In January, a federal judge told the CIA that it must investigate the destruction of the interrogation tapes [JURIST report] related to individuals detained after 9/11 [JURIST news archive] and prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Internal CIA documents [part 1, PDF; part 2, PDF; part 3, PDF] released last year reveal that the former head of the agency Porter Goss may have agreed to the destruction [JURIST report] of videotapes [JURIST news archive] showing harsh interrogations of terror suspects. According to redacted documents [text, PDF] filed in March 2009, 12 of 92 videotapes contained evidence of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The DOJ had acknowledged in March 2009 that the CIA destroyed [letter, PDF] the videotapes of high value terrorism suspect interrogations in response to an August 2008 judicial order [text, PDF] that the CIA turn over information regarding the tapes or provide specific justifications on why it could not release the information. The August 2008 order came in response to a December 2007 ACLU motion [text, PDF] that the CIA be held in contempt of court for not providing information on the tapes during a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] lawsuit [ACLU materials] brought by the organization in an effort to access government materials on the interrogations.

Some plaintiffs in this case believe that the Service went too far in protecting the polar bear; others contend that the Service did not go far enough. According to some plaintiffs, mainstream climate science shows that the polar bear is already irretrievably headed toward extinction throughout its range. According to others, climate science is too uncertain to support any reliable predictions about the future of polar bears. However, this Court is not empowered to choose among these competing views. Although plaintiffs have proposed many alternative conclusions that the agency could have drawn with respect to the status of the polar bear, the Court cannot substitute either the plaintiffs' or its own judgment for that of the agency. Instead, this Court is bound to uphold the agency's determination that the polar bear is a threatened species as long as it is reasonable, regardless of whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable, views. That is particularly true where, as here, the agency is operating at the frontiers of science.

In 2009, the Obama Administration received criticism for preserving the controversial Bush-era rule [text, PDF] that limits how polar bears are protected from global warming. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official profile] had received special permission from Congress to amend the rule, which prevented the use of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [text, PDF] to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Polar bears are protected under the ESA, and environmentalists have argued that the release of greenhouse gases has contributed to global warming, which is destroying the polar bear's arctic habitat. The rule was put in place in December 2008 after the polar bear was listed as threatened on the endangered species list in May 2008. The Department of the Interior [official website] made the designation more than two years after the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council [advocacy websites] petitioned to protect the polar bear under the ESA. Shortly after that, then-Alaska governor Sarah Palin announced that her office would launch a court challenge [JURIST report] to the listing of the polar bear on the endangered species list. Palin argued that the designation of the polar bear as "threatened" would have a negative impact on development in Alaska.

Ware approved a settlement agreement [text, PDF] in a privacy lawsuit [JURIST report] against Google over its Buzz [website] social networking application earlier this month, awarding damages to privacy groups previously left out of the original proposed settlement. In March, the FTC settled a similar privacy lawsuit [JURIST report] against Google over charges that the Internet giant breached consumer privacy rights and was misleading during the launch of Buzz. The FTC alleges that when Google launched Buzz through its web-based email, Gmail, users were automatically enrolled without their consent and were unable to decline or leave the social network and that the Buzz privacy controls were confusing. Google has recently faced a number of allegations of violating privacy laws, both in the US and abroad. In November, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website] confirmed that it is investigating [JURIST report] Google to determine if it violated communications laws when its Street View vehicles inadvertently collected private user data, including passwords and URLs, over WiFi networks. In October, the FTC ended an inquiry [JURIST report] into the company's data collection through Street View cars after Google assured the FTC that it did not use any of the collected data and announced that it was committed to compliance with privacy laws [text], instituting new training on privacy principles and appointing a new director of privacy.

The Commission is aware of concern that today's actions may negatively impact public safety. However, every potential offender must have his or her case considered by a federal district court judge in accordance with the Commission's policy statement, and with careful thought given to the offender's potential risk to public safety. The average sentence for a federal crack cocaine offender will remain significant at about 127 months.

