[JURIST] A US district judge ordered the Bush administration [minute order, PDF text] Tuesday to release 17 Uighur detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], ruling that the Constitution forbids their indefinite detention without cause. In a ruling [transcript] read from the bench, Judge Ricardo Urbina [official profile] of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] gave the government until Friday to release the Chinese Muslims into the United States, marking the first time that a US court has ordered Guantanamo detainees to be freed. Urbina rejected arguments by the Justice Department (DOJ) [official website] that the court could not require the Uighurs' release without violating the doctrine of separation of powers. He further ordered immigration authorities not to take the Uighurs into custody upon their arrival in the US. Another hearing in the case is scheduled for October 16. AP has more. The Washington Post has additional coverage.

Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called on the US government Monday to parole the Uighurs [press release]. In June, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ordered the government [opinion, PDF text; JURIST report] to release or transfer one of the Uighurs from Guantanamo, ruling that he had been improperly designated as an enemy combatant. In March, one of the Uighurs wrote in a letter [JURIST report] released by his lawyers that the detainees had not been told why they were being held at the military facility. The government has previously linked the Uighurs with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) [MIPT backgrounder], a militant group that calls for separation from China and has been a US-designated terrorist group since 2002. The Uighurs have remained at Guantanamo while US officials have been seeking countries willing to accept their resettlement.

10/14/08 - Urbina's memorandum opinion [PDF text] accompanying the order to free the Uighur detainees has been released.

[JURIST] Thirteen United Nations experts on Monday urged the international community to respect the rights of detainees [statement text]. The statement of the 13 special rapporteurs, including Philip Alston [official website; JURIST news archive], the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Manfred Nowak [official website; JURIST news archive], the Special Rapporteur on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, comes as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] celebrates Dignity and Justice for Detainees Week [UNHCHR materials]. The statement called on all states to respect the rights of detainees:

All too often we have seen that discrimination existing in societies at large is exacerbated when people are deprived of their liberty. Even when policies and practices aim to treat everyone equally, they often overlook the particular needs of women, minors, non-citizens, the sick and the disabled. Poor detainees suffer disproportionally from overcrowding and their access to healthcare [sic] and food is often reduced to a minimum. Those detained far from home suffer the most for lack of family support. Members of vulnerable groups or women run an increased risk of falling victims to sexual violence and slavery-like practices within places of detention, frequently with the tacit approval of, or directly committed by, State officials. Too often detention serves as a means of punishment without educational opportunities, thus further marginalising [sic] detainees rather than helping them to prepare for release. ... On the occasion of the week on "Dignity and Justice for Detainees", we call on all States to do their utmost to ensure that detainees, as all other human beings, are treated with respect and dignity. We also appeal to States to provide for effective complaints and monitoring mechanisms in places of detention, including efficient avenues to challenge the legality of detention and access to legal counsel, with a view to making human rights a reality for them.

[JURIST] Former Bosnian Serb leader and war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] has requested, in a motion [PDF text] released Monday by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive], that prosecutors release information regarding an alleged immunity deal with former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke [PBS profile]. Writing on his own behalf, Karadic said the ICTY's Rules of Procedure and Evidence [PDF text] grant him the right to use the information in defending himself:

Dr. Karadzic contends that the documents described... are material to the preparation of his [defense]. It is part of his [defense] that (1) he was promised on 18-19 July 1996 by Richard Holbrooke that he would not have to face prosecution in The Hague if he agreed to withdraw completely from public life; and (2) that this promise is attributable to the ICTY because it was made on behalf of, or in consultation with the member States of the United Nations Security Council, or was reasonably believed to be so made.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday stayed [opinion, PDF] a district order requiring senior Bush administration officials to give the House Judiciary Committee [official website] information about the forced resignations of nine US attorneys [JURIST news archive]. In July, a federal district judge rejected claims of executive privilege [JURIST report] by former presidential counselor Harriet Miers [Washington Post profile] and current White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten [official profiles], requiring Miers to testify before the committee and ordering Miers and Bolton to honor committee subpoenas for documents. Miers and Bolton sought a permanent stay [JURIST report] of those orders pending an expedited appeal to the DC Circuit. A three-judge panel granted the stay but denied the motion to expedite, writing that the matter could not be adjudicated before the current Congress adjourns. According to the per curiam opinion,

[t]he present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branches. But the Committee recognizes that, even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the Judicial Branch - including resolution by a panel and possible rehearing by this court en banc and by the Supreme Court - before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009. At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire.... In view of the above considerations, we see no reason to set the appeal on an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule. If the case becomes moot, we would be wasting the time of the court and the parties.... If the case does not become moot despite the expiration of the subpoenas ... there would be no pressing need for an immediate decision.... This course has the additional benefit of permitting the new President and the new House an opportunity to express their views on the merits of the lawsuit.

