[JURIST] US Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and other leading Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee [official website] on Wednesday pushed for legislation authorizing military commissions for terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay during a committee hearing [recorded audio] on how the government should proceed in bringing terror suspects to justice following the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [text]. Hunter, who earlier this week warned against releasing detainees [JURIST report], said that using an alternative military court-martial structure would be inappropriate as it could force detainees' release and create evidentiary problems. In his prepared opening statement [PDF text], Hunter said:

In time of war it may not be practical to apply to rules of evidence that we do in civil trials or court-martials for our troops. Will commanders and witnesses be called from the frontline to testify in a military commission or can we use reliable hearsay and sworn affadavits? I note that hearsay is allowed in international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

So lets see if there is a practical need or reason to change the rules. We have to give the executive the power to fight this war. This is not a separation of powers issue, it is an issue of how to defeat the enemy. The Supreme Court says we need an adjustment, but in doing so lets not forget our purpose is to defend our nation against the enemy. We won't lower our standards, we will always treat detainees humanely, but we can't be naive either.

Many people will urge you to simply authorize essentially the same commissions the President created with only minor changes. I believe this is the worst option of all because the Court has already found them to be lacking in significant, but correctable, ways. The Court gave the Congress and the Administration a road map to follow. We must avoid more court challenges or another failure in this important work.

On the bookshelf of virtually every U.S. military judge advocate, stationed anyplace on the globe, sits a thick burgundy soft cover book. That book is the envy of every other armed force in the world. Congress enacted the core it in 1951 and amended it in 1969. It has withstood close scrutiny by the Supreme Court of the United States, the same court that found such serious fault with the military commissions as currently designed. The book I refer to, of course, contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial.

The UCMJ and the MCM easily comport with the requirements of the Hamdan decision and also with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. As required by Common Article 3, they provide "a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." ...

That is not to say, however, that the court-martial system as contained in the UCMJ and MCM couldn't or shouldn't be modified in some narrow and specific ways. For example and fundamentally, jurisdiction would have to be conferred by Congress in order to create military commissions. The Military Rules of Evidence may need to be modified in some narrow and well defined ways to accommodate the vagaries of the environment of the war of terror. The rules regarding hearsay and chain of custody may be examples of this. But none of these are difficult or dramatic. And if done sparingly, none would undermine the validity of the basic construct.

[JURIST] The US military revealed Wednesday that Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] and three of his co-defendants are five days into a hunger strike in protest of trial court procedures and the killings of three of their defense lawyers, which they believe occurred because of inadequate security provided by US forces. Defense lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi, who claims the hunger strike has actually lasted seven days, added that he was "very concerned" about whether Hussein's health would deteriorate. The trial currently stands adjourned [JURIST report] until July 24 in hopes that al-Dulaimi and his colleagues will end their latest boycott [JURIST report] of the proceeding, based in part on the same security concerns.

Armed gunmen abducted and killed Hussein defense lawyer Khamis al-Obeidi [JURIST report] last month, just two days after the prosecution presented its closing arguments in the trial, calling for the death penalty [JURIST report] for Hussein and four of his co-defendants. Saddam went on a brief hunger strike [JURIST report] shortly afterwards. He and his seven co-defendants face crimes against humanity charges [JURIST report] of killing, torturing and illegally detaining Dujail residents, as well as committing other inhumane acts in response to an alleged 1982 assassination attempt on Hussein. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Bosnian immigrant Marko Boskic was convicted Wednesday when a US federal jury found that he had failed to reveal his role in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [PBS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] while trying to enter the US as a refugee. Boskic was charged in August 2004 [JURIST report] with five counts of making false declarations on US immigration applications and in an interview with federal agents. He pleaded not guilty [JURIST report], claiming he had been held in a Serbian prison camp and threatened with a gun to his head if he did not take part in the killings.

Boskic was acquitted at trial [JURIST report] on three other charges, including lying on US immigration applications when asked if he had ever persecuted or killed anyone for racial, ethnic or political reasons. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and may be deported to Bosnia-Herzegovina [JURIST news archive], where he could be tried for war crimes [JURIST report]. AP has more. The Boston Globe has local coverage.

[JURIST] US Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) [official website] and Martin Meehan (D-MA) [official website] have filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] challenging new rules regarding campaign communications that can be narrow FEC standard of what constitutes "coordination" would permit groups or individuals with economic or political clout to have too strong a voice in elections. Such groups or individuals under the FEC rules would have to face contribution limitations and disclosure requirements only if ads they paid for ran within 90 days of a congressional election or 120 days before a presidential election. Read a Democracy 21 press release on the lawsuit. FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner [official profile] said Wednesday that he believed the "proper balance" had been reached and that an FEC study had indicated that the vast majority of coordinated ads appeared within the 90 day and 120 day limitations set before congressional and presidential elections.

Shays and Meehan first challenged the coordination rules and other FEC regulations under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [FEC materials] in 2004. A lower court voided the regulations, and was upheld on appeal. The agency issued new coordination rules in 2006 that are the basis of the latest challenge. AP has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge Harold Murphy on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Georgia's voter ID law [SB 84 materials; JURIST news archive] until a full trial can be held in a challenge brought by civil rights groups [JURIST report]. Murphy, the same federal judge who struck down [JURIST report] a previous version of the law last year, said that the current law seems to unconstitutionally discriminate against some voters. The current law, unlike last year's version, would provide free voter ID cards to those who need them, but civil rights groups argued that the law still unduly burdens some Georgian citizens without increasing protections against voter fraud. During a hearing Wednesday, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox [official website] testified that 675,000 of Georgia's 4.26 million registered voters do not have the proper ID to vote [AP report]. Cox said that the law would erect another hurdle for potential voters, which could prevent some fraud, but was unsure what effect the law would have on Georgian citizens.

Also Wednesday, the Georgia Supreme Court refused [order, PDF] to overturn last week's lower state court ruling placing a temporary restraining order on the new law [JURIST report]. Earlier this week, the Georgia Attorney General filed an emergency appeal [JURIST report; pleadings] asking the court to lift the restraining order in time for the July 18 primary elections. AP has more. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has local coverage.

[JURIST] House Republicans have agreed to hold a vote Thursday on extending provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act [text; DOJ backgrounder] for another 25 years, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) announced Wednesday. In June Southern lawmakers unexpectedly balked [JURIST report] at two key provisions - one requiring nine mostly Southern states with a history of race-based voter discrimination to seek DOJ approval before changing voting laws, and one requiring bilingual ballots in certain areas - that they characterized as unnecessary federal oversight.

The reauthorization bill was introduced [JURIST report] in May by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), and generally enjoys broad bipartisan support. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] British Members of Parliament voted to adjourn the House of Commons early Wednesday in protest against the pending extradition [JURIST report] of three British NatWest bankers to the US to face charges in the Enron fraud scandal [JURIST news archive]. During a three-hour debate before the vote, Liberal Democrat shadow Home Secretary MP Nick Clegg [official website] criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for signing a "lopsided" extradition agreement with the US that only the UK has signed. The revised UK Extradition Act [text], signed by Blair, incorporates the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty [text, PDF; Statewatch backgrounder] into British law, but the US has not yet ratified the instrument. Currently, the US may request that a UK citizen be extradited upon a simple showing of prima facie evidence, but the US will only extradite a US citizen to the UK if the UK shows that probable cause underlies the extradition request. Blair and the UK government have maintained that the two legal standards are essentially the same, though MPs are pushing for the treaty to be re-written to include a presumption that British citizens accused of committing crimes in the UK should be tried there.

UK Home Office minister Baroness Scotland [official profile] will travel to the US Thursday to lobby for US ratification [JURIST report]. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] Ugandan Security Minister Amama Mbabazi on Wednesday asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to retract its indictments against several leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) [BBC backgrounder] for war crimes in an effort to encourage senior LRA rebels to attend peace talks with the Ugandan government. The peace talks, scheduled to begin Wednesday, have been delayed while Ugandan officials try to convince the LRA leaders from the combat wing to attend the talks, who are seemingly avoiding the talks because of the ICC indictments and Interpol international arrest warrants against them.

LRA leaders rejected an offer of amnesty from Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni [official website; BBC profile] last week, saying that accepting amnesty "presupposes surrender" and would mean the LRA is no longer available to discussion. Museveni had promised rebel leader Joseph Kony [BBC profile] conditional amnesty [JURIST report] if he denounces terrorism and if peace talks mediated by the southern Sudanese government proceed smoothly. An ICC spokesman renewed its calls for Kony's arrest [JURIST report] last week, shortly after Museveni offered amnesty. Kony was indicted by the ICC [JURIST report; PDF arrest warrant] along with four LRA lieutenants last October on charges that they orchestrated the killing of thousands of civilians and the enslavement of thousands more children over two decades of conflict with Museveni's government. AFP has more.

