It is unclear whether the court has the power to ban the debate

An Islamic court in Nigeria has banned a rights group from hosting debates on the Twitter and Facebook websites on the use of amputations as a punishment.

The court, in the northern city of Kaduna, backed a case brought by a pro-Sharia group arguing that the forums would mock the Sharia system.

The rights group, the Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria, said it would appeal against the ruling.

Sharia judges can order amputations of limbs for petty crimes in some states.

But the courts mostly deal with domestic issues such as marriage and divorce.

Cory Doctorow at 10:26 AM March 15, 2010

In this two-year-old classified Army Counterintelligence Center report (hosted on wikileaks.org, where else?), American spooks set out to destroy Wikileaks by intimidating its sources. They cite as justification for this the fact that Wikileaks has outed American embarrassments and crimes including "US equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable US violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay."

The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so

Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?

Cory Doctorow at 10:16 PM March 11, 2010

The Olympics are coming to London, so our civil liberties are going out the window: because nothing epitomises the spirit of global competition and cooperation like corporate bullying and unfettered truncheon-waving.

Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events.

"I think there will be lots of people doing things completely innocently who are going to be caught by this, and some people will be prosecuted, while others will be so angry about it that they will start complaining about civil liberties issues," Chadwick said.

"I think what it will potentially do is to prompt a debate about the commercial nature of the Games. Do big sponsors have too much influence over the Games?"

Eyes turn to "value for money" London 2012 (Thanks, Bobby!)

(Image: More Riot Police a Creative Commons Attribution photo from Kashklick's photostream)

Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, accused of murdering two soldiers, left at risk of unfair trial and execution in Iraq, European court finds

• Helen Pidd
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.15 GMT
• Article history

 

The UK government was today condemned for violating the human rights of two Iraqis accused of murdering two captive British soldiers in 2003.

Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, Sunni Muslims and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, have been detained for almost seven years. They are currently being held in the Rusafa prison near Baghdad.

The European court of human rights in Strasbourg unanimously found the pair were "at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging" in Iraq.

The finding reversed a decision made at the UK's highest court.

Saadoon and Mufdhi are accused of two of the most brutal killings of British personnel during the war.

On 23 March 2003, Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp, both bomb disposal experts, were dragged from their vehicles during an ambush within days of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

They were taken to an intelligence base, shot and filmed as they lay dying surrounded by a baying mob. Their bodies were found in shallow graves a month later.

Saadoon, 57, and 59-year-old Mufdhi have been waging a long-running legal battle, arguing that the British army had been wrong to hand them over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in December 2008.

They claim the transfer put them at real risk of torture and death by hanging after the Iraqi national assembly reintroduced the death penalty in 2004.

The two were tried by an Iraqi court in 2009 and cleared of the charges, but remain in custody pending an appeal by the prosecutor.

The European court of human rights ruled that Saadoon and Mufdhi had been "subjected to mental suffering caused by the fear of execution amounting to inhuman treatment" and awarded them €40,000 (£36,330) jointly in costs.

The judgment said: "For the court, compliance with their obligations under article three of the convention [which prohibits torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"] requires the government to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty."

Following the judgement, Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented Saadoon and Mufdhi, said: "We call upon the UK government, in light of the severe criticisms made by the European court, to now do everything within its power to protect our clients from the death penalty and to seek their release so that they can, at long last, be reunited with their families.

"This case has been pursued for political purposes, and it is now time for the government to act."

The armed forces minister, Bill Rammell, said: "We are carefully considering the court's verdict.

"On 31 December 2008, we transferred to the Iraqi authorities, to face trial for war crimes, two Iraqis suspected of involvement in the murder of two British soldiers.

"At this point, we had no legal power to detain the suspects, and the court of appeal had unanimously ruled that they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European convention on human rights.

"We transferred them having received credible assurances from the Iraqi government that they would be treated humanely in custody and we know that this has been the case.

"We have acted throughout in the interests of justice and in the interests of the families of the two murdered soldiers. We should all welcome the due legal process that is now being followed."

Justice department finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct

• Ewen MacAskill in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 20 February 2010
• Article history

Detainees in a holding area at Guantanamo Bay. Photograph: Shane T McCoy/AFP/Getty Images

 

An inquiry by the US justice department last night reprimanded two senior Bush era lawyers who approved the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay. The department found the two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct.

