[JURIST] Algerian Justice Minister Tayeb Belaiz on Sunday confirmed that officials from the country had visited the US base at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] to identify Algerian detainees, and said that although the country would accept repatriation of the 17 still held there, some may face criminal charges upon their return. US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch [official profile] has told reporters that the US and Algeria are negotiating an accord in order to return the detainees, but that the US wants to make sure that those that are dangerous are not simply set free.

Two main obstacles face the return of the Algerian detainees to their country of origin. Some detainees, most notably Ahmed Belbacha [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], have challenged their transfer, saying they fear being tortured or killed by either the government or al Qaeda if they return. In addition, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's 2006 amnesty plan [BBC backgrounder] for Islamic insurgents could mean that dangerous detainees may be released and able to reestablish their terrorist ties. US President George Bush has said that, when possible, he wants to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay in order to eventually close the facility [JURIST report]. AP has more. Reuters has additional coverage.

[JURIST] US Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that the House of Representatives could vote on compromise surveillance legislation as early as next week. In an appearance on CNN's Late Edition, Reyes said [transcript] that a compromise bill to replace the now-defunct Protect America Act [S 1927 materials; JURIST report] would come to a vote in the House "probably within the next week." The Protect America Act expired earlier this month before Congress could reach an agreement on legislation to replace it, prompting repeated criticism [JURIST report] from President Bush, who has said that the US is in greater danger of a terrorist attack without the surveillance legislation.

The Protect America Act, a temporary law designed to supplement the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [text], allowed the US government to eavesdrop within the US without court approval so as long as one end of a conversation was reasonably perceived to have been outside of the country. US Attorney General Michael Mukasey and US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said in a February 22 letter [PDF text; JURIST report] to Reyes that intelligence has been lost while some companies wait to see how the legislature settles a dispute over whether to provide immunity for telecommunications companies [JURIST report] from lawsuits related to their participation in the NSA warrantless surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. The Senate and the House have not yet been able to reach an agreement on whether to provide immunity to telecommunications companies. The FISA Amendments Act [S 2248 materials], passed by the Senate in mid-February, grants telecommunications companies full legal immunity from civil suits for any involvement in wiretapping program between Sept. 11, 2001 and January 2007. The House version [HR 3773 materials], approved in November 2007 [JURIST report], does not include the immunity provisions. Reyes addressed immunity in his Sunday interview, saying:

we are talking to the representatives from the communications companies because, if we're going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and we want to understand the communications companies because if we're going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and we want to understand what it is that we're giving immunity for. ...

... both the Senate version and the House version have prospective immunity. So in talking to at least some of the representatives from the telecommunications companies, they recognize that. What they're interested in is retrospective immunity, but they know that both the House and the Senate are in favor of giving them that immunity as we go forward.

[JURIST] A spokesperson for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has criticized the Iraqi Presidency Council for refusing to approve the executions of two defendants sentenced to death last year by the Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] for their roles in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds during the Anfal campaign [HRW backgrounder] of 1988. The Presidency Council, consisting of Kurdish President Jalal Talibani, Shi'ite Vice-President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, on Friday approved the execution [JURIST report] of Ali Hassan al-Mahid [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], better known in the western media as "Chemical Ali," but failed to approve the sentences of co-defendants Hussein Rashid Mohammed, the former deputy head of army operations, and Sultan Hashim al-Taie, a former defense minister. Al-Maliki's spokesman said Friday that the Presidency Council does not have authority to "pardon or reduce" an Iraqi High Tribunal sentence. Under Iraqi law, execution orders require the signatures of all three members of the Presidency Council.

The Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced [JURIST report] al-Majid and his co-defendants to death in June 2007 on genocide and war crimes charges. The Tribunal's Appeals Chamber upheld the death sentences [JURIST report] last September. Under Iraqi law, the executions were supposed to have taken place 30 days after the men were sentenced, meaning that the men should have been executed no later than October 4. Iraq's Presidency Council nonetheless refused to sign any execution order [JURIST report]. An Iraqi judge said last September that presidential approval is not required [JURIST report] to carry out the executions, but al-Hashemi reasserted in October that the presidency did in fact have the power to block the carrying out of the death sentences, regardless of their approval by al-Maliki. The Los Angeles Times has more.

[JURIST] The US District Court for the Northern District Illinois [official website] has refused to dissolve an injunction barring the enforcement of Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 [text], which would require physicians to notify the parents of minors seeking abortions at least 48 hours before performing the procedure. The court has repeatedly prevented the law from taking effect over insufficient rules on how appeals would be handled. The Illinois Supreme Court [official website] adopted the necessary procedures [text] in 2006, prompting Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan [official website] to request [press release; motion, PDF] that the court dissolve the injunction. The district court ruled Friday that the law was still "contradictory and incomplete." Madigan's office said Saturday that it was weighing its options on whether to challenge the decision, but opponents of the law [advocacy website] heralded what they hope to be the end of the statute.

Illinois is the only state in the region without an active parental notification law [JURIST news archive], and pro-life groups say minors from surrounding state travel to Illinois to undergo the procedure. Thirty-five states have enforceable parental notification or permission laws. In June 2007, the governor of New Hampshire signed into effect a repeal of the state's parental notification law [JURIST report], which never took effect. In 2006, voters in Oregon and California rejected statutes that would have required notification [JURIST report], although those measures allowed minors to request a judge to bypass the requirement. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense has said that two charges have been referred [press release] against Saudi Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi for his alleged connections to al Qaeda. Al-Darbi [DOD materials] is the brother-in-law of Khalid al Mihdhar, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers who crashed a jet into the Pentagon. According to the Defense Department's statement Friday, al-Darbi is charged with "conspiring with others to attack civilians, commit murder in violation of the law of war, destroy property in violation of the law of war, hazard a vessel and commit terrorism; and providing material support to terrorism." Military prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay filed charges [PDF text, JURIST report] in December against al Darbi for his alleged role in a plan to bomb a ship off the coast of Yemen or in the Strait of Hormuz. He is accused of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism under Sections 950v(b)(28) and (25) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PDF text]. He also allegedly attended and worked at an al Qaeda terrorist training camp and traveled to various locales in Pakistan, the UAE, and Qatar to buy materials and recruit help.

Al-Darbi faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since March 2003. AP has more.