JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, March 10, 2013

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled Friday that Homeland Security's border agents must demonstrate reasonable suspicion [opinion, PDF] of wrongdoing before conducting forensic analysis of laptop computers and electronic devices. "Laptop computers, iPads and the like are simultaneously offices and personal diaries. They contain the most intimate details of our lives," wrote Judge M Margaret McKeown. "A person's digital life ought not be hijacked simply by crossing a border." Border searches are an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant preference, but this holding serves to narrow the exception. The case concerned a 2007 search of a traveler's laptop which resulted in the discovery of child pornography. The Ninth Circuit found that reasonable suspicion was justified in this case due to the defendant's history of sex offenses and password-protected files.

The Ninth Circuit's heightening of border inspections for laptops follows several previous decisions on the subject. In 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the government's ability to search electronic devices without reasonable suspicion [JURIST report]. In 2009 Barry Steinhard, Senior Advisor of Privacy International, discussed why reasonable suspicion should be required [JURIST comment] for laptop searches. Also in 2009, John Wesley Hall, Jr., Former President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, discussed why reasonable suspicion should be involved [JURIST comment] in border inspections of laptops. Also that year the Department of Homeland Security announced new restrictions on controversial searches of laptops [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The Pentagon's war crimes prosecutor has stated that a review panel should hear transparency challenges concerning the September 11 trial. Brigadier General, Mark Martins, who is the prosecutor at Guantanamo [JURIST backgrounder] also insisted that the public must not hear about treatment of suspected 9/11 conspirators en route to Guantanamo. In filings submitted [text, PDF] on Thursday at the US Court of Military Commission Review, Martins defended a 40-second delay in what the public can hear about the experiences faced by five suspected 9/11 conspirators. Several news groups are appealing the order including the Miami Herald, ABC, The Associated Press, Bloomberg News, CBS, Fox, National Public Radio, Tthe New York Times, Reuters, Tribune Company, Dow Jones & Co., and the Washington Post. The appeal is unlikely to be resolved by April 22 when pretrial hearings commence for Khalid Sheik Mohammed [JURIST news archive] and his suspected conspirators concerning the 9/11 attacks.

This case involves the latest in a series of developments concerning the prosecution of suspected 9/11 conspirators. Last month the judge presiding over the 9/11 military tribunals granted defense lawyers access [JURIST report] for the first time to Camp 7, the secret facility where detainees are housed. Earlier that month lawyers for the US Navy contended [JURIST report] that surveillance equipment deployed throughout the Guantanamo Bay detention center was not used to breach attorney-client privilege. Also in February a military judge ordered the removal [JURIST report] of any monitoring system that censors the public broadcast of the hearings. In January the US declined to drop conspiracy charges [JURIST report] against accused plotters of the 9/11 attacks.

[JURIST] A Saudi Arabian criminal court in Riyadh on Saturday sentenced two Saudi Arabian human rights activists on to at least 10 years in prison. The activists were found guilty [CNN report] earlier that day of sedition, providing foreign media with inaccurate information, founding and operating an unlicensed human rights organization and other criminal offenses. Mohammed Al-Qahtani and Abdullah Al-Hamid founded [Reuters report] the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, a group that documented human rights abuses, and the group has been ordered to disband. Al-Qahtani was sentenced to 10 years in prison and received a 10-year travel ban. Al-Hamid was sentenced to five years in prison, ordered to serve six years of a sentence from which he he had previously been pardoned, and received a five-year travel ban. The trial was open to both the press and public. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) [advocacy website] has demanded the immediate release [press release] of the activists. Both men will remain in detention until a ruling on their appeal next month.

Saudi Arabia has been criticized for conducting unfair trials against human rights activists. A Saudi Arabian court in January convicted [JURIST report] prominent Egyptian human rights lawyer Ahmed el-Gezawi of smuggling drugs and sentenced him to five years imprisonment and 300 lashes. El-Gezawi's arrest sparked protests by those who believe the activist was arrested for insulting King Abdullah. In December Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Saudi Arabia to drop apostasy charges [JURIST report] against a website editor who co-founded the religious discussion website Free Saudi Liberals, claiming that his arrest violated his right to freedom of expression. In August several international human rights groups sent a letter to the Saudi Ministry of Justice [official website, in Arabic] seeking to ">observe the trials of four rights activists [JURIST report] who faced charges of defaming the country's reputation, supporting international human rights groups and sparking demonstrations against the government.