JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, June 19, 2010

[JURIST] The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] recommended Friday that Malaysia repeal or amend its internal security laws, which allow indefinite detainment without trial. At the end of an official visit [press release], the group said amending the laws would allow Malaysia to conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text; Bernama report]. The UN group had been in the country observing prisons and detention centers and was highly critical of four fundamental security laws, including the Internal Security Act (ISA) [text, PDF; AI backgrounder]. Group chairman Malick Sow said that although detainees were generally treated well in the prisons, they were more likely to be tortured [BBC report] in order to obtain evidence or confessions while in detention. The group will present a full report on Malaysia to the UN Human Rights Council [official website] early next year.

Malaysia's internal security laws have been heavily criticized. Last August, a Malaysian court charged 29 protesters [JURIST report] for their alleged involvement in rallies against the country's Internal Security Act. The demonstration was allegedly started by the Abolish ISA Movement [advocacy blog]. The law was protested by an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people in Kuala Lumpur, resulting in 589 arrests and the use of tear gas and water cannons by police. The protesters were charged with aiding an illegal organization or participating in an illegal rally since a police permit was not obtained. At the time, Prime Minister Najib Razak [official website; BBC profile] dismissed the protest as being unnecessary since he previously pledged to review the controversial law. In January 2008, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy website, in French] called for the country to abolish the ISA [JURIST report], claiming that the law was being used to stifle peaceful dissent.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website] Friday dismissed 49 terrorism lawsuits, including five cases against relatives of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden [JURIST news archives], citing lack of evidence. Judge George Daniels dismissed claims against four half-brothers and a nephew of bin Laden, holding that the prosecution lacked evidence [AFP report] to support the relatives' involvement in al Qaeda operations surrounding the 9/11 attacks [JURIST news archive]. The claims were brought seven years ago by the families of victims who died in the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001.

As the "Ground Zero" federal district court, the SDNY has dealt with a wide variety of issues resulting from the 9/11 attacks. Last week, SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein approved a $712.5 million settlement [JURIST report] between New York City and the 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers who became sick or injured from responding to the 9/11 attacks. The most severe injuries, most of which are asthma-related, could garner more than $1 million in compensation for a client. In April US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced that the government has not ruled out prosecuting certain high-profile 9/11 suspects [JURIST report], including alleged 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammad [BBC profile] in the SDNY.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] plans to file a lawsuit challenging Arizona's controversial immigration legislation [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive], according to media reports Friday. Senior officials for the Obama administration are said to have confirmed the DOJ's intent [CBS report] after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official website] mentioned the legal action in a television interview in Ecuador [recorded video]. The interview took place June 8, but was not picked up by US domestic media until this week. Last month, President Obama personally criticized the Arizona legislation [JURIST report] and said the DOJ was considering a lawsuit. Neither the administration nor the DOJ have officially confirmed the US media reports. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] responded to the reports [press release] later Friday, saying that federal legal action would be "outrageous" and a waste of federal funds that would be better spent on national immigration reform. Brewer is currently facing at least five lawsuits challenging the immigration law. She subsequently filed a motion to dismiss [press release] another lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [official website] in May challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report]. The law, which takes effect July 29, criminalizes illegal immigration and requires police officers to question an individual's immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" to believe an individual is in the country illegally.

Last week, Brewer filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds [JURIST report] a suit filed by Washington-based researcher Roberto Frisancho, alleging that the immigration legislation would lead to him being harassed when he visits Arizona because he is a US-born Hispanic. Brewer claims that the plaintiffs in the several lawsuits filed against the state law possess a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the legislation's language, citing the law's "rigorous" safeguards against racial profiling and "carefully crafted language" to avoid usurping federal authority. The law been widely criticized for its dubious constitutionality and alleged "legalization" of racial profiling. Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] recently called it a "violation of human rights" [JURIST report].