Learn from the mistakes of others

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET

Monday, May 29, 2006
Gonzales pressing data retention in fight against child porn
Tom Henry at 7:55 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] and FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profile] held a private meeting with representatives from major internet service providers late last week urging them to retain customer internet activities to combat child pornography. The meeting, reported by CNET, follows a speech [text; JURIST report] by Gonzales last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, during which he called on ISPs to retain records for a "reasonable amount of time". At Friday's meeting he advocated a more concrete period of two years.

Although the US Department of Justice is currently framing the data retention issue in terms of its fight against child porn, data retention is also potentially important to counter-terrorism efforts. Earlier this year European Union justice and interior ministers meeting in Brussels approved [European Council proceedings, PDF; JURIST report] a controversial data retention directive [DOC] passed by the European Parliament [JURIST report] in December 2005 designed to track down terrorists, paedophiles, and criminal gangs and calling for EU member states to store citizens' phone call and internet service data for 6 to 24 months without stipulating a maximum time period.

CNET has more.

Monday, May 29, 2006
Gonzales pressing data retention in fight against child porn
Tom Henry at 7:55 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] and FBI Director Robert Mueller [official profile] held a private meeting with representatives from major internet service providers late last week urging them to retain customer internet activities to combat child pornography. The meeting, reported by CNET, follows a speech [text; JURIST report] by Gonzales last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, during which he called on ISPs to retain records for a "reasonable amount of time". At Friday's meeting he advocated a more concrete period of two years.

Although the US Department of Justice is currently framing the data retention issue in terms of its fight against child porn, data retention is also potentially important to counter-terrorism efforts. Earlier this year European Union justice and interior ministers meeting in Brussels approved [European Council proceedings, PDF; JURIST report] a controversial data retention directive [DOC] passed by the European Parliament [JURIST report] in December 2005 designed to track down terrorists, paedophiles, and criminal gangs and calling for EU member states to store citizens' phone call and internet service data for 6 to 24 months without stipulating a maximum time period.

CNET has more.

Sunday, May 28, 2006
DOJ wants NSA wiretapping suits dismissed on state secrets basis
Bernard Hibbitts at 12:55 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice late Friday filed for dismissal of two lawsuits [JURIST report] brought over the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program [JURIST news archive], saying that defending them would require disclosure of state secrets and would be contrary to national security interests. The first suit [CCR press release; complaint, PDF], brought in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights [official website] in January on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the government's criteria for targeting, asks the federal courts to block the program as an abuse of presidential power without judicial approval or statutory authorization in breach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Article II of the US Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments. The second suit [ACLU press release; complaint, PDF] brought in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations similarly having "a well-founded belief that their communications are being intercepted by the NSA" also charges that the NSA program violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

Shayana Khadidl, a staff attorney on the CCR litigation, responded [CCR statement] to the dismissal motion by saying:

The Bush Administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument. This is a mysterious and undemocratic request, since the administration says the reason the court is being asked to drop the case is a secret. I think it's a clear choice: can the President tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the President accountable for breaking the law.

The government motion was made in immediate response to CCR's own motion for summary judgment [PDF] in the case, filed March 9. CCR's own response to the government motion has not been filed, but is expected to emphasize that its evidence on the illegality of the spying program is based on public evidence, not secret documents, and that even if the government is correct in saying that a public trial could disclose state secrets, alternatives exist in the form of closed proceedings or requiring filings to be made under seal.

Earlier this month, the DOJ successfully persuaded [JURIST report] a federal judge in the al-Masri CIA rendition case to dismiss an ACLU suit on similar state secrets grounds [JURIST report]. The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case of United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it was invoked by the Bush administration 23 times in the four years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been invoked at least five times in the past year.

Sunday, May 28, 2006
DOJ wants NSA wiretapping suits dismissed on state secrets basis
Bernard Hibbitts at 12:55 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice late Friday filed for dismissal of two lawsuits [JURIST report] brought over the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program [JURIST news archive], saying that defending them would require disclosure of state secrets and would be contrary to national security interests. The first suit [CCR press release; complaint, PDF], brought in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights [official website] in January on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the government's criteria for targeting, asks the federal courts to block the program as an abuse of presidential power without judicial approval or statutory authorization in breach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Article II of the US Constitution, and the First and Fourth Amendments. The second suit [ACLU press release; complaint, PDF] brought in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations similarly having "a well-founded belief that their communications are being intercepted by the NSA" also charges that the NSA program violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

Shayana Khadidl, a staff attorney on the CCR litigation, responded [CCR statement] to the dismissal motion by saying:

The Bush Administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument. This is a mysterious and undemocratic request, since the administration says the reason the court is being asked to drop the case is a secret. I think it's a clear choice: can the President tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the President accountable for breaking the law.

The government motion was made in immediate response to CCR's own motion for summary judgment [PDF] in the case, filed March 9. CCR's own response to the government motion has not been filed, but is expected to emphasize that its evidence on the illegality of the spying program is based on public evidence, not secret documents, and that even if the government is correct in saying that a public trial could disclose state secrets, alternatives exist in the form of closed proceedings or requiring filings to be made under seal.

Earlier this month, the DOJ successfully persuaded [JURIST report] a federal judge in the al-Masri CIA rendition case to dismiss an ACLU suit on similar state secrets grounds [JURIST report]. The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case of United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it was invoked by the Bush administration 23 times in the four years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been invoked at least five times in the past year.

Monday, April 24, 2006
Australia tries suspected terrorist under new laws
Lisl Brunner at 10:47 AM ET

[JURIST] Australian prosecutors on Monday accused a Pakistani-born Australian immigrant of planning to bomb one of two targets in Sydney in one of the first cases to be tried under the country's new Anti-Terrorism Act [text] which was passed [JURIST report] in December 2005. Faheem Khalid Lodhi, who immigrated to Australia [JURIST news archive] in 1996, has pleaded not guilty to four charges and is being tried by a jury at the New South Wales Supreme Court [official website]. Prosecutors stated that an October 2003 search of Lodhi's home produced a terrorist manual that indicated the defendant's plans to bomb either an electrical supply system or defense installations in Sydney.

Jack Roche, an Australian who converted to Islam, was the first Australian to be convicted under a version of the new laws, which some have criticized as too harsh [JURIST report]. Lodhi's defense will begin its case on Wednesday, and the trial is expected to last up to eight weeks.

AAP has local coverage.
Reuters has more.

Monday, April 24, 2006
Australia tries suspected terrorist under new laws
Lisl Brunner at 10:47 AM ET

[JURIST] Australian prosecutors on Monday accused a Pakistani-born Australian immigrant of planning to bomb one of two targets in Sydney in one of the first cases to be tried under the country's new Anti-Terrorism Act [text] which was passed [JURIST report] in December 2005. Faheem Khalid Lodhi, who immigrated to Australia [JURIST news archive] in 1996, has pleaded not guilty to four charges and is being tried by a jury at the New South Wales Supreme Court [official website]. Prosecutors stated that an October 2003 search of Lodhi's home produced a terrorist manual that indicated the defendant's plans to bomb either an electrical supply system or defense installations in Sydney.

Jack Roche, an Australian who converted to Islam, was the first Australian to be convicted under a version of the new laws, which some have criticized as too harsh [JURIST report]. Lodhi's defense will begin its case on Wednesday, and the trial is expected to last up to eight weeks.

AAP has local coverage.
Reuters has more.

Thursday, April 13, 2006
UK anti-terror laws take effect amidst free speech concerns
Holly Manges Jones at 12:37 PM ET

[JURIST] The majority of the provisions in the UK Terrorism Act 2006 [PDF text; Home Office backgrounder] took effect Thursday amidst criticism from rights groups that the measure stifles freedom of speech and will lead to the prosecutions of legitimate political protestors. The law, prompted by the July 7 London bombings [JURIST news archive], was approved [JURIST report] by Parliament last month and makes it a criminal offense to "glorify" terrorism, prohibits the distribution of terrorist publications, and outlaws giving or receiving terrorism training.

Human rights group Liberty [advocacy website] said it is worried that the law will prevent "passionate speech" and silence non-violent political parties. Liberty policy director Gareth Crossman said [press release] Thursday, "These new powers make us not only less free, we are also less safe when we drive dissent underground and alienate minorities." One highly debated aspect of the law - the ability to hold terror suspects for 28 days without charge [JURIST report] - has not yet taken effect, and UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke [official website] is still considering trying to double the length of detention.

From the UK, the Telegraph has local coverage.

Thursday, April 13, 2006
UK anti-terror laws take effect amidst free speech concerns
Holly Manges Jones at 12:37 PM ET

[JURIST] The majority of the provisions in the UK Terrorism Act 2006 [PDF text; Home Office backgrounder] took effect Thursday amidst criticism from rights groups that the measure stifles freedom of speech and will lead to the prosecutions of legitimate political protestors. The law, prompted by the July 7 London bombings [JURIST news archive], was approved [JURIST report] by Parliament last month and makes it a criminal offense to "glorify" terrorism, prohibits the distribution of terrorist publications, and outlaws giving or receiving terrorism training.

Human rights group Liberty [advocacy website] said it is worried that the law will prevent "passionate speech" and silence non-violent political parties. Liberty policy director Gareth Crossman said [press release] Thursday, "These new powers make us not only less free, we are also less safe when we drive dissent underground and alienate minorities." One highly debated aspect of the law - the ability to hold terror suspects for 28 days without charge [JURIST report] - has not yet taken effect, and UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke [official website] is still considering trying to double the length of detention.

From the UK, the Telegraph has local coverage.