[JURIST] The Angolan government should stop torture and unfair trials in the province of Cabinda [government in exile website], according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] statement [press release] issued Wednesday. HRW alleges that at least 15 civilians and six military personnel have been arbitrarily detained in Cabinda since September 2007. There has been only one trial, which resulted in a conviction, and HRW found that the trial fell short of international fair trial standards. HRW also alleges that the detainees have been tortured and held under inhumane conditions. HRW Africa Director Georgette Gagnon said, "The Angolan government should immediately stop all torture of detainees and permit international scrutiny of military detention facilities in Cabinda. . . . Those responsible for the mistreatment of detainees should be held accountable." HRW claims that 14 civilians are currently being held illegally.

Angola has a history of human rights violations, particularly in the province of Cabinda, which has been fighting for independence since 1975. In 2006, a pro-independence group in Cabinda announced [JURIST report] that it was filing a request with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] for the prosecutor's office to conduct an investigation into alleged Angolan war crimes. In August, HRW expressed doubts [HRW report] as to whether the September elections would be fair and free. After the elections, HRW identified problems [HRW report] with the electoral system and called for changes before the 2009 presidential elections.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; briefs] Wednesday in two cases. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the Court heard arguments on whether high-ranking US officials are protected by qualified immunity from suit for alleged religious and ethnic discrimination by their subordinates. Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national detained during a terror sweep after the 9/11 attacks [JURIST news archive], filed a lawsuit against former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profiles], and other officials, alleging that he was subjected to abuse during his detention in a Brooklyn jail because of his religion and ethnicity. The US Appeals Court for the Second Circuit [official website] allowed the lawsuit to go forward [opinion, PDF], but the Bush administration appealed the ruling, arguing that the officials were protected from suit for the acts of their subordinates. Counsel for petitioners argued that "these allegedly discriminatory determinations, classifications, were made by FBI officials in the field, not Petitioners here, the former Attorney General and director of the FBI. Counsel for the respondents argued that petitioners not only knew about, but approved the policy.

In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the Court heard arguments on whether maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act [EEOC backgrounder] can be considered in calculating employee pensions. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that AT&T violated the act by failing to award employees credit for time taken off work for maternity leave before 1978. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the claims are stale and that the employees had fair and adequate notice of the employer's actions. Counsel for respondents argued that this is discrimination within a seniority system that gives "unequal credit for equal service."

[JURIST] The Indian government on Tuesday urged [transcript text] the UN Security Council [official website] to ban a Pakistani charity seen as a front for the group being blamed for the Mumbai terror attacks [BBC backgrounder]. Indian Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed [official profile] asked the UN to proscribe Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which it believes is a front for the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) [ADL backgrounder]. Ahamed told the members of the Security Council:

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa and other such organizations need to be proscribed internationally and effective sanctions imposed against them. Their country of origin needs to take urgent steps to stop their functioning. A message must also go out that perpetrators of terrorist acts must be brought to book and not given sanctuaries in some states.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments Tuesday in an en banc rehearing of Arar v. Ashcroft [CCR backgrounder]. Canadian citizen Maher Arar [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] is seeking a declaratory judgment against US government officials for having deported him to Syria [JURIST news archive] in 2002, where he was tortured despite Syrian assurances [Globe & Mail report] that he would not be. In August, the court granted the request for a rehearing, after initially dismissing [JURIST reports] Arar's suit in July. Counsel for Arar argued [AFP report] that Arar was a victim of a high-level US conspiracy to subject him to torture. The government argued that the court should not decide the case, allowing Congress an opportunity to create legislation to deal with an unusual circumstance like Arar's.

Arar was detained by the US in September 2002 after flying to New York from Tunisia on his way home to Canada. Arar has argued [CCR press release] that he should be able to challenge the US government's policy of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] under the Torture Victim Protection Act [text] and the Fifth Amendment [text] of the US Constitution. In October 2007, US lawmakers apologized [JURIST report] to Arar during a joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee [official website]. In January 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Arar [JURIST report] on behalf of the Canadian government and announced a settlement of $10.5 million (CAD) compensation for pain and suffering in connection with its involvement in the deportation. Last Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that an Egyptian Christian who could face torture in Egypt [JURIST news archive] could challenge his deportation from the US.

[JURIST] The Malaysian government has released six terror suspects, including Yazid Sufaat [GlobalSecurity profile] who allegedly gave assistance to the 9/11 attackers [JURIST news archive], according to a Wednesday statement from Malaysian Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar. Yazid, released last month, was a member of the Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] who was arrested in 2001 on suspicion of working on a biological and chemical weapons program for al Qaeda. Five other suspects, including another JI member, two Malaysians, and two Thai nationals, were released last week. Syed Hamid told reporters that the suspects, who have been held without trial since 2001 or 2002, were released [Bernama report] because it was determined that they no longer pose a threat. Syed Hamid also said that the cases would be reviewed periodically [The Malaysian Insider report].