The Fair Sentencing Act amended existing law to reduce the current sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. Under the existing law passed in 1986, an individual possessing five grams of crack cocaine would receive a mandatory five-year prison sentence, while an individual possessing powder cocaine would need to have 100 times that amount to receive the same sentence. President Barack Obama signed [JURIST report] the Fair Sentencing Act into law last year. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] praised [press release] the bill's passage, stating that the old law also created a racial disparity, with African Americans comprising 79.8 percent of all offenders sentenced for crack cocaine violations. In April 2008, a study released by the USSC reported that more than 3,000 prison inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses had their sentences reduced [JURIST report] under an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines [materials]. In 2007, the USSC voted unanimously [JURIST report] to give retroactive effect to an earlier sentencing guideline amendment that reduced crack cocaine penalties.

Khawaja was found guilty of participating in a terrorist group, instructing a person to finance terrorism, making property available to terrorists, contributing to a terrorist group and facilitating terrorism. In June 2008, Khawaja pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges, and his lawyer said the allegations were exaggerated and based on hearsay evidence that should have been excluded. In 2007, Canadian Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley refused to require the release of confidential evidence [JURIST report] against Khawaja, explaining that "disclosure of most of the information would be injurious to national security or to international relations." Khawaja was arrested [JURIST report] in March 2004.

Apple filed suit last week [JURIST report] in the Seoul Central District Court claiming that the Samsung "Galaxy" line of products copies its iPhone and iPad technology. In April, Apple filed a similar suit against Samsung [JURIST report] in the US. Samsung countered [JURIST report] by filing patent infringement suits against Apple in three different countries, alleging that Apple had infringed its technology related to energy consumption and preventing data transmission errors. Though competitors, Samsung and Apple rely on each in business. Apple is the largest buyer of computer and phone chips, while Samsung is the world's largest manufacturer of those chips. In fact, after Apple's initial lawsuit against Samsung, Apple indicated a willingness to continue working with Samsung [Bangkok Post report] as a partner. This latest round of lawsuits comes just two weeks after Apple agreed to pay an undisclosed amount in a settlement with Nokia Corp. [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] in a different dispute regarding touch screens and application stores.

This has not been the only effort to streamline governmental red tape. Last year, President Barack Obama signed the Plain Writing Act into law, forcing any governmental "letter, publication, form, notice, or instruction" to be written in "plain writing": "writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience." It also charged the Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN) [official website] with keeping the public abreast of communication changes.

Lee is the second former Taiwanese high-ranking official accused of embezzlement. Former president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and his wife were accused of taking more than $20 million in bribes from banks and financial institutions that sought to protect themselves during the implementation of Chen's financial reform program. The pair were initially sentenced to life in prison in September 2009 after being convicted of embezzlement, receiving bribes, forgery and money laundering, but the sentences were ultimately reduced to 11 years [JURIST reports]. Chen was again indicted [JURIST report] shortly after the September sentence on additional corruption charges relating to funds he received while traveling abroad as president. Chen was initially detained in November 2008 and formally indicted [JURIST report] the following month. He unsuccessfully appealed [JURIST report] his pretrial detention in January 2009. Chen served as president of Taiwan from 2000-2008.

In Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett the Supreme Court found that an Arizona matching funds law was unconstitutional, reasoning that such a scheme is substantially burdensome on the privately-funded candidates because it harms them for exercising First Amendment rights to raise and/or spend their own money on their campaign. The court further said that it has never held that the state's interest in leveling the playing field is enough to suppress or alter political speech. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a Minnesota campaign finance law prohibiting direct contributions to candidates and affiliated entities. In April, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] two challenges to campaign financing schemes for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections brought by groups arguing the schemes violate their First Amendment rights.

The Khmer Rouge have been blamed for the deaths of some 1.7 million people [PPU backgrounder] from starvation, disease, overwork and execution between 1975 and 1979. The UN-backed ECCC was established in 2001 to investigate and try those responsible for the Cambodian genocide that resulted in the deaths of approximately one-third of the Cambodian population. Khieu Samphan defended [JURIST report] the late Khmer Rouge dictator Pol Pot in his 2007 book, denying that he was responsible for genocide. Nuon Chea was arrested and charged in September 2007 and said that he was never in the position to order the deaths attributed to him, but that he would cooperate with the ECCC [JURIST reports]. Ieng Thirith and Ieng Sary were also arrested and charged in September 2007. The ECCC handed down its first and only conviction [JURIST report] last year against Kaing Guek Eav [TrialWatch profile], better known as "Duch", who was in charge of the notorious S-21 prison in Phnom Penh.

China is not currently a party to the ICC's Rome Statute [text, PDF] and therefore has no obligation to the international community to arrest al-Bashir. China is, however, a permanent member of the UN Security Council [official website], which formally referred the Darfur case to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, lead prosecutor for the ICC. In joining the council, China agreed to cooperate with ICC decisions. The ICC charged al-Bashir [JURIST report] with three counts of genocide [warrant, PDF] in relation to the Darfur conflict, in addition to seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity that were filed against al-Bashir [JURIST report] in March 2009. The international community and human rights groups have urged various countries to arrest al-Bashir while he has been present inside their borders. Earlier this month, Amnesty International [advocacy website] called on Malaysia [JURIST report] to withdraw its invitation to al-Bashir and arrest him if he travels to the country. Similarly, the ICC urged Djibouti to arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report] in May. The ICC requested that Kenya arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report] during an October visit last year, his second visit to the country in the same year. Previously, al-Bashir had visited Kenya for the signing of the country's new constitution [JURIST report]. Following his visit, the ICC reported Kenya [decision, PDF; JURIST report] to the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute for the violation in not arresting al-Bashir.

In February, the appeals chamber of the STL issued a unanimous ruling [summary, PDF; press release] on several procedural issues, including the definition of terrorism [JURIST report], in judicial proceedings. The STL began debate on the issue [JURIST report] to determine which laws to apply in the case against persons accused of involvement in the February 2005 truck bomb that killed Hariri and 22 other people. Using the Article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code [text, PDF] the court held that a conviction on the charge of terrorism requires proof of an act intended to spread terror and use of a means "liable to create a public danger," that the only requirement is that "the means used to carry out the terrorist attack be liable to create a common danger" and that the trial judges should be given latitude in determining whether the requirement was met after having considered the facts presented in the case. In August, Hezbollah submitted evidence to the STL [JURIST report] linking Israel with the bombing. The STL asked for the evidence [JURIST report] a week earlier after Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah [BBC profile] claimed to have proof that Israel was behind the bombing. Last February, the head of the STL reassured [JURIST report] the Lebanese public that the investigation is on track. When asked about the progress of the investigation into the death of Hariri, the head of the STL "underlined the fact that the Tribunal already has in place all the legal and administrative instruments necessary for its work, and is fully operational so that justice may be dispensed with complete independence and impartiality in accordance with the highest international standards." The STL was established in 2005 at the request of the Lebanese government to try those alleged to be connected to the bombing in which Hariri was killed by explosions detonated near his motorcade in Beirut.

We greatly appreciate your strong support for the freedom to marry, and understand that you had previously expressed a willingness to sign a civil union bill as an incremental, if incomplete, step forward. The bill put forth by the legislature, however, would create onerous and discriminatory hurdles for same-sex couples that no other state has ever put in place.

