[JURIST] A Jordanian court on Tuesday convicted the editors of two national newspapers and sentenced them to two months' imprisonment for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad [JURIST news archive] that incited protests and violence across the Muslim world earlier this year after first appearing last September in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The editors -- Jihad al-Momani of Shihan [media website] and Hashim al-Khalidi of al-Mihwar -- were arrested [BBC report] in February and charged with violating parts of the penal code that prohibit printing material that could insult religious sentiment or that contradicts Arab or Muslim values.

Momani and Khalidi are free on bail until their appeal of the ruling can be heard, according to their lawyer. Both editors pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed that they reprinted the cartoons only to demonstrate their harmlessness [HRW press release]. AP has more. The Jordan Times has local coverage.

[JURIST] Lawyers for the US Department of Justice [official website] argued in a federal court filing Tuesday that the government has no legal obligation to return documents seized by the FBI [JURIST report] from the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) [official website], who is under investigation in connection with a bribery scheme involving a Kentucky telecommunications firm that was granted contracts in Nigeria. Jefferson filed a motion last week claiming the documents were protected under the Speech or Debate Clause [text] of the US Constitution. The DOJ contends that the clause grants immunity only for documents and actions related to legislation and official duties, not alleged malfeasance. The DOJ also described the precautions it took to ensure that it did not confiscate any privileged material: an independent “filter team” evaluated claims of protection made by Jefferson before turning documents over to prosecutors. It nonetheless said it would voluntarily provide Jefferson with copies of the materials it had seized.

The search of Jefferson's office has sparked bipartisan criticism from the House of Representatives, including an accusation from House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) that the DOJ crossed the line of separation of powers [press release; JURIST report]. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller were among a host of government officials who said they would resign [JURIST report] if forced to hand back information gathered during the search, causing President Bush to order the documents to be sealed for 45 days [JURIST report] until the matter can be resolved. CNN has more.

[JURIST] Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki [BBC profile] said Tuesday that the Iraqi government will launch its own probe into the allegations that US Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians and militants in the city of Haditha in November 2005. Reports that the killings were carried out by the Marines in retribution for a roadside bomb first appeared in TIME magazine [report] in March, prompting an investigation [JURIST report] by the Pentagon. Maliki said that the Iraqis' deaths would be the subject of inquiries and that “we will hold those who did it responsible.”

Last week, US Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) [official website], a former Marine who is now the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said [ABC News video; JURIST report] that the killings had been committed “in cold blood,” that the initial military investigation into them had been stifled, that officers up the chain of command knew what happened and had covered it up, and that the incident could do even more damage to US efforts than the Abu Ghraib prison scandal [JURIST news archive]. US Marine Corps General Peter Pace [official profile], chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [official website], has confirmed that two investigations were under way [JURIST report] -- one concerning the Iraqis' deaths and another to determine why senior officials remained unaware of the allegations until months later. Pace also promised that the results of the probes would be made public. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] The Georgia Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday agreed to fast-track the state's appeal of a lower court ruling [order, PDF] striking down a state constitutional amendment [text] banning same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] as unconstitutional. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 27. Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) [official website] said earlier this month that Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker [official website] would seek expedited review [JURIST report] of the decision, which held that the constitutional amendment violated a procedural safeguard [JURIST report] that prohibits voters from deciding more than one issue at a time.

Perdue has said that if the state Supreme Court does not rule on the ban by August 7 or doesn't overturn the decision he will call a special session of the General Assembly [official website] to write a new constitutional amendment that can be placed on the ballot in November. AP has more.

[JURIST] An appeals court in Uzbekistan [JURIST news archive] on Tuesday upheld an eight-year prison term for human rights activist Mutabar Tojiboyeva [RFE/RL report], even though prosecutors had recommended a more lenient sentence. Tojiboyeva, a prominent critic of Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov [official profile; HRW profile] and head of the group Ardent Hearts, was detained in October as she prepared to leave for an international rights conference. Convicted of threatening public order and a dozen other charges, she was sentenced in March. Her arrest followed bloodshed in the eastern city of Andijan, where Uzbek security forces gunned down hundreds of demonstrators [BBC report; JURIST news archive].

Tojiboyeva is among a number of opposition figures who have faced charges [JURIST report] since the Andijan uprising [HRW backgrounder], though until Tuesday's decisions, courts have tended toward leniency against the opposition in recent weeks. Another received a reduced sentence earlier this month. IRIN News has more.

