceremonies after the Australian federal government threatened to veto Civil Partnerships Bill 2006 [legislative materials] if it passed the Legislative Assembly [official website]. ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell said that the self-governing territory will now move to legalize civil partnerships without ceremony so that same-sex couples can have access to Commonwealth pensions, tax and social security benefits. The Civil Partnerships Bill was introduced after an earlier civil unions law [legislative materials] was actually overturned by the federal government [JURIST report] because that law's attempt to equate civil unions with marriage was determined to be unacceptable. In April of 2008, the Australian government introduced legislation to amend over 100 federal laws [JURIST report] to remove discrimination against same-sex couples but continued to bar same-sex marriage.

On Monday, the president of the tribunal, Judge David Baragwanath [official website], issued a statement defending his program [JURIST report] following a visit to Lebanon. Tribunal Vice President Judge Ralph Riachi [official website] accompanied Baragwanath on the visit, where they saw a spirit of compliance that made them optimistic about their chances for success. The Tribunal is composed of professional judges selected internationally and includes senior members of the Lebanese judiciary. Baragwanath promised to conclude their job "as swiftly as fairness allows." The STL has faced great difficulty [JURIST report] trying to arrest the members of Hezbollah in Lebanon where the Shiite militia Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is the country's most powerful political force. If the trial commences, this would be the first trial in absentia at an international court since the prosecution of Nazis during the Nuremberg trials.

Cuomo signed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry [JURIST report] in the state on June 24. The New York State Senate [official website] had passed the Marriage Equality Act 33-29 earlier that same day following weeks of negotiations. The act eliminates any legal distinctions between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive] and specifies that no clergy member will be forced to perform a marriage ceremony and that any refusing clergy member will not be subject to legal action. The New York State Assembly passed the bill [JURIST report] earlier in the month 80-63, and the law went into effect on July 25. Shortly after the bill's passage William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation argued that the legislation sets a bad precedent and is possibly unconstitutional [JURIST comment] due to the very violations of procedural requirements that have allowed the challenge to proceed. The New York State Assembly had passed same-sex marriage bills before in 2007 and in 2009, but the bills were unable to pass the Senate [JURIST reports].

Last January, a Chilean Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] judge ordered an investigation [JURIST report] into the death of Allende during the 1973 coup. Since the coup, Allende's death has been ruled a suicide. Allende, a Marxist, was met with opposition after winning the 1970 elections in Chile from those fearing his presidency would support a pro-Soviet communist government. The 1973 coup, backed by the US [JURIST report], was followed by a 17-year military regime led by Pinochet. The investigation into Allende's death is part of a larger probe into the military dictatorship of Pinochet. Prosecutor Beatriz Padrals will investigate 726 cases of alleged human rights abuses allegedly committed during the Pinochet regime. Hundreds of Chilean officials are also under investigation for human rights abuses committed under Pinochet, including the so-called "Caravan of Death" [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive] following the coup, the death or disappearance of more than 3,000 people and 28,000 cases of alleged torture. Pinochet died [JURIST report] before ever facing trial for any of the crimes that were committed during his dictatorship.

In Credit Suisse Securities LLC v. Simmonds [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the justices considered when the statute of limitations for reporting insider trading begins. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [§ 16(b)] states that the statute of limitations begins "more than two years after the date such [profits from insider trading] was realized." Attorney for Vanessa Simmonds, who filed 54 complaints against Credit Suisse, which were rejected on varying grounds including statute of limitations, argued that the statute of limitations can be tolled to include the discovery of the trading or even the filing of a report about the illegal action. This view was endorsed by the Ninth Circuit's ruling [text] that led to the Supreme Court. Petitioners argued for a strict interpretation of the law where the statute of limitations runs firmly from the date of the alleged misconduct. The Solicitor General interceded to argue a third option, that it tolls when a reasonable person should have known about the incident. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the hearing of this case.