The lawyers wrote controversial memorandums dating from 2002 after the 9/11 attacks that provided legal cover for the CIA to use torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. The conclusion of the report, which marks a significant softening of the original draft, will disappoint human rights organisations. Publication of the report has been delayed for months amid fierce internal debate. If the two had been found guilty of professional misconduct, it would have had consequences for their immediate careers and opened the way for legal challenges.

The techniques approved by the lawyers included waterboarding, which Barack Obama has described as torture but the former vice-president, Dick Cheney, insisted was not. Detainees accused of the 9/11 attacks such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were repeatedly subjected to waterboarding. Harsh techniques were used against others picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan and taken to Guantánamo.

The assistant attorney-general, Ronald Weich, found the two lawyers "exercised poor judgment in connection with the drafting of the pertinent memoranda". No disciplinary action is to be taken.

Weich said poor judgment "differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard". Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Bybee is a federal appeals court judge.

The Obama administration is reluctant to reopen the row over waterboarding and Obama last year ruled against prosecution of CIA agents involved in torture techniques. He said it was a "time for reflection, not retribution".Other techniques that were approved included walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), wall standing, and sleep deprivation.

By Jonathan Fildes Technology reporter, BBC News

Hi-tech helps Iranian monitoring The new cyber battlefield in Iran

Euro MPs have "strongly" criticised telecoms firm Nokia Siemens Networks for providing "surveillance technology" to the Iranian authorities.

In a resolution adopted on Wednesday, the MEPs said the hardware was instrumental in the "persecution and arrests of Iranian dissidents".

But Nokia Siemens said that the implication that it had provided censorship technology was "wrong"

It has previously said that it had installed "lawful" technology in 2008.

"We will be clarifying any inaccuracy in their understanding of our business in Iran with the European Parliament," Ben Roome of the firm told BBC News.

Nokia Siemens said the technology that it had installed was similar to that used "in all EU member states and the US".

Mr Roome stressed that the technology not used to monitor, filter or censor the internet.

"When you set up a modern network - as an operator - if you want a licence to operate you have to have a standard surveillance capability in the network," Christina Dinne, also of the firm, said.

Net benefit

Nokia Siemens told BBC News that it had provided "very basic surveillance" capabilities to Iran Telecom in 2008. The product is called Monitoring Centre and can be used to monitor local telephone calls.

"You can't track keywords," said Mrs Dinne.

Google says its Gmail traffic has dropped sharply in Iran

Details of Nokia Siemens activities in Iran first came to light in June 2009 when media reports accused the firm of helping the Iranian government intercept communications.

Technology - such as mobile phones - were widely used in protests following Iran's disputed election.

"We are, of course, aware of reports from Iran, and condemn any abuse of communication technologies that may have taken place," said Mr Roome.

"We strongly believe that mobile networks enhance individuals' lives, promote transparency, and empower citizens with effective means of feedback.

"In Iran they have clearly played a pivotal role in their ability to communicate, organise, and share their story with the outside world.

However, the MEPS called on the EU to ban similar exports to "governments and countries such as Iran".

The statements were part of a wider resolution that included a call for Iran to "restore the transparency of its nuclear programme".

Iran has said that it has begun a new phase of uranium enrichment at its Natanz plant.

The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the country has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to 20% at a rally marking Iran's revolution.

The anniversary is the most important day in Iran's political calendar.

The opposition Green Movement is also trying to stage counter-demonstrations.

In the past these have been coordinated via social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook as well as through e-mail and mobile phones.

Reports suggest that the internet has been throttled with services such as Google's Gmail service markedly reduced.

Government persuaded Lord Neuberger to delete damning references to MI5 'culture' of suppressing evidence

Read the letter that reveals the draft ruling

• Ian Cobain
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 February 2010 11.54 GMT
• Article history

Binyam Mohamed, left, and foreign secretary David Miliband. Photograph: PA

The government launched a successful last-minute bid to persuade the court of appeal to erase the most damning details of MI5's complicity in torture from its decision in the Binyam Mohamed case – but has been unable to suppress a letter that details some of the contents of the original draft ruling.

On Monday, Jonathan Sumption QC wrote to the court warning it that the paragraph in question was "likely to receive more public attention that any other parts of the judgments".

This, Sumption pointed out, was because the paragraph would state that MI5 did not operate in a culture that respected human rights or renounced "coercive interrogation techniques".

The letter also reveals that the judgment, before being rewritten, said that this was particularly true of the MI5 officer known as Witness B who gave evidence in the case – and that this man's conduct was characteristic of MI5 as a whole.

