[JURIST] White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto Thursday dismissed allegations that millions of electronic messages prior to October 2003 had been deleted, saying the White House had found no evidence that any electronic data had been lost. Fratto told [press briefing] reporters that:

We have absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing; there's no evidence of that ... from everything that we can tell, our analysis of our backup systems, we have no reason to believe that any e-mail at all are missing.

[JURIST] Former CIA Director Porter Goss [BBC profile] never objected to plans by former head of the clandestine branch of the CIA Jose Rodriguez to destroy destruction of videotapes showing CIA interrogation of terror suspects [JURIST news archive], Rodriguez's lawyer said Thursday. This contradicts reported Wednesday closed session testimony [JURIST report] before the US House Select Committee on Intelligence by Acting General Counsel for the CIA John Rizzo [official profile] that Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed against the direction of both Goss and himself. Goss declined to comment when asked about his role in approving the tapes' destruction by an AP reporter. Rodriguez is currently at the center of an investigation by the US House Select Committee on Intelligence and a criminal probe [JURIST reports] spearheaded by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Rodriguez was excused from testifying before the House subcommittee earlier in the week because he said that he would refuse to answer questions unless he was granted immunity [JURIST reports] for fear that his testimony could be used against him in the DOJ criminal investigation. AP has more.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] announced that it had asked a US District Court Judge to hold the CIA in contempt of court for its destruction of the videos. The motion [PDF text; press release], filed in December, was part of a 2004 lawsuit brought by the ACLU and other human rights groups against the CIA to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] requests for records detailing the treatment of terror suspects. In 2005, a US District Judge for the Southern District of New York ordered the CIA to either turn over the records pertaining to the treatment of prisoners or provide a reason why they should be kept secret. An ACLU lawyer characterized the destruction of the tapes as a "flagrant disregard" for the court's order and FOIA, and added that the group also requested sanctions. AP has more.

[JURIST] Spain's highest court of appeal said Thursday that 25 appeals have been filed against verdicts handed down against convicted participants in the 2004 Madrid train bombings [JURIST news archive], both from defendants and from victims, and that it expects to receive more appeals within the next few days. In November 2007, victims vowed to appeal [JURIST report] after a Spanish court acquitted seven of 28 co-defendants accused of participating in the attacks, including alleged mastermind Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed [CBC profile]. Three defendants were convicted of murder [JURIST report] and 18 others were found guilty of lesser charges. The three men convicted of murder - Jamel Zougam, Otman el Ghanoui, and Emilio Trashorras - each received sentences of up to 40,000 years imprisonment but under Spanish law can only serve a maximum of 40 years each. The judge also ordered compensation [JURIST report] to be paid for the victims in amounts up to 1.5 million euro.

In all, 28 co-defendants [BBC backgrounder] were charged in Spain with 192 counts of murder and upwards of 1,800 counts of attempted murder related to the March 11, 2004 bombings, which killed 191 people and injured almost 2000 more. The defendants have all protested their innocence and condemned the attacks. AFP has more.

[JURIST] An internal document circulated to diplomats in the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade [official website] lists the US as a country that employs interrogation methods that amount to torture and where prisoners risk being tortured, according to media reports Thursday. The document, originally provided to Amnesty International in a court case it filed over Canadian treatment of Afghan detainees [JURIST report], specifically mentions Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] as a detention facility that employs such methods and reports Canadian citizen Omar Khadr [JURIST news archive] as saying that he has been tortured while detained there. Other countries on the list provided to Canadian officials attending a training workshop include Afghanistan, China, Iran, Israel, and Syria. Reuters Thursday quoted a Canadian government spokesman as saying that the document was not an expression of official Canadian policy, but observers say it is nonetheless suggestive of views critical of the US within the country's foreign ministry.

Much controversy has surrounded acknowledged and suspected US interrogation techniques post-9/11, including waterboarding [JURIST news archive], which human rights advocates say amount to torture. In 2006, US President George W. Bush insisted that the US does not torture prisoners [JURIST report] when asked whether he agreed with a comment by Vice President Dick Cheney that a "dunk in the water" is a "no-brainer" when it comes to interrogating terror suspects. Earlier this month, US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell [official profile] said in an article published in the New Yorker that waterboarding was torture as far as he was concerned [JURIST report]. The question of whether waterboarding is in fact illegal torture dogged now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey in his recent confirmation hearings, and he ultimately refused to take a definitive stand [JURIST report] on the matter. In December 2007, former CIA agent John Kiriakou confirmed the use of waterboarding [JURIST report] during interrogations of terror suspects. Reuters has more. CTV has additional coverage.

[JURIST] Prosecutions under a new Arizona law aimed at preventing employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants [JURIST news archive] will not begin until after March 1, according to an agreement reached in federal court Wednesday. The delay will allow US District Court Judge Neil V. Wake time to evaluate the federal lawsuit [complaint, PDF; press release] challenging the controversial Legal Arizona Workers Act [AZHB 2779 text, PDF; Arizona Republic backgrounder]. The lawsuit was filed [JURIST report] in December 2007 by a coalition of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy websites]. A bipartisan group of legislators have introduced a number of bills which would amend the most controversial aspects of the law such as whether it applies to current employees or only those hired after January 1.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which went into effect on January 1, allows the Superior Courts of Arizona to suspend or revoke the business licenses of businesses that intentionally or knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Under the law, employers will be required to check the legal status of new hires using E-Verify [DHS backgrounder], a free online federal program that checks names and identification documents to determine employment eligibility. Wake dismissed [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] an earlier lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against the new law filed by the ACLU and other civil rights groups, holding that that suit was premature because the law had not gone into effect and no one had been harmed. When Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the legislation [JURIST report] in July, she called the law "the most aggressive action in the country against employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers." The Arizona Republic has more.