[JURIST] Ireland broke European law by asking the United Nations [official website] to arbitrate its claim against the United Kingdom in respect of the Sellafield nuclear power plant [BNG backgrounder; BBC backgrounder], an EU court ruled [press release, PDF] Tuesday. Ireland sought arbitration from a UN tribunal in 2001, claiming that the UK violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UN backgrounder and text] by failing to adequately protect marine life in the Irish Sea from plutonium discharged by the plant, which converts waste from nuclear reactors into new fuel. The European Court of Justice [official website] ruled, however, that it has exclusive jurisdiction [judgment text] over disputes between member states "concerning the interpretation or application of Community law."

The Irish government has repeatedly called for the Sellafield plant to be closed. Ireland is one of the few EU nations that does not produce nuclear power. The Guardian has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

[JURIST] AP is reporting that a jury in Rockville, Md. has convicted Washington, D.C.-area sniper John Allen Muhammad [BBC profile] of six counts of murder. The jurors heard four weeks of testimony [JURIST report] in the trial, in which Muhammad represented himself [JURIST report]. Muhammad has already been convicted and sentenced to death [JURIST report] in Virginia for shootings there. Maryland prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty [JURIST report] for Muhammad but want a second conviction in case the Virginia conviction is overturned on appeal.

Muhammad's alleged accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo [BBC profile], who pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to the Virginia charges and received a life sentence, testified last week [JURIST report] in the Maryland case that Muhammad pulled the trigger in five of the six killings there. Muhammad contends that the government framed him and that he was in the Washington area looking for his ex-wife and children. In addition to the 2002 shootings in and around the District of Columbia [Washington Post backgrounder], Muhammad and Malvo are suspects in killings in five other states. From Montgomery County, the Gazette has continuing local coverage.

[JURIST] The criminal justice system in Kosovo [JURIST news archive] is failing, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said Tuesday in a report [text; press release] focusing on the criminal justice response to renewed violence between Serbs and ethnic Albanians [BBC Q/A] that broke out in March 2004 in the UN-administered territory still nominally part of Serbia. Despite almost seven years under international administration, HRW concluded that victims in Kosovo still do not receive justice even though international authorities have had plenty of time to create an effective legal framework. Outlining several failures, HRW pinpointed the insufficient preparation and training for the impact of major reforms immediately following the 2004 outbreak, the failure of a special, separate international police operation to investigate the violence, ineffective policing and witness protection measures, and poor oversight by the United Nations.

HRW called on key actors in Kosovo to reform the criminal justice system, including the United Nations [official website; UN Mission in Kosovo website], the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) [official website], the police, and the provisional government. To achieve reform, HRW would like to see oversight of the courts, a judicial police branch to work directly with investigators, a more effective witness protection program, and cooperation between international and national authorities involved in all parts of the criminal justice system.

[JURIST] Thailand's Cabinet on Tuesday approved October 15 as the date for new elections just three weeks after the country's Constitutional Court annulled [JURIST report] last month's parliamentary elections [BBC report], finding that the Election Commission [official website] unconstitutionally organized the vote too soon after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [official website] dismissed parliament, leaving new candidates little time to prepare. Earlier this month, the three principal Thai courts rejected an initially-proposed date of October 22 [JURIST report] and called on the members of the current Election Commission to resign [JURIST report].

Meanwhile Thaksin, having taken up his duties again last week after a hiatus that he described as a "political break" and not a resignation, has filed the first of a number of lawsuits against organizers of the street protests that forced him to temporarily step aside. His lawyer said Tuesday that he has sued a newspaper for criminal defamation and would file civil libel cases against opponents Friday. Aljazeera has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday granted certiorari in Philip Morris USA v. Williams [cert. petition and reply brief, PDF], 05-1256, a case involving the damages awarded in a wrongful death action against Philip Morris [corporate website] brought by the relatives of a longtime smoker. Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $80 million [opinion text; JURIST report] in punitive damages because the marketing tactics of Philip Morris were "reprehensible." The US Supreme Court in 2003 ordered the same Oregon court to reconsider the 1999 jury award, stating that punitive damages should generally parallel actual damages.

Philip Morris has argued that the state high court's decision conflicts with the 2002 US Supreme Court ruling in State Farm v. Campbell [opinion], which set guidelines for calculating punitive damages. Read the Court's full Order List [PDF text]. AP has more. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.