[JURIST] The Malaysian Federal Court [official website] on Wednesday upheld the expulsion of three students who refused to abide by School Regulations 1997, which prohibits the wearing of Islamic turbans at school. The challenge to the religious dress [JURIST news archive] regulation was brought under Article 11(1) of the Malaysian Constitution [text], which reads, "[e]very person has the right to profess and practice his religion and...to propagate it." In a two-prong analysis, Justice Abdul Hamid first considered whether the practice was an integral part of Islam, and then weighed the extent of the prohibition. Hamid found that the wearing of a turban, while a commendable (sunat) Islamic practice, is not a mandatory (wajib) Islamic practice, and that the regulation permitted students to wear turbans during prayer at school, as well as after school. Hamid also noted that the students could attend a different school.

Last week, a German court threw out a ban on women teachers wearing religious headscarves [JURIST report], saying the ban was not neutral as it did not apply to the veils worn by Catholic nuns. Malaysia's Sun Media has local coverage.

[JURIST] The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) [official website], part of Europe's human rights watchdog the Council of Europe [official website], called on Albania Wednesday to improve prisoner treatment in the country's network of prisons. The CPT published reports [CPT materials] from a July 2003 visit [PDF text] and a May-June 2005 visit [PDF text; press release] to Albanian prisons, citing little improvement between the two visits, despite several recommendations to improve conditions for prisoners. In the 2003 report, the CPT found that inmates were locked in their cells for 23 hours for up to 20 months in some instances, and that the lack of an appropriate response from disciplinary authorities facilitated a "climate of impunity."

Disappointed that the prisons showed little improvement two years later, the CPT called on Albanian authorities to take urgent action to improve prison conditions, which often include beating inmates in a fashion that the CPT would consider torture. In response [PDF text], Albania said that its authorities were "thoroughly engaged" in meeting the demands set out by both CPT reports. AP has more.

[JURIST] Ohio authorities on Wednesday morning executed the first inmate under new lethal injection guidelines implemented last month in a move to prevent extreme pain during an execution. In a June report [PDF text] and letter [PDF text] to Ohio Governor Bob Taft, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction [official website] director Terry Collins [official profile] set forth several changes [JURIST report] in Ohio's lethal injection protocol. The problematic May execution of Joseph Clark [CantonRep report, registration required] prompted the changes, where staff struggled to find a vein to administer the lethal injection cocktail, and delayed the execution by an hour-and-a-half.

Collins' report recommended easing "artificial self-imposed time barriers" on execution team members, finding two intravenous sites before the execution begins, reviewing the medical file prior to execution and observing the inmate well before the scheduled execution. AP has more.

[JURIST] The fundamental rights of two terror suspects were not violated when EU member states froze their assets, the European Court of First Instance [official website] ruled [press release, PDF] Wednesday. Ireland and the UK froze the bank accounts of a Tunisian and Libyan national, respectively, after European Council Regulation 881/2002 [PDF text], which implemented several UN Security Council resolutions, authorized member states to freeze the assets of persons suspected of affiliation with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban. The two suspects, Chafiq Ayadi from Tunisia and Libyan Faraj Hassan, petitioned the Court of First Instance to annul the regulation on the basis that the asset freezes offended their fundamental human rights. In separate judgments in both the Ayadi and Hassan [case materials] cases, the court held that under the circumstances, the regulation does not prevent the individuals concerned from leading a satisfactory personal, family, and social life, as the petitioners could still earn money.

The court also stressed that petitioners may request judicial review by national courts, rather than EU courts, when the national judiciary refuses to bring their petitions before the UN committee that determines sanctions against terror suspects. The Court of First Instance held last year that the European Union can freeze the assets of suspected terrorists under its treaty powers [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal [official website, English version] Wednesday overturned [judgment] a lower court decision [JURIST report] that had allowed law enforcement to temporarily carry out covert surveillance. Justice Michael Hartmann of the Hong Kong High Court ruled [decision text, in English] in February that an executive order on covert surveillance operations made last year by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen [official profile] was unconstitutional, but granted a six month period for lawmakers to devise a new covert surveillance law before repealing the existing law. Wednesday's appeals court ruling threw out the six month breather period to create a new law, and declared the existing law unconstitutional. To "afford an opportunity for the enactment of corrective legislation," the court nonetheless suspended its declaration of unconstitutionality so as to postpone its coming into operation for six months from the date of Hartmann's original February ruling, leaving the government until early August to act, subject to potential legal liability in the interim.