Governor Chafee, as well as advocacy groups, initially called [NPR report] for the legalization of same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] but the House did not approve the necessary amendment [JURIST report]. Same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue throughout the US, although a recent poll [materials] suggests support for legalization is growing. New York recently became the nation's most populous state to pass a same-sex marriage bill [JURIST report] while the Minnesota Senate [official website] in May approved a voter referendum [JURIST report] to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In April, a Montana judge dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] that had called for the state to provide legal status to same-sex relationships. Also in April, the Indiana Senate [official website] overwhelmingly approved [JURIST report] an amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage or any "substantially similar" status, and the Wyoming Senate [official website] in February approved a bill that would void in Wyoming any same-sex marriages and civil unions [JURIST report] performed in other jurisdictions. In addition to being legal in New York, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, DC [JURIST reports].

Fracking, has become a controversial issue as it is implemented in the US and around the world. Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official profile] filed a lawsuit against the US government to compel several federal agencies to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [EPA materials] by investigating the environmental impact of fracking and making the findings available to the public prior to adopting a proposal by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) [advocacy website] authorizing natural gas development in the region. In May, France's lower house, the National Assembly [official website, in French], approved a bill [TA Bill No. 658, materials, in French; JURIST report] to prohibit the drilling of gas and oil through hydraulic fracturing and to repeal hydraulic fracturing licenses granted to companies.

Congressional Democrats introduced [JURIST report] legislation [text] in March to repeal DOMA after Obama pledged to no longer defend it, and Boehner said the House would independently defend the law. Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] acknowledged that the announcement marks a change in policy for the DOJ and the Obama administration, but noted that the change was necessary due to cases pending in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Holder explained that when the DOJ previously defended DOMA it had done so in jurisdictions with binding precedent stating that a permissive standard of review was applicable to laws dealing with sexual orientation. The announcement came just one month after the DOJ filed a brief [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] defending the constitutionality of DOMA. The appeal followed a July ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which found that Section 3 of DOMA violates both the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth Amendment and State Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment [text].

Amnesty International is gravely concerned about the developments described in this report. These show that the Chinese authorities are not only failing to ensure protection for human rights lawyers and others seeking to provide legal services, but are actively undermining their work through legislative, administrative, and practical measures. If lawyers and legal workers are rendered incapable of challenging human rights violations committed by those acting in an official capacity, there can be no effective protection of human rights in China.

The 2011 report is an update to AI's 2009 report [text, PDF] also evaluating China's rule of law and the treatment of legal professionals. China has had a well-known struggle with international criticism of its human rights record [JURIST news archive]. In January, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] declared in a report [text; JURIST report] that China has failed to achieve the goals it set out in its first national human rights plan. In May 2010, two Chinese human rights lawyers who have represented Falun Gong [group website; BBC backgrounder] defendants were permanently disbarred [Tang decision, Liu decision, in Chinese; JURIST report] after being accused of disrupting courtrooms. AI criticized the disbarment hearing [press release] calling it "absurd" and claiming that "[g]overnment authorities in China continue to harass and disrupt the work of lawyers taking politically sensitive cases." In April 2009, the Information Office of the State Council [official website] published the National Human Rights Action Plan of China (NHRAP) [JURIST report], which aimed to protect ethnic minorities, promote gender equality, guarantee suspects the right to an impartial trial, and prohibit illegal detentions and the use of torture to extract confessions from suspects. In February 2009, the Chinese delegation to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] defended [JURIST report] China's human rights record while presenting a report [text, PDF] in compliance with the UNHRC's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) [official website] process. Ambassador Li Baodong said that China has been taking steps to improve its legal system, promote democracy, and encourage non-governmental organizations.

Similar cases regarding the constitutionality of PPACA are being heard in federal courts across the nation. Last week, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The appeal was brought by the DOJ after the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] struck down the entire health care law after it determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' authority [JURIST report] under the Commerce Clause. Also this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] decided it can rule on two challenges to PPACA after the court requested briefs [JURIST report] from all parties on whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) [text], which prevents injunctions against taxes before the tax is imposed, would bar review of PPACA until it is implemented. The Fourth Circuit already heard arguments [JURIST report] in May to resolve a split decision between the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruling against the individual mandate and the Western District of Virginia dismissing a challenge [JURIST reports].