[JURIST] A group that opposes South Dakota's abortion ban [text, PDF] announced Tuesday that it has gathered more than enough signatures to prevent the July 1 enactment of the law and place it on the ballot in November. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families [advocacy website and press release] said its volunteers had gathered more than 37,000 signatures and planned to present them to the office of South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson [official profile] on Tuesday afternoon. If at least 16,728 signatures are deemed valid, voters will decide whether the ban should become law. Gov. Mike Rounds [official website] signed the bill [JURIST report] in March, and within weeks the advocacy group said it would try to put the issue before voters [JURIST report] under the referendum provision of the state constitution [text]. A statute [text] requires the signatures of 5 percent of the state's qualified voters to trigger a referendum.

The law, which abortion-rights and anti-abortion activists alike view as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade [opinion text] and subsequent cases, bans all abortions except those necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. A physician convicted of performing an illegal abortion could be fined $5,000 and sentenced to five years in prison. Reuters has more. From Sioux Falls, the Argus Leader has local coverage.

[JURIST] US Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) [official website], chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee [official website], said Tuesday that he intends to draft legislation that would shield congressional documents and materials from being seized in searches similar to the FBI raid [JURIST report] on the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) [official website] earlier this month. Speaking during the committee's Tuesday oversight hearing [meeting materials; JURIST report] on the constitutional questions raised by the raid, Sensenbrenner also said [opening statement] that although the constitution's Speech or Debate Clause [backgrounder] will not protect members of Congress from prosecution stemming from activities outside of legitimate legislative acts, the clause prevents the executive branch from seizing documents created in the course of the legitimate legislative process:

Certainly, any Member of Congress who has committed a crime should be prosecuted for his criminal acts. But the issues involved in this unprecedented action by the Executive Branch transcend any particular Member. A constitutional question is raised when communications between Members of Congress and their constituents - documents having nothing to do with any crime - are seized by the Executive Branch without constitutional authority. This seizure occurred without so much as lawyers or representatives of Congress being allowed to simply observe the search and how it was conducted. Neither was anyone representing the institutional interests of Congress allowed to make a case before a judge raising these important separation of powers issues.

Our Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made clear that a general legislative constitutional safeguard, designed to prevent encroachments by the executive branch on the legislative branch, is embodied in article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Senators and Representatives "shall not be questioned" for "any Speech or Debate in either House."

In the case of Representative William J. Jefferson, the search warrant the Justice Department obtained from a federal judge allowed for his Congressional office to be largely combed over, with materials - including computer hard drives - placed in the sole possession of the Department of Justice. The materials taken very likely include communications, created in the course of the legitimate legislative process, that have nothing to do with the criminal inquiry into Representative Jefferson's activities. The Justice Department had the ability to seek enforcement of their federal grand jury subpoena in federal court to obtain the same documents seized from Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill Office, but chose not to. The Justice Department has historically used federal grand jury subpoenas to obtain documents relevant to a criminal investigation of a Congressman or Senator.

It is the duty of the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute public corruption. No one is above the law. It is vital to the well-being of our Nation that corruption, wherever it is found, be eliminated.

It is also vital to the well-being of our Nation that all branches of government safeguard the Constitutional system of checks and balances that were designed by the Founders to protect the American people from the potential for abuse of power by a single branch. That is why the Speaker and the Democratic Leader have instructed us to develop a set of procedures that are consistent with the Separation of Powers principle and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, while also assuring that congressional offices are not used to shield anyone from legitimate investigations of criminal wrongdoing. The House Office of the General Counsel believes that we can do this.

[JURIST] Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [official website] said Tuesday that he is willing to revise [ABC World Today transcript] Australia's new sedition laws [summary], particularly the use of the word "sedition," after the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) [official website] released a discussion paper [text] Monday arguing that "sedition" implies a threat to free speech [press release; ALRC sedition materials]. He indicated, however, that he will not act on the ALRC's recommendation until it submits a final report.

The ALRC, the independent federal statutory agency charged with conducting official inquiries into areas for possible legal reform, rejected an argument put forth by Australia's three major news organizations that the sedition laws dealing with the incitement of terrorism are excessive and should not be applied to major media outlets [JURIST report]. The ALRC nonetheless suggested changing the term "sedition" to "offenses against political liberty and public order," while also recommending 24 other changes to clearly state that the sedition laws only target people seeking to overthrow the government through violence, and not members of the arts community using political satire. Australia's sedition laws were enacted late last year as part of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation [JURIST report]. The Australian has more.