Tsang issued [Tsang remarks] the controversial executive order last year and received immediate criticism [PDF] from the Hong Kong Bar Association [advocacy website] for acting outside of executive power. In February 2006 the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission released a set of proposals [JURIST report] to embed greater safeguards in the executive order. AFP has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [opinion text; JURIST news archive] has not changed the Justice Department's position on the legality of the National Security Agency's anti-terrorism surveillance program [JURIST news archive], according to a senior DOJ official writing to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) [official website]. Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella [official profile] wrote Monday in response to a letter from Schumer that the Hamdan decision "does not affect our analysis of the Terrorist Surveillance Program for several reasons," although the DOJ is "carefully considering the ramifications of the decision." The DOJ concluded in a Jan. 19 paper [PDF text] that the "NSA activities are ... constitutionally permissible and fully protective of civil liberties."

The Supreme Court held in Hamdan that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [PDF text] that was passed by Congress allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks did not expand or alter the authorizations for military commissions [text] contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Therefore, the court reasoned, the military commissions [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] as constituted at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] exceeded the authority granted to President Bush by Congress.

In his Monday letter to Schumer, Moschella said that Hamdan nonetheless did not cast doubt on the legality of the NSA program because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [text; FAS materials], unlike the UCMJ, contains a provision [text] that "expressly contemplates that Congress may authorize electronic surveillance through a subsequent statute without amending or referencing FISA." Thus, the relevant precedent was not Hamdan but Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [opinion text], a 2004 case in which the Supreme Court held that the AUMF authorized the president to detain an American citizen classified as an enemy combatant, despite a previous statute providing that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained ... except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Read Moschella's letter to Schumer.

[JURIST] Serbian President Boris Tadic [official website; BBC profile] said Tuesday on the 11th anniversary of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [PBS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] of some 8000 Muslim men and boys that all war criminals should be punished, regardless of their nationality. In a statement, Tjadic said that the "Hague tribunal" - the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] - "must have the same criteria" for everyone, and once again criticized it for sentencing Muslim wartime commander Naser Oric [ICTY case backgrounder; Wikipedia profile] to only two years in prison [JURIST report] for failing to stop the torture and killing of captured Serbs. The ICTY determined that Oric was not directly involved in the abuses.

Tadic's comments came a few days after Serbian Defense Minister Zoran Stankovic [profile, in Serbian] announced that US and British intelligence agents are helping with the search [JURIST report] for indicted UN war crimes suspect and former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic [ICTY backgrounder; JURIST news archive], the alleged mastermind of the Srebrenica operation. The Serbian government insists that it has done everything in its own power to locate Mladic. AP has more.

[JURIST] The UK will not implement an amnesty program for illegal immigrants, Immigration Minister Liam Byrne [official profile] said Wednesday, and will instead seek "fair but tough" enforcement of current rules. Byrne's comments came at the conclusion of an official review of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), the UK office charged with controlling the country's borders, which was ordered by UK Home Secretary John Reid after it came to light earlier this year that more than 1000 foreign criminal were released [BBC timeline] without being considered for deportation. The deportation debacle cost Reid's predecessor, Charles Clarke, his job [JURIST report] in the cabinet of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Byrne had previously raised the possibility of amnesty [BBC report] for illegal immigrants currently in the UK, a proposal opposed by most UK citizens [BBC report] according to a recent poll. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] Indonesia's House of Representatives [official website, in Bahasa Indonesian] has passed a bill giving more autonomy to Aceh province [JURIST news archive] and writing into law the terms of last year's peace agreement with rebels [JURIST report]. But former rebels have criticized the law as not going far enough, and transportation workers in Aceh - which was devastated by the 2004 tsunami [CSM report] - protested the legislation Tuesday by staging a general strike [Jakarta Post report]. Proposed early this year [JURIST report], the law gives provincial officials control of more than 70 percent of Aceh's mineral resources, which include oil and natural gas, and allows members of the rebel Free Aceh Movement (GAM) [BBC backgrounder] to run for office in elections this year. The legislation also permits the local government to adopt Islamic sharia law [JURIST report] with oversight from Indonesia's Supreme Court.