The release of these suspects comes on the heels of last month's execution of three other JI members [JURIST report], convicted of the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings [BBC backgrounder] which killed 202 people. The three men had called on Islamic militant groups to carry out retribution attacks, which resulted in stepped-up security in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta and a warning [text] issued by the US embassy in Indonesia. In April, an Indonesian court convicted two JI leaders [JURIST report] on terrorism charges and recognized JI as a terrorist organization.

[JURIST] Tuesday marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [text], and is celebrated as International Human Rights Day [official website]. The occasion will be commemorated with a number of special events [schedule, PDF] at the UN headquarters in New York City, including the presentation of the UN Prize in the Field of Human Rights [official website] and a special meeting of the General Assembly [official website]. The theme for the 2008 International Human Rights Day is "Dignity and justice for all of us." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official website] said [statement text]:

On this Human Rights Day, it is my hope that we will all act on our collective responsibility to uphold the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We can only honour the towering vision of that inspiring document when its principles are fully applied everywhere, for everyone.

We must work for the full implementation of human rights on the ground in a way that affects and improves the lives of the men, women and children who are all entitled, regardless of their race, sex, religion, nationality, property or birth, to realization of each and every right set forth in the Universal Declaration.

[JURIST] Whole Foods Market [corporate website] filed an action [complaint, PDF] in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Monday requesting an injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] from holding an administrative trial regarding the company's merger with Wild Oats Market [corporate website]. The action also requests that any further proceedings be moved to federal court. The suit alleges that the FTC has a prejudgement on the case and that the company's due process rights are violated by the timing of the trial. The complaint regarding the prejudgement stems from the FTC publicly questioning the merger, including whether it violated anti-trust laws. John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, said [press release]:

How can the same FTC sit as judge and jury at sometime in the future of the very same case in which it has already declared that the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger is illegal and it's key expert witness is 'garbage'? The answer is - it shouldn't be allowed to. It has obviously already closed its mind. That's not our understanding of what due process and the principles of fundamental fairness are all about.

[JURIST] Three out of five Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], the self-proclaimed architect of the 9/11 attacks [JURIST report], on Monday postponed their offers to plead guilty to the charges against them after the judge required competency hearings for two of the suspects. The five defendants indicated at a military commission pre-trial hearing on Monday that they wished to plead guilty [JURIST report] to the charges relating to the 9/11 attacks. The judge, Army Col. Stephen Henley [DOD biography, PDF], initially accepted the requests from three of the suspects - Mohammed, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Walid bin Attash - but ruled that competency hearings were required [CNN report] for Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Mohammed, Ali, and Attash then withdrew their offers to plead guilty until the competency of al-Hawsawi and al-Shibh is determined.

Henley was assigned to the Mohammed trial last month, following the retirement [JURIST reports] of Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann [JURIST news archive]. The Pentagon approved death penalty charges against Mohammed and the four other suspects in May, and they were arraigned [JURIST reports] in June. In February, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged [JURIST report] that Mohammed had been subjected to waterboarding [JURIST news archive] during interrogation.

[JURIST] The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF; ACLU press release] that it has the authority to review a decision by the US consulate in South Africa that denied a visa to a controversial South African scholar. The consulate had denied a nonimmigrant visa to Adam Habib [academic backgrounder], a Muslim scholar, political analyst, and professor, citing his alleged involvement with terroristic activities, which prevented him from accepting speaking engagements in the US. The organizations that had invited Habib to speak sued [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff [official profile, JURIST news archive] and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [official profile, JURIST news archive] in their professional capacities for First Amendment violations. Under the US Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel [opinion text] the Executive's power to exclude an alien is not reviewable if the decision was made "on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason." The district court found that the State Department lacked any such reason, making the decision reviewable. The court did not go so far as to grant the plaintiffs' request for summary judgment in their favor. The court further found that Chertoff and Habib were improperly included as parties in the suit and dismissed them.

In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] brought a similar lawsuit [JURIST report] against the US for denying Swiss Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan [ACLU profile] entry into the US under the ideological exclusion provision [ACLU backgrounder; CIS report] of the Patriot Act [JURIST news archive]. Ramadan was unable to accept speaking invitations at various functions and a teaching invitation at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 after his visa was revoked. That case is currently pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.