[JURIST] East Timor President Xanana Gusmao [official profile; BBC profile] said Tuesday that he is taking control of national security and defense in response to the increasing and often violent unrest [BBC report; UNOTIL updates] related to the March firing of 600 troops that went on strike [BBC report]. By consolidating power, Gusmao will be able to control both the East Timor Army and police forces, which are sharply divided by internal disputes and gang related violence. BBC News has more.

The imposition of emergency rule will last for 30 days and comes shortly after violence and looting began in the capital city of Dili. A mob looted the Attorney General's office Tuesday, hitting the Serious Crimes Office containing unreleased evidence of massacres committed by militias working with Indonesia [PBS backgrounder] during East Timor's break from Indonesia in 1999. Authorities do not believe that the mob sought to destroy evidence from the massacre, but just looted computers and other valuable materials from the Attorney General's office. The Irish Examiner has more. The Sydney Morning Herald has local coverage.

[JURIST] Saudi Arabia has freed three former Guantanamo Bay detainees who were repatriated [JURIST report] there last year. According to an Interior Ministry source, the three "admitted to have been present in troubled areas without obtaining the consent of their parents or permission from the country's authority in addition to having committed other violations, including using forged documents and putting the life of their families at stake." Two were sentenced to a year in prison, and one to the time he served in Guantanamo, but all have been released "on legal guarantees." Last month the US transferred 15 more Saudi detainees [JURIST report] to Saudi custody after their release was approved by a Guantanamo Administrative Review Board [DOD backgrounder]. The Saudi Arabian government freed five former Guantanamo detainees [JURIST report] last year, after they were transferred to Saudi Arabia in 2003. The Saudi Press Agency has more.

According to the US Department of Defense [official website], Guantanamo still holds 460 detainees, but 120 have been declared eligible for release or transfer to their home country. The US has been in the process of expediting the transfer of detainees [JURIST report] to give their home countries a greater role in the prosecution of alleged terrorists. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday held that First Amendment protections do not extend to government employees for comments made while performing their official duties, even when the employee is acting to expose alleged government wrongdoing. In a 5-4 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling [PDF text] which had extended free speech protections to a memorandum written by an employee in the Los Angeles District Attorney's office in which he argued that a sheriff lied in a search warrant affidavit, saying the memorandum should be protected because it was a matter of public concern. The employee, Ceballos, claimed he was retaliated against after he testified for the defense and submitted the memorandum he had written to the deputy District Attorney outlining the sheriff's misrepresentations. As a defense to the retaliation lawsuit, Ceballos' employers argued that the memorandum should not be entitled First Amendment protections because it was written in Ceballos' job-related capacity and not as his capacity as a citizen.

The Court's majority wrote that:

Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance. As the Court noted in Connick, public employers should, "as a matter of good judgment," be "receptive to constructive criticism offered by their employees." 461 U. S., at 149. The dictates of sound judgment are reinforced by the powerful network of legislative enactments—such as whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes—available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing. See, e.g., 5 U. S. C. §2302(b)(8); Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §8547.8 (West 2005); Cal. Lab. Code Ann.§1102.5 (West Supp. 2006). Cases involving government attorneys implicate additional safeguards in the form of, for example, rules of conduct and constitutional obligations apart from the First Amendment. See, e.g., Cal. Rule Prof. Conduct 5–110 (2005) ("A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause"); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). These imperatives, as well as obligations arising from any other applicable constitutional provisions and mandates of the criminal and civil laws, protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions.

We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice [official website] ruled [text; press release, PDF] Tuesday that an agreement [PDF text] between the European Union [JURIST news archive] and the US that compels European airlines to disclose information about passengers flying from Europe to the US is illegal. The so-called passenger name records deal [BBC Q&A], required European airlines to reveal the name, address, credit card information, and itinerary details to US officials within 15 minutes of the flight departure. Information that may reveal the passenger's religion or ethnicity, such as meal preferences, would be deleted from the record before handing the information over to US authorities. The agreement was negotiated to resolve concerns that US requirements that airlines operating flights to the US provide US authorities access to passenger data would conflict with EU data protection legislation. The European Parliament [official website] challenged the deal [JURIST report] in 2004, saying that there were inadequate data security measures in the US and fearing that the data would be used for purposes other than fighting terrorism and other serious crimes. The Court of Justice on Tuesday sided with the European Parliament, annulling both a European Commission [official website] decision [PDF text] finding that there the US had adequate security measures in place to protect the data and a European Council decision [PDF text] approving the EU-US agreement, saying that neither decision has an appropriate legal basis.

