South Korea's military policy is similar to the US's controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) [10 USC § 654; JURIST news archive] policy. Last week, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates [official profile] issued a memorandum limiting the authority to discharge openly gay service members [JURIST report] to five senior Defense Department officials. The memo is seen as a response to the uncertain future of the DADT policy, arising from the recent injunction [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] and the subsequent temporary stay [JURIST report] issued last week by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website]. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 US servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

Holding torturers accountable is essential to restoring American credibility at home and abroad - the U.S. can no longer remain silent as, one by one, other nations begin to reckon with their own agents' complicity in the torture program through prosecutions and judicial inquiries.

Last month, Polish prosecutors opened an investigation into the alleged mistreatment of al-Nashiri in response to the request [JURIST reports] filed by human rights group Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) [advocacy website] and al-Nashiri's lawyers. OSJI stated that the filing represents the first attempt by an extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] victim to pursue a legal remedy within the Polish court system. The commencement of the investigation came one week after former Polish prime minister Leszek Miller denied any knowledge [JURIST report] of a secret CIA prison in Poland and indicated that he would not discuss allegations of torture until the Polish government's investigation is complete. Allegations against Poland came in a June 2007 report [text; JURIST report] to the Council of Europe [official website] by Swiss Senator Dick Marty. The report concluded that numerous European governments had cooperated with the CIA program. In February 2007, the European Parliament condemned more than a dozen European states [JURIST report] for their roles in the program. Several nations have been accused of obstructing European probes into the secret prison allegations, including Poland [JURIST report], which allegedly housed the largest CIA detention facility in Europe [JURIST report].

Last month, the ECCC indicted [JURIST report] four former Khmer Rouge leaders. The indicted leaders, Ieng Sary [JURIST news archive], Ieng Thirith [case materials], Khieu Samphan [JURIST news archive] and Nuon Chea [JURIST report], have been detained since 2007 and are charged with crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and offenses under the Cambodian Criminal Code 1956. In April, the ECCC dismissed appeals [JURIST report] by Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samp to block the extension of their provisional detention. The ECCC handed down its first conviction [JURIST report] of a former Khmer Rouge official in July. Kaing Guek Eav [case materials; JURIST news archive], also known as "Duch," was found guilty of crimes against humanity and of violating the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In August, lawyers for Duch filed a notice of appeal [JURIST report] of his conviction. Last month, the prosecution filed its own notice of appeal [JURIST report] seeking to increase Kaing's term of imprisonment. The prosecution identified three grounds for appeal, including a discernible error in the exercise of sentencing discretion, an error of law regarding cumulative convictions and an error of law regarding enslavement.

The authority granted to Congress under the Elections Clause to "make or alter" state law regulating procedures for federal elections is [an enumerated] power. The Framers of the Constitution were clear that the states' authority to regulate extends only so far as Congress declines to intervene. Given the paramount authority delegated to Congress by the Elections Clause, we conclude that the NVRA, which implemented a comprehensive national system for registering federal voters, supersedes Arizona's conflicting voter registration requirement for federal elections.

The court's ruling upholding the voter identification provision of the law is consistent with previous court rulings on the issue. In April 2008, the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] upheld an Indiana voter identification statute [JURIST report] requiring voters to present photo identification as a prerequisite to voting. The court concluded that, despite arguments that the legislation makes it difficult for minorities, the elderly and the impoverished to participate in elections, the law does not put an undue burden on the right to vote and therefore does not violate the US Constitution. In August 2007, a district court ruled [JURIST report] that the provision in Proposition 200 requiring voters to provide photo identification before voting was valid. The ruling followed an October 2006 Supreme Court decision allowing Arizona to enforce the identification law [JURIST report] during the 2006 mid-term elections. Currently, more than 20 states [NCSL website] require some form of voter identification at the polls.

This settlement resolves a significant and long-standing legal issue facing the company. We regret that we operated the Cidra facility in a manner that was inconsistent with current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements and with GSK's commitment to manufacturing quality. GSK worked hard to resolve fully the manufacturing issues at the Cidra facility prior to its closure in 2009 and we are committed to continuous improvement in our manufacturing processes.

According to the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund [advocacy website], a nonprofit public interest group, health care cases accounted for approximately 80 percent of the $3.1 billion recovered by the DOJ under the False Claims Act [text] last year. In September 2009, pharmaceutical company Pfizer [corporate website] and a subsidiary settled [JURIST report] a health care fraud suit [fact sheet] for a record $2.3 billion. As a part of that settlement, Pfizer agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve civil claims brought under the Federal Claims Act, which alleged that they illegally promoted the drugs Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox and Lyrica, caused false claims to be submitted to health care programs, and paid kickbacks to health care providers. Following the settlement, the company entered into an agreement with the US Department of Health and Human Services [official website] that set new policies and required them to continue the maintenance of a compliance program for five years.

The US and Iraqi authorities should take necessary measures to investigate all allegations made in these reports and to bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious human rights abuses, in line with obligations under international human rights law.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called Saturday for the Iraqi and US governments to launch an investigation [JURIST report] and prosecute those responsible for alleged detainee abuse [JURIST news archive]. The group said the WikiLeaks reports detail the US military's failure to prevent abuses, including beatings, burnings and lashings, of Iraqi detainees at the hands of their captors. HRW's request for an investigation comes almost six months after the group reported on the repeated torture [JURIST report] of Iraqi detainees in a secret prison in Baghdad. Last week, UN Special Rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak [official website] also responded to the leaked documents, calling for the Obama administration to launch an inquiry [JURIST report] into the role of the US forces in the alleged human rights violations. He stated that the US is party to UN human rights treaties that compel the investigation of such allegations and the criminalization of any form of torture.

The US music industry has been actively litigating alleged copyright infringement in P2P online file sharing. In January, a federal judge reduced [JURIST report] a $1.92 million jury verdict against a Minnesota woman who was found to have violated music copyrights to about $54,000. Chief Judge Michael Davis of the US District Court for the District Court of Minnesota [official website] called the damages amount "monstrous and shocking" and said the facts of the case could not justify the jury verdict. Davis emphasized that the defendant was an individual consumer who downloaded music for her own use and not for profit and also said that the damages to the plaintiffs, members of the RIAA, did not support the verdict. The judge ultimately decided the award should be triple the statutory minimum of $750 per song, because the defendant willfully shared 24 songs on the file-sharing program KaZaA [website] and because of the need for deterrence. Last year, the RIAA said that it would discontinue its controversial policy [JURIST report] of suing suspected file-sharers and instead will seek cooperation with major Internet service providers to cut off access to repeat offenders.