Learn from the mistakes of others

Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Hicks lawyers may seek judicial review of UK decision not to press Gitmo release
Joe Shaulis at 1:55 PM ET

[JURIST] Lawyers for David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website], an Australian held by the US at the Guantanamo Bay detention center [JURIST news archive], may seek judicial review of the UK Foreign Office's decision not to petition the US for his release [JURIST report]. Hicks' Australian lawyer, David McLeod, said that another approach being considered is to press the Australian government into working for his release. Hicks faces a military commission on charges [PDF] of conspiracy to commit war crimes and attempted murder, but proceedings have been delayed pending the US Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST news archive], a case challenging the use of military commissions to try foreign terrorism suspects. A ruling could come this week.

Hicks, who was captured in 2001 while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been detained at Guantanamo since then, won a court ruling [JURIST report] earlier this year entitling him British citizenship based on his mother's nationality. The UK has already secured the release of several other British citizens and is negotiating for the release of noncitizen residents [JURIST report], but said Monday that it will not press for Hicks' release as he was an Australian citizen when he was taken into custody.

In other reaction to Monday's decision, Amnesty International [advocacy website] expressed disappointment that the UK would not push for Hicks' release and blamed the Australian government [ABC report] for not doing enough. Hicks' father, Terry, also lamented [ABC report] the Australian government's handling of the case.

Australia's ABC News has more. The Sydney Morning Herald has additional coverage.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Hicks lawyers may seek judicial review of UK decision not to press Gitmo release
Joe Shaulis at 1:55 PM ET

[JURIST] Lawyers for David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website], an Australian held by the US at the Guantanamo Bay detention center [JURIST news archive], may seek judicial review of the UK Foreign Office's decision not to petition the US for his release [JURIST report]. Hicks' Australian lawyer, David McLeod, said that another approach being considered is to press the Australian government into working for his release. Hicks faces a military commission on charges [PDF] of conspiracy to commit war crimes and attempted murder, but proceedings have been delayed pending the US Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST news archive], a case challenging the use of military commissions to try foreign terrorism suspects. A ruling could come this week.

Hicks, who was captured in 2001 while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been detained at Guantanamo since then, won a court ruling [JURIST report] earlier this year entitling him British citizenship based on his mother's nationality. The UK has already secured the release of several other British citizens and is negotiating for the release of noncitizen residents [JURIST report], but said Monday that it will not press for Hicks' release as he was an Australian citizen when he was taken into custody.

In other reaction to Monday's decision, Amnesty International [advocacy website] expressed disappointment that the UK would not push for Hicks' release and blamed the Australian government [ABC report] for not doing enough. Hicks' father, Terry, also lamented [ABC report] the Australian government's handling of the case.

Australia's ABC News has more. The Sydney Morning Herald has additional coverage.

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has local coverage.

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has local coverage.

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK Tory leader proposes US-style Bill of Rights
Joe Shaulis at 2:26 PM ET

[JURIST] UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron [party profile] said Monday that he would appoint a panel of legal experts to examine whether the increasingly-controversial Human Rights Act of 1998 [text; JURIST news archive] should be replaced with an American-style Bill of Rights. Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies [think tank website] in London, Cameron asserted that the act doesn't adequately protect rights even as it makes fighting crime and terrorism more difficult. Cameron said [text, PDF]:

So I believe that the time has now come for a new solution that protects liberties in this country that is home-grown and sensitive to Britain's legal inheritance that enables people to feel they have ownership of their rights and one which at the same time enables a British Home Secretary to strike a common-sense balance between civil liberties and the protection of public security. The Conservative Party, under my leadership, is determined to provide a hard-nosed defence of security and freedom. And I believe that the right way to do that is through a modern British Bill of Rights that also balances rights with responsibilities. This would clearly set out people's rights, would enable those rights to be protected in British courts, and would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and terrorism.

The Human Rights Act was passed to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights [text; BBC backgrounder], which Britain signed in 1953. Cameron said his proposal would not withdraw Britain from the convention and would continue to allow UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

The governing Labour Party immediately attacked Cameron's remarks [party press release]. The government's chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith [official profile], described the Bill of Rights proposal as "muddled, misconceived and dangerous" [BBC report].

Reuters has more.
The Guardian has additional coverage.
BBC News offers recorded video of the full speech.

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK Tory leader proposes US-style Bill of Rights
Joe Shaulis at 2:26 PM ET

[JURIST] UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron [party profile] said Monday that he would appoint a panel of legal experts to examine whether the increasingly-controversial Human Rights Act of 1998 [text; JURIST news archive] should be replaced with an American-style Bill of Rights. Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies [think tank website] in London, Cameron asserted that the act doesn't adequately protect rights even as it makes fighting crime and terrorism more difficult. Cameron said [text, PDF]:

So I believe that the time has now come for a new solution that protects liberties in this country that is home-grown and sensitive to Britain's legal inheritance that enables people to feel they have ownership of their rights and one which at the same time enables a British Home Secretary to strike a common-sense balance between civil liberties and the protection of public security. The Conservative Party, under my leadership, is determined to provide a hard-nosed defence of security and freedom. And I believe that the right way to do that is through a modern British Bill of Rights that also balances rights with responsibilities. This would clearly set out people's rights, would enable those rights to be protected in British courts, and would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and terrorism.

The Human Rights Act was passed to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights [text; BBC backgrounder], which Britain signed in 1953. Cameron said his proposal would not withdraw Britain from the convention and would continue to allow UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

The governing Labour Party immediately attacked Cameron's remarks [party press release]. The government's chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith [official profile], described the Bill of Rights proposal as "muddled, misconceived and dangerous" [BBC report].

Reuters has more.
The Guardian has additional coverage.
BBC News offers recorded video of the full speech.

John Leyden
Tuesday 11th April 2006 10:07 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/11/brains_trust/

In brief Qinetiq, the former Ministry of Defence research lab, has been given chairmanship of a UK group designed to develop government security policy. The committee, which comprises government officials, academics, and other experts, will help inform UK government policy on issues such as the introduction of biometric-based identity cards and the establishment of ecommerce projects, the FT reports.

John Leyden
Tuesday 11th April 2006 10:07 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/11/brains_trust/

In brief Qinetiq, the former Ministry of Defence research lab, has been given chairmanship of a UK group designed to develop government security policy. The committee, which comprises government officials, academics, and other experts, will help inform UK government policy on issues such as the introduction of biometric-based identity cards and the establishment of ecommerce projects, the FT reports.

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.