The transatlantic deal would have limited the amount of data that the US can collect from European airlines, and only allowed the US to store the information to fight terrorism and other serious crimes for three and a half years. US officials have threatened to fine European airlines up to $6,000 per passenger if it does not disclose the passenger data, potentially causing European airlines to lose customers to US airlines who will continue to hand over passenger information to US officials. European airlines will still hand over the passenger information until September, while the European Commission determines whether another legal basis exists for its finding that US protection of the data is adequate. AP has more.

[JURIST] President Bush on Memorial Day signed into law [White House statement] the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act [HR 5037 summary; PDF text], legislation barring protests near military funerals originally passed in the US House of Representatives [JURIST report] and approved last week by the Senate [JURIST report]. The law will prohibit any demonstration within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of an entrance into the cemetery for one hour before and after a military funeral.

The law primarily targets the renegade Westboro Baptist Church [WARNING: readers may find material at this church website offensive; Wikipedia backgrounder] led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, which claims US soldiers have been killed because America tolerates homosexuals. While the bill will effectively bar protests like those led by Phelps, it will also bar any favorable noisy demonstrations that disturb the funeral proceedings. AP has more.

[JURIST] Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] complained Tuesday that chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman [BBC profile] of the Iraqi High Criminal Court is not giving the defense in Hussein's trial [JURIST news archive] the same consideration the prosecution was given while presenting its case. Abdel-Rahman has decreased his tolerance for a string of defense witnesses who do not have direct knowledge of the charges against Hussein and his co-defendants [JURIST report]. Complaining that Abdel-Rahman is not giving the defense enough time to prepare and bring witnesses or advance evidence, Hussein said there was an "imbalance" between the prosecution and defense and insisted that the defense must be given the same opportunities the prosecution was given. Hussein's comments followed Abdel-Rahman's decision to make the defense submit a written request to play previously unmentioned videos in court, while Abdel-Rahman had immediately allowed the prosecution to play videos in court. Aljazeera has more.

Also Tuesday, one of the defense lawyers said that a witness who took the stand earlier in the trial has been killed, highlighting the difficulties the defense faces in effectively representing Hussein and his seven co-defendants. Though it was not revealed which witness was killed, the lawyer did complain about added restrictions placed on the defense's ability to call witnesses and indicated that the defense could not call several possible witnesses because they are wanted by the US military and Iraqi government. AP has more.

4:07 PM ET - As testimony continued Tuesday, a defense witness testified that some of the 148 Dujail villagers sentenced to death [execution order] in connection to an 1982 assassination attempt against Hussein were never executed but instead fled the country, returning only after Hussein's regime was overthrown in 2003. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] A court in South Korea [JURIST news archive] on Tuesday sentenced Kim Woo-choong [Wikipedia profile], founder of collapsed conglomerate Daewoo Group [corporate website], to ten years in prison and ordered him to pay a fine of over $10,000 while forfeiting $22 billion gained through embezzlement and accounting fraud. Kim was indicted [Seoul Times report] last year on charges of ordering Daewoo executives to inflate Daewoo's assets, a move that came in the wake of the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis [CRS report], as well as charges of diverting funds out of the country, embezzlement, and breach of trust. Prosecutors had sought a 15 year prison term and a $24.8 billion forfeiture of funds from Kim, and the lesser sentence came as a surprise.

Kim returned to South Korea to face charges last year after fleeing to France for six years, and will not be sent to prison immediately pending recovery from heart problems. The South Korean government broke up Daewoo and sold its parts to various companies, including General Motors, after Daewoo collapsed in 1999 under a $80 billion debt. AP has more. The Seoul Times has local coverage.

[JURIST] A Belarus court on Monday sentenced Sergei Lyashkevich, an official who helped run the campaign of opposition presidential candidate Alexander Milinkevich [campaign website; Wikipedia profile], to five months in jail for training and paying people to riot during the protests that ensued after the March presidential election [JURIST report]. Lyashkevich, who headed Milinkevich's campaign office in the western town of Shchuchin, was convicted under legislation [JURIST report] enacted by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko [official website; BBC profile] in the months before the reelection. The law allows a maximum two-year sentence for financing or preparing people to partake in "mass disorder."

Lukashenko won over Milinkevich by a landslide 80 percent of the popular vote in an election that has been widely condemned as fraudulent [JURIST report] by election observers and Western governments. Since the election, over 1,000 opposition members have been arrested for attending unauthorized demonstrations, including Milinkevich [JURIST report]. AP has more.