Furthermore, the letter shows, the judges had originally ruled that MI5 officers had "deliberately misled" the Intelligence and Security Committee, the body of MPs and peers supposed to oversee its work, on the question of coercive interrogations, and that this "culture of suppression" reflected its dealings with the committee, the foreign secretary and the court.

Finally, the letter makes clear that the court ruled MI5's culture of suppression "penetrates the service to such a degree" that it undermines any government assurance based upon information that comes from MI5 itself.

The master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, told the court this morning that he had discussed Sumption's request with the lord chief justice, and decided to amend the relevant section "quite significantly". However it transpired that Sumption's letter had not been circulated to all the other parties. "I have received a number of letters from interested parties complaining about the way the amendment was made."

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, wrote to the court after the Sumption letter came to light, as did Liberty.

Judges were entitled to change their draft judgments, the master of the rolls said, but "it was over-hasty of me" to do so without giving others the opportunity of making representations.

He would therefore give parties who wished to object until 4pm on Friday to make representations, when he would decide whether to reinstate his judgement.

By Cory Doctorow at 10:28 PM February 9, 2010

Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan claims that when he went through Heathrow, security staff printed out the naked image of his body from the full-body scanners (scanners that the authorities have claimed won't ever be used to generate printouts) and circulated them among the staff:

'I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You've got to see them. It makes you embarrassed - if you're not well endowed.

'You walk into the machine and everything - the whole outline of your body - comes out.'

Khan said he did not know that the body-scans - installed in the wake of last year's abortive Christmas Day bombing of a transatlantic flight over Detroit - showed up every little detail of one's body.

'I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out.

'Then I saw these girls - they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said 'give them to me' - and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them.'

Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow (Thanks, Drew!)

(Image: S3010420, a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike image from dodo_anji's photostream)

High court admission of illegal searches on minors in case challenging police tactics at power station protest

• Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 18.48 GMT
• Article history

Protestors march towards Kingsnorth power station from the Camp For Climate Action 2008 on August 9, 2008. Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

Police today admitted that they conducted illegal "stop and searches" on 11-year-old twins and other activists at an environmental demonstration.

The chief constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, made the admission in a high court case that challenged the tactics he used to contain a demonstration against a proposed coal-fired power station.

He and his force have already been heavily criticised over their handling of the demonstration, after allegations of brutality by officers who hid their badge numbers, and the use of loud music to stop activists sleeping.

The admission came after a ruling by the European court of human rights in a separate case that it was unlawful for police to use arbitrary stop and search powers against peace protesters and photographers under terrorism legislation.

Kent police is fighting to avoid paying a huge bill for damages to thousands of protesters.

The high court heard that the twins, who cannot be named, and more than 3,500 protesters were herded into airport-style "checkpoints" during the week-long climate camp demonstration at Kings­north power station in Kent.

The twins' mother described how her son was left "crying and shaking" and "very pale". She said that he had overheard that protesters had stickers confiscated by police, and feared he would "go to prison" because he had a sticker in his bag. Nothing was taken from their bags.

They were searched under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which requires officers to have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying prohibited weapons that could be used for criminal damage.

At today's hearing, Richard Perks, barrister for the chief constable, said it was now accepted by Kent police that the twins and a veteran environmental protester, David Morris, were unlawfully stopped at the Kingsnorth demonstration in 2008.

Perks added that the chief constable also admitted that unspecified numbers of other climate camp protesters had also been unlawfully stopped and searched.

The twins and Morris, from north London, launched the legal action last year as a test case for the thousands stopped and searched at the demonstration. Kent police have offered to settle in their case but are refusing to admit that thousands of others should be paid damages.

John Halford, the trio's lawyer, said: "Kent police are seeking to buy off these test cases in a desperate attempt to avoid court scrutiny of what amounted to an unlawful frontline policy geared to bring about large-scale breach of civil liberties and protest rights."

Today Perks told the court that Kent police did not admit that they had covertly applied a blanket, unlawful stop-and-search policy at the camp.

There had been a clear and lawful policy, and the huge majority of activists had not been stopped unlawfully. But it was accepted there had been "a misapplication of a clear policy by officers on the ground", he said.

Alex Bailin, barrister for the twins, accused Kent police of failing to obey a court order to disclose documents about the stop and searches. Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Openshaw adjourned the case so that further evidence could be produced.

Last July an official review concluded that the "widescale deployment of stop and search tactics was both disproportionate and counter-productive" at the Kingsnorth demonstration.

It found that fewer than a quarter of the forms recording the reasons for the stop and searches were legible.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer