It is unconstitutional for the government to put people on secret lists and deny them the right to travel without even basic due process. Without a meaningful way for people to challenge their inclusion on the list, there's also no way to keep innocent people off it.

In 2006, the FBI and the TSA agreed to pay the ACLU $200,000 in attorney's fees to settle a case brought by the civil rights organization in 2003 challenging the government's no-fly list [JURIST report] and requesting the disclosure of records. The documents noted that construction of the list was based on "two primary principles," but that there were "no hard and fast" rules governing decisions of who was put on the list. The Ninth Circuit ruled in 2008 that those placed on the government's "no-fly list" can challenge their inclusion on the list [JURIST report] in federal district courts. The court held that the Terrorist Screening Center, which actually maintains the list, is a subsection of the FBI and is therefore subject to review by the district courts. Also in 2008, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) [official website] issued a report [text, PDF] saying that the FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list [JURIST report], that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged.

The DRC has been constantly urged and criticized by various parties to stop the human rights violations against civilians. In March, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) [official websites] released [JURIST report] jointly as the UN Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) a report alleging that military forces in DRC committed human rights violations during the presidential elections last year. During the same month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] announced that it will seek the maximum sentence for a DRC militia leader after he was found guilty [JURIST reports] of war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15. Especially in 2011 various entities including the Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] and the MONUSCO urged DRC government to end post-election violence and all parties involved in the violence to remain calm [JURIST reports] and address any grievances through peaceful means.

Friday's ruling is not the first time a court allowed the NSA neither to confirm nor deny the existence of requested documents under the FOIA concerning the agency's activities. In 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] held [JURIST report] that the NSA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] are not required to confirm or deny the existence of electronic surveillance records under the FOIA. The warrantless surveillance program has been criticized since its adoption during Bush administration in 2005. A former US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel [official website] lawyer defended [JURIST report] the program against a report [JURIST report] and criticism that it is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text] claiming that FISA contributed to the government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

State laws banning the use of foreign or religious law have been the subject of controversy recently. In March, the Florida House of Representatives [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] outlawing the use of religious and foreign law in state courts. Similar legislation has been passed in Louisiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Oklahoma's bill, which specifically mentions outlawing Sharia, is currently being blocked [JURIST report] until its constitutionality can be reviewed. That bill was passed by voters [JURIST report] in November 2010. In February, JURIST guest columnist Abed Awad proclaimed [JURIST op-ed] that the hysteria surrounding the use of Sharia is misguided.

Bouterse's trial has been ongoing since 2008. In April 2008, a military tribunal in Suriname ruled [JURIST report] that all suspects involved in the 1982 massacre must stand trial, including Bouterse. Bouterse's trial began [JURIST report] in July 2008 with former bodyguard Onno Flohr testifying that Bouterse was present at the killings of 15 political opponents, including lawyers, journalists, professors, military officers and businessmen, accused of plotting against the government and that he other members of the firing squad were ordered to fire under the threat of death. In 2009, the trial of the former dictator resumed [JURIST report] with testimony by a former prison warden that he brought a leader of a 1982 military coup to an army barracks for execution.

There is simply no justification for the kind of needless abuse CBP officers inflict on many travelers. Far too many travelers are told by CBP officers that they have no rights. But the government must comply with basic and constitutional rights even when it is policing the border. It is unacceptable that CBP has not established sufficient oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent officers from physically assaulting, detaining and psychologically abusing travelers.

The complaint comes as a general movement that has been sweeping the country toward tougher enforcement of immigration policy. The trend began with a controversial law in Arizona [JURIST news archive], and similar legislation has passed in Utah, South Carolina and Indiana [JURIST reports]. The Supreme Court heard arguments in April to determine Arizona's controversial immigration law is preempted by federal law [JURIST reports]. In March, Amnesty International published a report [JURIST report] accusing the US Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of discriminating and committing rights abuses along the US-Mexico border.