A GAM spokesman said the former rebels said they would take their complaints about the law to the EU's Aceh Monitoring Mission [official website]. The chairman of the legislative committee that handled the bill, conceding that it was not "perfect," said amendments were still possible. AP has more. The Jakarta Post has local coverage.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] said Tuesday that a proposal [text] to limit ACLU board members from publicly speaking about their internal policies has been withdrawn [press release] by a committee of the National Board of Directors. The proposal drew criticism from editorialists, donors, and board members as a hypocritical limit on board members' ability to dissent from ACLU policies, and a lawyer for the New York Attorney General's office warned the ACLU not to adopt the proposed standards [JURIST report]. A lawyer for the AG's charities section said the office would be concerned if any nonprofit organization implemented policies restricting the board's ability to speak about internal policies.

The ACLU Committee on Rights and Responsibilities formally rescinded the proposal [memorandum] last week. The ACLU defended the initial report that suggested the restrictions as an attempt to perform those fiduciary duties that the ACLU owes to the public and its members as a nonprofit organization. The New York Times has more.

[JURIST] The US Army [official website] plans to discontinue a contract to provide logistical support to US troops with oil services giant Halliburton [corporate website; JURIST news archive], the Washington Post reported Wednesday. Halliburton has served as the exclusive contractor in Iraq, and Army officials said cutting ties with Halliburton is a move to employ multiple contractors in a bid to find better prices, greater accountability and better protection if one contractor does not perform.

Halliburton, formerly led by Vice President Dick Cheney, has faced a series of legal problems over the last two years. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) [corporate website] has been accused of contract abuse [JURIST report] for overcharging on goods and services, prompting the US Department of Justice [official website] to consider opening a formal investigation [JURIST report], and a former KBR employee pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to accepting bribes and defrauding the US government when awarding a contract to an Iraqi company in 2004. Late last year, five workers filed a federal lawsuit [JURIST report] against Halliburton for failing to pay their workers in Iraq and Kuwait millions of dollars in overtime pay in violation of contracts with the Army, claiming that Halliburton forced its employees to work 80 to 100 hours a week without extra pay. Reuters has more. Wednesday's Washington Post has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] on Tuesday approved a bill [HR 4411 text] to effectively ban most Internet gambling by a margin of 317-93 [roll call]. The legislation would prohibit people from using credit cards and other forms of Internet payments to settle Internet bets, and also allow law enforcement and Internet providers to block access to gambling websites. Bill supporters believe that the Internet makes gambling too easy, and leads to gambling addictions and financial problems. Opponents argue that tax revenues from Internet gambling would serve a better purpose than a ban, and that the bill favors some gambling industries over others.

The bill includes exemptions for Internet gambling on horse racing as well as state lotteries, though Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) sponsored a failed amendment to remove the exemptions [press release]. Under the horse racing provision, betting operators will not be prohibited from activities allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act [text], which set up rules for interstate betting on horse racing in the 1970s. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) [official website] said Tuesday that he plans to aggressively pursue the bill [press release] on the Senate floor. AP has more.

[JURIST] Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak on Wednesday revealed [column] that Karl Rove [official profile], President Bush's top political advisor, was one of two secondary sources who confirmed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate the ambassador's 2002 mission to Niger. It was Novak's July 2003 column that publicly outed Plame, thus igniting the CIA leak scandal [JURIST news archive]. Novak did not reveal publicly his primary source for the article, who still has not come forward, but he did identify the second confirming source, CIA public information officer Bill Harlow, who has already publicly disclosed what he told Novak.

Novak's Wednesday column came after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald [official website] informed him that the CIA investigation into his role in the Plame affair has concluded. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense profile], who has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to obstruction of justice and perjury charges [PDF indictment; JURIST report] in connection with the case, requested a one-month delay in his trial [JURIST report] last month, which is now scheduled to begin next February. AP has more.

[JURIST] Sir Richard Dearlove [BBC profile], former head of the British intelligence agency known as MI6 [official website], has said that two components of the US war on terrorism would be illegal under British law. Dearlove, who led the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) from 1999 to 2004 and is now master of Pembroke College, Cambridge [college website], said the CIA's practice of extraordinary renditions [JURIST news archive] and the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] "would have been illegal under British common law," and he urged the West to reclaim "the moral high ground" in the fight against terrorism. Dearlove made the remarks last week at the Aspen Ideas Festival [website; Atlantic blog post]. He later told the Guardian that although the approach to fighting terrorism might have made sense immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, it "may well need adjustment" now.

Dearlove said the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [text] allows MI6 officers to be charged with a crime if they acquiesce in acts of torture that take place outside the UK. His comments on the Guantanamo detentions echo those made by UK Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith [official profile], who has called on the US to close the facility [JURIST report]. The Guardian has more.

[JURIST] William Haynes [official profile], the Pentagon general counsel nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website], struggled to defend defense policies Tuesday during a Senate confirmation hearing [committee materials], drawing bipartisan questions relating to coercive interrogation techniques employed by the military in questioning terrorism suspects. Haynes helped draft the Defense Department's detention and interrogation policies in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and defended those policies by saying "the armed services operate with a tradition of restraint," but also portrayed himself as a military lawyer kept outside of policy decisions.

A group of twenty retired military officers sent a letter [PDF text; JURIST report] to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] expressing "deep concern" about Haynes' fitness to sit on the federal bench. The retired officers said that Haynes "compromised military values" and "ignored federal and international law" by approving coercive interrogation techniques, including the use of dogs to scare detainees. The letter was quoted by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website], ranking member of the Senate committee, in his opening statement [text]. Leahy also said he has

concerns whether Mr. Haynes would recuse himself if issues and policies on which he worked at the Department of Defense were to come before him as a judge.... My suspicion is that a motivation of the President for making this nomination is to have another sure vote on the Fourth Circuit to uphold his actions. The Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have emerged as the courts to which the Administration directs issues on which the President asserts unitary executive power and wants to be sustained.

[JURIST] US Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) [official website], chairman of the House Armed Services Committee [official website], told reporters Tuesday that the Defense Department has been too lenient in its policies on custody of terror suspects, questioning the release of detainees [JURIST report] from Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hunter's comments came ahead of a scheduled Wednesday committee hearing on standards for military commissions and tribunals, one of several congressional hearings [JURIST report] in the wake of last month's US Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [text], where the Court held that military commissions [JURIST news archive] as constituted by President Bush lacked proper legal authorization [JURIST report].

In a statement [PDF text] following the Court's ruling in Hamdan, Hunter said that he will "explore all legislative options available to ensure the United States government is allowed to continue to try terrorists for war crimes committed in the Global War on Terror," and that his committee would work with the Senate and Executive Branch "to design appropriate procedures to try terrorists guilty of war crimes." Several preliminary proposals have been made on mechanisms to replace military commissions, including trying terror suspects through military courts-martial, an approach generally advocated by Democrats. Alternatively, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has suggested a framework based on the court-martial system that doesn't include all the guarantees of the Uniform Code on Military Justice [text]. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered military commissions in a hearing [committee materials; JURIST report] Tuesday. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a similar hearing [committee materials] on military commissions Thursday. AP has more.

[JURIST] European Commission [official website] antitrust regulators imposed a $357 million fine on Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] Wednesday for not complying with a 2004 European Union antitrust ruling [text, PDF; JURIST report]. Early in July, the EC approved in principle [JURIST report] new fines against Microsoft, after it warned [JURIST report] last December that Microsoft may face fines of up to $2.5 million per day for not giving competitors the necessary information to develop software compatible with the Windows operating system. The $357 million fine is in addition to the initial $613 million penalty levied by the European Commission in 2004. If Microsoft fails to comply with the 2004 decision by July 31, additional fines could be imposed.

Microsoft officials said Wednesday that the company has made every effort to comply with the 2004 order. In a statement [press release], Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith responded to the penalty:

We have great respect for the Commission and this process, but we do not believe any fine, let alone a fine of this magnitude, is appropriate given the lack of clarity in the Commission's original decision and our good-faith efforts over the past two years. We will ask the European courts to determine whether our compliance efforts have been sufficient and whether the Commission’s unprecedented fine is justified...

The fine announced today is larger than the fines the Commission has imposed for even the most severe competition law infringements, such as price-fixing cartels. When you consider Microsoft's massive efforts to comply with this ruling, and the fact that more than a dozen companies are already using similar documentation provided in the U.S. to ship actual products, we do not believe this fine is justified.