S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal - "attrition" - and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system. And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070's mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070's "attrition through enforcement" approach. ... And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States' relationship with Mexico and other countries.

The Arizona law 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. It has been widely criticized in regard to the law's constitutionality and alleged "legalization" of racial profiling. Last week, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] urging the federal district court in Arizona to block the enforcement of the state's immigration law. The brief was filed in support of a class-action lawsuit [JURIST report] led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. The Mexican government has also filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] supporting the ACLU suit, claiming a substantial interest in ensuring its "bilateral diplomatic relations" with the US remain "transparent, consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the actions of individual US states." The government also claims an interest in ensuring that its citizens are "accorded human and civil rights when present in the US in accordance with federal immigration law." Brewer is also currently facing federal lawsuits filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders and several Tuscon police officers [JURIST reports], who claim they can not properly implement the law without racially profiling.

The British government indicated last week that it will issue a new set of regulations regarding the use of information obtained via torture [JURIST report]. The announcement came as part of the government's defense against a lawsuit filed by the human rights group Reprieve [advocacy website], which has been seeking a review of the country's torture policy. A UK High Court judge agreed that the country's policy must be reviewed [press release], but indicated that because lawyers for the government promised new guidelines would be released shortly, the court would take no immediate action. Similar claims of complicity were made against the government in a new report [materials] released last week by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. According to HRW, intelligence services in France, Germany and the UK lack proper oversight of intelligence information that is received from countries that torture.

The prosecution of Manning has sparked heated debate between defenders and critics. Those who support Manning's actions Manning refer to him as courageous for acting as a whistleblower [advocacy petition] against government crime and corruption. He has been compared to famous US whistleblowers such as Frank Serpico and Daniel Ellsberg [personal websites], who leaked information regarding corruption in the New York Police Department and the Pentagon, respectively. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates [official profile] has criticized the video [WSJ report], claiming it provides the public a view of warfare "as seen through a soda straw." He noted that public attention was not drawn to what was discovered by US ground forces following the helicopter gunfire, including AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He also defended the reality of fighting terrorist organizations, which is made up of combatants who do not wear enemy uniforms.

Both Israel and Hamas conducted independent investigations into the incident after the UN General Assembly [official website] adopted a resolution in November giving them three months to probe possible war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict. Hamas reported to the UN that its independent investigation had absolved Palestinian forces of any wrongdoing. Israel presented a report to the UN in February detailing its role in the conflict [JURIST report] and noting that two high-ranking Israeli officers were indicted for their actions during the incident. Rights groups have questioned the impartiality of the internal investigations. In April, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] accused [JURIST report] both Israel and Hamas of failing to conduct meaningful, credible investigations into accusations of war crimes during the conflict. In February, HRW criticized [JURIST report] Israel for failing to demonstrate that it would conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the alleged war crimes. Just prior to that, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that it was unclear whether Israel and Palestine have fully met UN demands [JURIST reports] to set up a commission to investigate war crimes that may occurred during the conflict.

Gomez ordered [text, in Spanish; JURIST report] the soldiers' arrest in October 2005 after initiating investigations [JURIST report] into the incident in June of that year. The order was reversed by a panel of judges for the National Court in 2006. This reversal was then overturned by Spain's Supreme Court, resulting in arrest warrants being reissued [JURIST report] in January 2007. The soldiers were indicted [JURIST report] in April of that year.

Sri Lanka has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations originating from incidents that took place during the final months of the civil war. In May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] announced it had acquired new evidence [JURIST report] supporting allegations of war crimes. Also in May, the International Crisis Group (ICG) [official website] accused Sri Lankan security forces of war crimes [JURIST report], claiming that the violence of the 30-year civil war escalated in January 2009, leaving thousands more dead than projected by the UN. The UN panel has been asked to examine "the modalities, applicable international standards and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes, taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in Sri Lanka" and make the information available to the Sri Lankan government for further action on the matter. The panel will also report on the implementation of the human rights accountability statement [text] that both Ban and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official website] agreed to last May, but which Rajapaksa subsequently rejected [JURIST report].

Tarique and Zia are also facing charges of embezzlement [JURIST report] filed by the ACC in August. Zia, the head of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party [party website], her son and four others are accused of embezzling over 21 million taka (US $305,000) in the Zia Orphanage Trust, which is said to be nonexistent. In May 2009, Morshed Khan, who served as Zia's foreign minister, began serving a 13-year sentence [JURIST report] for illegally amassing nearly $250,000. Khan initially fled the country following the January 2007 state of emergency declaration [JURIST report] that suspended democratic rights in Bangladesh. Three other Zia officials were jailed [JURIST report] in November 2008. Zia herself was taken into custody [JURIST report] on suspicion of corruption in September 2007.

Khadr sought judicial review from the Federal Court following the Supreme Court's decision in January that Canada would continue to refuse to request his repatriation [JURIST reports] from Guantanamo, even though the judges unanimously agreed that the government had breached Khadr's Charter rights. According to the ruling, Canadian officials questioned Khadr, who was captured at age 15, even though they knew he was being indefinitely detained, and, in March 2004, he was questioned with knowledge that he was subjected to three weeks sleep deprivation by US authorities. In May, a UN official called on the US and Canada to respect international conventions [JURIST report] and release Khadr into Canadian custody. The UN claimed that since Khadr was 15 when he was captured, his detention would fall in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [official website], which has been ratified by Canada, but not the US. Khadr's trial before a US military commission is set to begin on August 10 [JURIST report].

The protests came to an end [JURIST report] in May when red shirt leaders surrendered to police, which led to rioting, arson and the imposition of a curfew to protect citizens of Bangkok and its surrounding areas. The red shirts are supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who was removed from power in 2006 [JURIST report]. The group was demanding that Abhisit dissolve parliament and call new elections. Last month, a Thai court charged 11 protest leaders [JURIST report] with terrorism in connection with the political demonstrations. In May, 27 red shirt protesters were sentenced to six months in prison [JURIST report] for violating the emergency decree prohibiting political gatherings of more than five people. Under the strict security law [JURIST report] adopted in March in anticipation of the protests, the detained red shirts faced a sentence of up to a year in prison, but their sentences were reduced because they confessed to the charges. Abhisit has promised to conduct an independent investigation [JURIST report] into the clashes between security forces and red shirt protesters, which resulted in more than 80 deaths.