This filing is a shot across the bow as we prepare to pursue and sustain an aggressive far reaching litigation strategy if the Senate fails to act this month to repeal the law. This dispute can be resolved by Congress or by the courts. With this filing we put Congress on notice that a cadre of service members and our national legal team stand ready to litigate strategically around the country. The plaintiffs are three service members who want to serve their country again. They represent some of our best and brightest who were fired because of who they are, despite their decorated records.

Last week, the US Senate [official website] failed to advance a vote on a bill [JURIST report] to repeal DADT. The Senate fell three votes short [roll call vote] of the 60 votes necessary to approve a cloture motion on a defense spending bill [S 3454 materials] that would include a provision for repeal. After the vote, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) [official websites] said they plan to introduce a separate piece of legislation [press release] to repeal the ban, but it appears unlikely that such a bill could pass before the end of the current legislative session. President Barack Obama [official website] expressed disappointment with the vote and called on Congress to continue to work toward repealing the ban. The Senate previously failed [JURIST report] to invoke cloture to repeal DADT in September. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

The United States must not be permitted to continue to stall the course of justice, whether domestically or in Spain. The Geneva Conventions and the Torture Statute both mandate that the authors of violations contained therein be brought to justice and subjected to criminal prosecutions. This Court has issued Letters Rogatory pursuant to Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters to ascertain whether the United States is fulfilling its obligations under those treaties through pending criminal investigations in an effort to ensure that it is exercising its jurisdiction efficiently and appropriately. However, with the passage of 19 months and after three formal requests, we respectfully submit that the United States has been afforded more than ample opportunity to make their views known to the Court. It is evident that no investigations or prosecution will be conducted in the United States into the acts contained in the complaint. Rather, a culture of impunity exists in the United States. Without accountability, not only will the authors of the "torture program" profit from (rather than be punished by) confessing their acts, but the acts will likely be repeated.

In February, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] overruled [JURIST report] the findings of a report [text, PDF] concluding that Bybee and Yoo committed professional misconduct when they wrote the memos. Instead, the DOJ said that they were only guilty of "poor judgment" in writing the memos. An internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) [official website] concluded that Yoo had committed "intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice." The report also found that Bybee had committed professional misconduct when he acted in "reckless disregard" of his duty to exercise independent legal advice. However, David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general, released a separate memo [text, PDF] overruling the OPR's report, finding its analysis was flawed because it did not have a clear definition of what constitutes professional misconduct.

In 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a state law requiring parental consent before teens under the age of 17 can have an abortion, violates the teens' constitutional right to privacy. The court suggested, however, that a law simply requiring parental notification without consent would probably be valid. More than 30 states require some type of parental involvement before minors can have an abortion—either notification or consent. In March, an Illinois Cook County Circuit Court [official website] judge ruled [JURIST report] that the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 [text] is constitutional.

As Myanmar attempts to move forward in its democratic transition and the new Government seeks to establish a new era of peace and prosperity for the people, it is critical that prisoners of conscience be released immediately and unconditionally. These are individuals who were imprisoned for exercising their basic human rights, the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

Last month, Myanmar's government released pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], ending her almost eight years under house arrest. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] hailed her release and encouraged the country to release all political prisoners [press release]. Suu Kyi's release came days after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected an appeal [JURIST report] challenging the conditions of her house arrest. Though the challenge was originally scheduled to be heard in October, the court waited until after the country's controversial elections [JURIST report] to issue its ruling. The elections were the first held in the country in 20 years, and have received heavy international criticism. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] in September urged [press release; JURIST report] Myanmar's government to release all political prisoners ahead of the nation's November elections.