[JURIST] Five Palestinians represented by Israeli rights group Yesh Din [advocacy website] filed suit [PDF complaint, in Hebrew] against the State of Israel seeking $427,000 in damages for failing to protect Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank from trespassers and an illegal outpost, according to Yesh Din lawyers Monday. The suit, brought in the Magistrate Court in Jerusalem, alleges that the Migron [Mateh Binyamin Regional Council backgrounder] community was illegally settled on the plaintiffs' land with the assistance of Israeli authorities, altering its topography and blocking the owners' access to the area. The Palestinian owners, the first to seek monetary damages [AP report] from Israel in a land dispute, cite loss of potential income and Israel's breach of its duty to protect Palestinian property in the West Bank. Migron residents have stated that they do not intend to leave the disputed land. The Jerusalem Post has more.

In September, a report [report summary, PDF; JURIST report] released by rights group B'Tselem [advocacy website] alleged that Israeli security policies have resulted in Palestinians being prevented from accessing land adjacent to settlements in the West Bank. The report described two main Israeli behaviors against Palestinians in the West Bank, including the use of violence and harassment by settlers and security forces to keep Palestinians away from the settlements, and the building of a secondary fence to create a buffer zone consisting of empty land in a wide swath around the settlements. In July, Yesh Din highlighted the lack of investigations and prosecutions [JURIST report] of Israeli settlers who commit crimes against Palestinians. In June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asserted that Israeli plans to expand settlements [Ha'aretz report] in the West Bank violate international law [JURIST report].

[JURIST] US President George Bush on Monday criticized [recorded video; transcript] the Senate's judicial nominee confirmation process and defended his appointment of judges [WH materials] who he says strictly interpret the US Constitution. Bush made his remarks at an event sponsored by the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs [academic website] and the Federalist Society [advocacy website], and emphasized the important role that federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have recently played in the governance of the country. He rejected the concept of an evolving, "living" Constitution, saying that judges should exercise restraint when interpreting it, and commended his recent Supreme Court appointees Samuel Alito and John Roberts [WH profiles] for implementing this philosophy. Bush described the Senate's blocking of other federal judicial nominees as an abuse of its power to provide [US Constitution Article 2 text] "advice and consent" on the nominations. Using the treatment of abortive nominee Miguel Estrada [firm profile], as an example, Bush said:

When [he] was nominated for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court, he received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. Yet for more than two years he awaited a simple up or down vote in the United States Senate. He never got one. For the first time in history, the Senate used a filibuster to block a nominee to the Court of Appeals. This fine American endured years of delay; he had his character unfairly attacked, and ultimately withdrew his name from consideration -- all because a minority of senators thought they would not like his rulings on the bench and worried that a President might one day elevate him to the Supreme Court...

... Unfortunately, Miguel Estrada's experience is not an isolated one. Many other well-qualified nominees have endured uncertainty and withering attacks on their character simply because they've accepted the call to public service. Those waiting in limbo include: Peter Keisler for the D.C. Circuit, Rod Rosenstein for the Fourth Circuit, and dozens of other nominees to district and circuit courts across this country.

Some of these nominees waiting for a simple up or down vote would fill court vacancies that have been designated "judicial emergencies." While these vacancies remain unfulfilled -- unfilled -- legal disputes are left unresolved, the backlog of cases grows larger, and the rule of law is delayed for millions of Americans...

... It is clear we need to improve the process for confirming qualified judicial nominees. This process will always be somewhat contentious. But there are a few things that the American people expect us to agree on. First, the American people expect nominees and their families to be treated with dignity. Nominees should not have to wait years for the up or down vote that the Senate owes them.

[JURIST] Russian authorities have asked Britain to extradite former Russneft [corporate website] oil company head Mikhail Gutseriyev, according to a Russian Ministry of the Interior [official website] spokesman Monday. Citing systematic government 'persecution' [BBC report], Gutseriyev resigned [RIA Novosti report] from Russneft in July 2007 amid Interior Ministry accusations of tax evasion and illegal business practice. The following month, Moscow's Lefortovsky District Court froze all Russneft shares [IHT report] and the Tverskoi Court issued an arrest warrant for Gutseriyev, but he had already fled the country. A Russian Prosecutor General's Office spokesperson confirmed [Interfax report] Monday that Russia filed an official extradition request with the UK Home Office [official website] on July 29, but said that no response has been received. The British embassy in Moscow did not comment on the request. Gutseriyev, who has maintained his innocence, would face up to six years in prison if convicted. The Moscow Times has more. RIA Novosti has additional coverage.

The UK currently has a strained relationship with Russia, due partly to Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoy [JURIST news archive], the man suspected of administering poison in London to kill former KGB agent and British citizen Alexander Litvinenko [JURIST news archive; BBC timeline], so that he could stand trial for murder [JURIST report] in the UK. In July, a UK intelligence official said that there are "very strong indications" that the Russian government was behind the murder [JURIST report]. Russian officials say the Russian constitution prohibits the extradition of citizens for criminal trials in other countries [JURIST report]. Britain has previously refused Russian extradition requests for suspects identified as being in the United Kingdom, including Chechen envoy Akhmed Zakayev [JURIST report] and business tycoon Boris Berezovsky [BBC report; JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] Officials at the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country [official website, in Basque] announced Monday that three of the region's political leaders, including its president, will stand trial for meeting publicly with members of the Batasuna party to negotiate a ceasefire with the illegal Basque separatist group ETA [BBC backgrounders]. Basque President Juan José Ibarretxe [official profile] and two senior members of the Basque branch of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's party met with Batasuna party members in July and April 2006 and in January 2007. They were charged [JURIST report] in connection with the meetings in October 2007. The trial is scheduled to begin January 8. AP has more.

The Batasuna party is alleged to be a front for ETA, which has been blamed for more than 800 deaths in bombings and attacks since the 1960s. Spain's Supreme Court declared Batasuna illegal [Independent report] in 2003. Last month, the court banned [JURIST report] the Basque Nationalist Action Party (ANV) from taking part in political activities because of its alleged ties to Batasuna.

[JURIST] Officials from Germany's ruling coalition announced [CDU press release, in German] Monday that they would draft an amendment to the German constitution to allow the military to aid local police forces during emergencies. Under Article 35 of the German Basic Law [text, PDF], the government may deploy the military domestically only if a natural disaster or accident seriously affects more than one German state. The proposed amendment would still strictly control domestic deployment of the military but would allow such deployment in a wider range of emergencies. Officials from the opposition Left Party criticized the move [statement, in German]:

With the agreement to change Article 35 of the Basic Law, [the coalition] steps on the legacy of parliamentary advice. ... The parliament tried 60 years ago to incorporate the teachings from the time of fascism, but the coalition today wants to use the German Federal Armed Forces in the interior based on an abstract terrorism danger. The Left maintains ... [t]he regulations of Article 35 of the Basic Law are completely sufficient.

[JURIST] Lehman Brothers [corporate website] Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld [corporate profile] Monday called for a new regulatory scheme for financial firms in testimony before the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [committee website]. Fuld answered questions regarding Lehman Brother's role in the current financial crisis and the the high levels of executive compensation at the firm in the run-up to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing [bankruptcy petition, PDF; affidavit, PDF] and disputed lawmakers' suggestions that Lehman Brothers managers defrauded investors by making public statements at odds with Lehman's internal financial health. In a prepared statement [text, PDF], Fuld said:

We now have the opportunity to create a new regulatory system and “best practices” for a functioning and orderly market. These new approaches must encourage rather than impede global investment in our capital markets. Shifting and inconsistent rules create a capital markets system that does not give confidence to investors or participants. We need a single set of transparent rules for all of the participants in order to have a fair and orderly market. We must stick to these rules and enforce them evenly, not selectively, or our great capital markets will not be attractive to investors. A loss of investment in our markets would have far-reaching consequences for this country and the American people.