[JURIST] The German Federal Ministry of Justice [official website, in German] Wednesday circulated a new draft [press release, in German] of a law aimed at maintaining state control over auto maker Volkswagen AG [corporate website]. The European Court of Justice ruled [JURIST report] in October 2007 that a previous version of the law, which protects Volkswagen from hostile takeovers, was illegal because it limited "the free movement of capital" and discouraged foreign direct investment in Germany. The new version drops a provision that limited shareholder voting rights to 20 percent, but requires the agreement of shareholders holding more than 80 percent of all shares to approve important changes.

The European Commission (EC) [official website] initially challenged the "Volkswagen Law" in 2005. In February 2007, Advocate General Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo of the ECJ advised the court that the law should be repealed [JURIST report], saying the law restricts the free movement of capital [press release, PDF] and "strengthens the position of the Federal Government and the land, preventing any intervention in the management of the company." The EC has filed similar suits or threatened to file suit against Spain and its energy companies, Italy and highway company Autosrade SpA, and Poland for intervening in Italy's UniCredit SpA business in Poland. The New York Times has more.

[JURIST] Peru filed an application [press release] with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] Wednesday over its ongoing maritime boundary dispute with Chile. Peru has been threatening to bring the case before the ICJ since the court resolved a similar dispute [JURIST reports] between Nicaragua and Honduras in October 2007. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet [official website] and Foreign Minister Alejandro Foxley immediately denounced the application [123 Noticias report], but it is unclear whether Chile will reject the ICJ's jurisdiction, as commentators have predicted.

The case between Chile and Peru is the latest in a series of disputes regarding the boundaries of Latin American countries brought before the ICJ pursuant to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement [text]. After issuing a final opinion [PDF opinion; press release] on the case between Nicaragua and Honduras, the court is presently evaluating disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica [order, PDF] and between Nicaragua and Colombia [ruling, PDF]. AP has more. BBC News has additional coverage [in Spanish].

[JURIST] Niger authorities charged two French journalists [AFP report] with threatening state security Wednesday, alleging that the journalists attempted to report on rebel groups in the country's volatile north region. The West African country has been in a state of disarray since the rebirth of an ethnic Tuareg rebellion [BBC backgrounder] last year. The Niger government banned all foreigners and reporters from entering the northern region, and made reporting on the rebels a crime punishable by death. Leaders of the rebel group, the Niger Movement for Justice [group website, in French], have conducted some interviews via satellite phone and have communicated information about the rebellion on their website.

The two French journalists - reporter Pierre Creisson and cameraman Thomas Dandois - have been in custody since their December 17 arrest [RSF report]. The two allegedly tried to report on the Tuareg rebels under the guise of traveling to southern areas of the country to report on the bird flu virus. A trial date has not yet been set. Also this week, a Niamey appeals court deferred a decision [RSF report] in the case of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website] correspondent, Moussa Kaka, who allegedly "connived" with the rebels. AP has more.

[JURIST] Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan [IHT backgrounder] on Wednesday called for the government of Turkey to lift a ban on women wearing headscarves [JURIST report] in universities and public offices, urging the government not to wait for a proposed constitutional amendment to pass, according to a report [in French] from the Anadolu news agency. Wednesday's remarks followed a similar statement last September when Erdogan urged the Turkish government to remove the ban, saying that the ban effectively denies some Muslim women access to higher education [JURIST report]. Though Erdogan says lifting the headscarf ban is solely about granting individual liberty, Turkish secularists believe Erdogan's insistence on removing the ban is a political statement against secular principles. Erdogan has made the headscarf issue a top priority since his Muslim rooted AK Party won elections last year and promised a new constitution [JURIST report]. Opponents say the ban on headscarves is necessary to protect the separation of religion and state. AP has more.

Traditionally worn by Muslim women, headscarves and other forms of religious dress [JURIST news archive] are banned from many public places in modern Turkey, a majority Muslim country despite official secularism. In 2006, a Turkish court acquitted [JURIST report] retired archaeologist Muazzez Ilmiye Cig [personal website] of charges of insulting religion after postulating in her book that headscarves were originally worn before the founding of Islam by ancient Mesopotamian priestesses who initiated young men into sex. The case also drew criticism from international archaeological associations [IAA appeal] and from the European Union, which had warned Turkey that its laws infringing freedom of expression may delay its entry into the global body.

[JURIST] John Rizzo, the acting general counsel of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website], said Wednesday that the former head of the clandestine branch of the CIA Jose Rodriguez ordered the destruction of videotapes showing the interrogation of terror suspects [JURIST news archive] against the direction of superiors, according to Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Testifying before the US House Select Committee on Intelligence in a closed hearing [press release, PDF] Wednesday, Rizzo reportedly implied that Rodriguez had specifically received orders not to destroy the tapes. Rizzo also testified that both he and former CIA Director Porter Goss advised against destroying the tapes, despite a memo written by CIA lawyers stating that destruction of the tapes would be legal. AP has more.

On Monday, a lawyer for Rodriguez said Rodriguez would not testify [JURIST report] in Wednesday's hearing indicating he had been excused because he would refuse to answer questions. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena [JURIST report] for Rodriguez last month. Last week, Rodriguez's lawyer told Congress that his client would not testify without immunity [JURIST report] after the US Justice Department opened a criminal investigation [JURIST report] into the destruction of the tapes. Existence of the videotapes was verified in November after the CIA admitted it had mistakenly denied [JURIST report] that it had recorded interrogations in a court declaration during the trial of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Last week, a federal judge refused to order a judicial inquiry into the videotapes [JURIST report], concluding that there was no evidence that the Bush administration violated a June 2005 order that the administration preserve all evidence relating to alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay.