[JURIST] The US military on Monday released the identities [MNF-Iraq press conference transcript] of five Army soldiers charged [JURIST report] in connection with the rape and murder of an Iraqi woman and the murders of several of her relatives in March at Mahmudiya [JURIST news archive], 20 miles south of Baghdad.

The soldiers and the charges against them are:

• Spc. James P. Barker - conspiracy to commit rape and premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, premeditated murder, rape, arson, housebreaking
  
• Sgt. Paul E. Cortez - conspiracy to commit rape and premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, premeditated murder, rape, arson, housebreaking
  
• Pfc. Bryan L. Howard - conspiracy to commit rape and premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, premeditated murder, rape
  
• Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman - conspiracy to commit rape and premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice, violation of a lawful general order, premeditated murder, rape, arson, housebreaking, indecent acts, obstruction of justice
  
• Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe - dereliction of duty and false official statement

[JURIST] A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals [official website] heard oral arguments Monday in six cases [court materials; press release] focusing on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] - the first time a California appeals court has considered the issue. The state Attorney General's Office [official website] argued that California should be allowed to maintain its traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, approved by the Legislature in 1977 [text] and by voters in 2000 [text], and that most benefits afforded to spouses under state law are also available to same-sex couples through domestic partnership registration. Attorneys representing same-sex couples and the City of San Francisco, meanwhile, asserted that the registration system falls short because it denies gays and lesbians the social recognition of marriage. One of the judges hearing the case, Justice J. Anthony Kline [official profile], described the registration scheme is "second-class marriage" and noted that the California Supreme Court had rejected a traditional definition of marriage in 1948 by allowing interracial couples to wed.

The state is appealing a trial court's 2005 ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that those laws are unconstitutional because they discriminate on the basis of sex and deny gays and lesbians the fundamental right of marriage. That ruling followed lawsuits challenging San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court, without addressing the merits of same-sex marriage, ruled that the mayor had exceeded his authority. A ruling from the Court of Appeals is expected by October. Whatever the result, both sides expect the issue to end up before the California Supreme Court. Bloomberg News has more. The San Francisco Chronicle has local coverage.

[JURIST] US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) [official website] told reporters Monday that floor action on legislation governing procedures for military commissions [JURIST news archive] at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] is unlikely until after Labor Day. Frist said that Senate Republicans are busy discussing the legislation with Democrats and the White House and that several Senate committees with jurisdiction over the issue are trying to coordinate their work. The Senate adjourns for a recess on Aug. 7 [legislative schedule] and does not reconvene until Sept. 5. In the meantime, two Senate committees have scheduled hearings [JURIST report] on draft legislation - the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and the Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The legislation is necessary because of the US Supreme Court's decision last month in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [text], which held that President Bush's military commissions as constituted lack proper legal authorization [JURIST report]. Bush has said he would work with congressional leaders [JURIST report] on legislation that would allow military trials to go forward while addressing the concerns of the court. AP has more.

Meanwhile White House press secretary Tony Snow said at the regular press briefing [transcript] Monday that the administration has no plans to shift the detainees to the US or try them in the US federal courts:

...we are not going to move them into places on American soil and to the civil justice system. These are people who were picked up off a battlefield. And many of you have been down there. You see the extraordinary measures that are taken not only to deal with their physical needs, but also their spiritual needs. And this is a facility at which there is extreme care taken to try not only to bring them to justice, but also to treat them humanely. So, no, there are no plans at this point to move them into another facility except to the extent to which we are able to repatriate those who might, in fact, be tried and cared for elsewhere.

[JURIST] AP is reporting that a federal judge has ruled that an FBI raid [JURIST report] on the congressional office of US Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) [official website] was legal and has denied Jefferson's request that documents seized during the raid be returned to him.

4:45 PM ET - After the FBI raided his congressional office as part of an investigation connected to a bribery scheme involving a Kentucky telecommunications firm that was granted contracts in Nigeria, Jefferson filed a motion in federal court requesting that documents seized be returned [amicus memorandum from US House general counsel]. Jefferson argued that the documents were protected under the Speech or Debate Clause [text] of the US Constitution, and that the search violated the separation of powers principle and his Fourth Amendment rights. In his opinion [PDF text], Chief Judge Thomas Hogan disagreed:

The facts and questions of law presented here are indeed unprecedented. It is well-established, however, that a Member of Congress is generally bound to the operation of the criminal laws as are ordinary persons. The Speech or Debate Clause does not "make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility." Brewster, 408 U.S. at 516. Members of Congress are not "exempt[] . . . from liability or process in criminal cases." Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626.

The existing broad protections of the Speech or Debate Clause - absolute immunity from prosecution or suit for legislative acts and freedom from being "questioned" about those acts (including privilege from the testimonial act of producing documents in response to a subpoena) - satisfy the fundamental purpose of the Clause to protect the independence of the legislature. The Court declines to extend those protections further, holding that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield Members of Congress from the execution of valid search warrants. Congressman Jefferson's interpretation of the Speech or Debate privilege would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime. Such a result is not supported by the Constitution or judicial precedent and will not be adopted here. See Williamson v. United States, 28 S. Ct. at 167 ("[T]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime.") (quotation omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court has found that the search executed on Congressman Jefferson's congressional office was constitutional, as it did not trigger the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, did not offend the principle of the separation of powers, and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for return of property.

ALSO ON JURIST  Op-ed: Searching Congress: A Fabricated Constitutional Crisis | Op-ed: Executive Power and Breathing Space for Liberty

[JURIST] The parliament of Egypt [JURIST news archive] passed a new press law on Monday but removed a particularly controversial provision that would have allowed journalists to be imprisoned for reporting on alleged financial impropriety by public officials. Still, journalists and rights groups fear that other provisions threaten the freedom of the press. Although the law abolishes jail sentences for offenses such as libel, for example, it increases the maximum fines that can be imposed. For other offenses, the law allows judges to determine whether imprisonment is appropriate rather than abolishing jail sentences completely. President Hosny Mubarak [official profile, English version] promised two years ago to abolish all jail sentences for journalists [JURIST report].

Twenty-five independent and opposition newspapers in Egypt refrained from publishing on Sunday [JURIST report] to protest the lack of legal protection afforded to journalists as reflected in the press law. It was denounced by the Federation of Arab Journalists [JURIST report] and the opposition Muslim Brotherhood [party website]. Aljazeera has more.

[JURIST] A lawyer for the US Justice Department (DOJ) argued in federal court again [JURIST report] Monday that a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive] must be dismissed because defending it in court would jeopardize national security. In the hearing in US District Court in Detroit, DOJ special litigation counsel Anthony J. Coppolino said that requiring the government to obtain warrants before intercepting the telephone conversations would hinder the fight against al Qaeda. Investigations could be "destroyed" if warrants tip off suspects to the surveillance, he said. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, countered [ACLU press release] that President Bush "does not have the authority to decide which laws he will or will not follow." The ACLU lawyer, Ann Beeson, said last month's US Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [JURIST report] shows that the war on terrorism does not give the president "a blank check to trash the rule of law and the fundamental rights that are the cornerstones of our democracy." Beeson conceded, however, that the NSA could use some warrantless electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [official materials].

The plaintiffs, who are journalists, scholars and lawyers, argue that the program violates their rights to privacy and free speech [complaint, PDF; ACLU materials], and that enough information has been made public about the program for the court to determine whether it is legal. The NSA has acknowledged warrantless eavesdropping on international phone calls made from within the US, but the Bush administration contends the program is legal under Bush's inherent powers as commander-in-chief and under a 2001 congressional resolution [PDF text] authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor last month denied a government motion [JURIST report] to stay consideration of the ACLU's motion for partial summary judgment on state secrecy grounds. Beeson said she expects a ruling on the motion to dismiss soon. Reuters has more. The Detroit News has local coverage.

[JURIST] Prosecutors working for Cambodia's Khmer Rouge genocide tribunal [official task force website; timeline] began formal investigation Monday of criminal acts allegedly committed by surviving leaders of the communist Khmer Rouge [JURIST news archive] regime, which ruled Cambodia from 1975-1978 and was responsible for the deaths of at least 1.5 million Cambodians by execution, forced hardships, or starvation in the so-called "Killing Fields." Led by Canadian prosecutor Robert Petit [Globalpolicy.org profile] and Cambodian prosecutor Chea Leang, the investigation will collect and review evidence that could be used at trial. Petit has warned, however, that it could take months for prosecutors to return indictments [JURIST report] due the complexity of the cases and the novel structure of the court.

Twenty-seven of the UN assisted court's thirty judges and prosecutors [official list] were sworn in [JURIST report] at a ceremony in Phnom Penh last week. AFP has more.

[JURIST] The government of Iraq [JURIST news archive] plans to ask the UN Security Council [official website] to lift Coalition troops' immunity from Iraqi law, Human Rights Minister Wijdan Michael said Monday. She indicated that a committee formed last week is preparing reports for the Iraqi Cabinet, adding that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [BBC profile] could present Iraq's request to the Security Council by next month. Michael blamed lax enforcement of US military law for alleged crimes by American forces against Iraqi civilians, including the rape and murders in Mahmudiya [JURIST report] that have led to charges against five current and former US soldiers. Last week, because of those allegations, al-Maliki called for the US military's immunity to be reviewed [JURIST report]. Michael said that if the Security Council denies the request to end the immunity, Iraq will ask for "an effective role in the investigations that are going on." Among other alleged offenses under investigation are the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha [JURIST news archive] last November.

A decree [PDF text] issued by the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) [official website] provided that "the MNF [Multi-National Force], the CPA, Foreign Liaison Missions, their Personnel, property, funds and assets, and all International Consultants shall be immune from Iraqi legal process," including "any arrest, detention or legal proceedings in Iraqi courts or other Iraqi bodies, whether criminal, civil, or administrative." When the Coalition Provisional Authority was replaced by Iraq's interim government in June 2004, the immunity language was annexed to the UN Security Council resolution [PDF text] authorizing the US-led occupation. Reuters has more.

This not the first time that Iraqi government officials have called for the lifting of the military immunity provision; in September 2005 then-Iraqi Justice Minister Abdul Hussein Shandal criticized the US military for arresting and detaining Iraqi citizens and journalists without bringing charges against them and called for either the amendment or discontinuation [JURIST report] of Resolution 1546 immunity.

[JURIST] Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe [BBC profile] said on Monday that Japan is considering whether launching a pre-emptive strike on North Korean missile bases would violate its constitution if there is no other option to prevent an attack from North Korea [JURIST news archive]. Though Article 9 [Wikipedia backgrounder] of the post-World War II Japanese constitution [text] bars the use of military force in international disputes and prohibits the country from maintaining its military for the purpose of warfare, the statement indicates that Japan could choose to take stronger action against North Korea if the UN Security Council [official website] rejects a resolution circulated by Japan [JURIST report] Friday that would direct states under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to take whatever steps necessary to prevent North Korea from obtaining materials that could be used in their missile program. Japan circulated the draft with the support of the United States, Britain and France before the Security Council began consideration of a milder draft resolution [JURIST report] it had previously proposed to block UN member states from providing North Korea with money, materials or technology that contribute to a nuclear program.

China and Russia have both openly voiced opposition to Japan's tougher draft resolution, which also retains the option of sanctions against North Korea if it continues to launch test missiles [VOA report]. Russia has opposed sanctions, advocating instead a strongly-worded condemnation of last week's missile tests, and China has yet to say whether it would vote against a resolution or abstain from a vote on the drafts. Still awaiting a UN vote on the Japan resolution, Japan's Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Sunday that Russia could abstain from voting, leaving China as the sole country to potentially veto the Japan resolution. Insisting it is within its legal rights [JURIST report], North Korea has said it will continue missile launches, and has threatened to use force if the international community tries to stop its tests. AP has more.

6:25 PM ET - US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Monday that the Security Council's vote on a resolution responding to the North Korean missile launches has been delayed in order to allow more time for diplomacy to proceed. AP has more.

[JURIST] Prisoners at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] have been subjected to "systematic physical, psychological, sexual, medical and religious abuse," according to a report [PDF full text; synopsis] released Monday by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website]. CCR describes the 51-page "Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," as the most comprehensive primary-source account of abuse at the facility. The report cites declassified statements from detainees still at Guantanamo and from their lawyers. According to the report, Guantanamo detainees have been:

held in solitary confinement for periods exceeding a year;

deprived of sleep for days and weeks and, in at least one case, months;

exposed to prolonged temperature extremes;

beaten;

threatened with transfer to a foreign country, for torture;

tortured in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases abroad before transfer to Guantanamo;

sexually harassed and raped or threatened with rape;

deprived of medical treatment for serious conditions, or allowed treatment only on the condition that they "cooperate" with interrogators; and

routinely "short-shackled" (wrists and ankles bound together and to the floor) for hours and even days during interrogations.

[JURIST] The government of Sri Lanka [JURIST news archive] said Monday that it will propose constitutional reform in a series of meetings beginning Tuesday in a bid to end a two decade old civil war with Tamil Tiger rebels [faction website; MIPT backgrounder], who want a separate ethnic homeland in the north and east of the country. The Tamil Tigers have indicated that they may settle for regional autonomy instead of a separate state, but insist that the Sri Lankan government at least consider full independence before ruling the option out. This week's meetings will include representatives from the southern majority Sinhalese [Wikipedia backgrounder], Muslim and anti-Tiger Tamil parties, and a 15-person panel of experts with four Tamils on it.

Though both the Tamil Tigers and the government have said they want peace, diplomats say that neither side has as yet laid the necessary groundwork. Reuters has more. From Sri Lanka, the Colombo Page has local coverage.

[JURIST] Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker [official website] on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court [official website] on behalf of Governor Sonny Perdue [official website], asking the court to overturn a lower court judge's Friday decision to issue a temporary restraining order [JURIST report] blocking the implementation of a law requiring Georgia voters to produce photo identification cards. In a ruling issued just before Georgia's July 18 primary elections, Judge Melvin K. Westmoreland of the Fulton County Superior Court [official website] held that the law [SB 84 materials] violates the state constitution [text] by placing an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote and that it would require a state constitutional amendment to legally take effect.

Westmoreland blocked the Republican-backed voter ID law [JURIST news archive], which was approved by the US Department of Justice [JURIST report] in April, based on a legal challenge filed by former Democratic Gov. Roy E. Barnes and civil rights groups. Barnes alleges that the law makes voting more difficult for minorities, the elderly and the poor. In a statement [text] responding to Westmoreland's ruling Friday, Perdue said:

I am disappointed that Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland today temporarily stopped implementation of Georgia's Voter ID law. Democracy only works because people have trust in the integrity of the ballot box. I respectfully disagree with Judge Westmoreland, and believe that Georgia’s law is not only constitutional, but a common sense, prudent protection of the election process. ...

Even the commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III recommended free, easily available, tamper-proof national photo IDs for all voters to prevent fraud and increase citizen confidence in the electoral system. While 24 states have some form of identification requirement for voting, the state of Indiana's photo ID requirement, which is much like Georgia’s law, has been upheld by federal court and on appeal.

[JURIST] The British government is sending Home Office minister Baroness Scotland [official profile] to the US on Thursday to push for US ratification of the treaty [text, PDF; Statewatch backgrounder] aligning extradition requests between the two nations, which the UK has already ratified. Under the UK Extradition Act 2003 [text] which enshrines the treaty in British law, three British bankers wanted in the US in connection with the Enron scandal [JURIST news archive] are to be extradited to the US [JURIST report] under a fast-track process, but the UK will not have a reciprocal agreement until the US ratifies the treaty.

The lack of reciprocity has created something of a political embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, already accused by opposition politicians of being too complicit with the United States in other areas of policy. Blair defended the treaty last week, saying that the UK and the US use the same evidentiary burden when evaluating extradition requests, though the language differs. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] Mexican leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador [campaign website, in Spanish; Wikipedia profile] has asked Mexico's Federal Electoral Court [official website, in Spanish] to order a manual recount [JURIST report] of returns from the July 2 presidential election, which conservative Felipe Calderon [campaign website, in Spanish; Wikipedia profile] won by just 0.6 percent. Lopez Obrador turned over to the court nine boxes of evidence of alleged fraud and dirty campaign practices relating to the election, claiming that some polling stations counted more votes than registered voters, the ruling party helped finance Calderon's campaign, and that a software program skewed initial vote-count reports. The court must declare a winner by September 6.

On Sunday, Lopez Obrador told reporters that he lost the election due to voter fraud, and announced plans to contest the election [JURIST reports] in court. Mexican election laws [PDF text, in Spanish] permit a manual recount only if the ballot packages have been unsealed or if the initial tallies are faulty. Last week, the Federal Electoral Institute [official website, in Spanish] validated Calderon's victory. AP has more.

[JURIST] Saddam Hussein, along with several co-defendants and defense lawyers, boycotted trial proceedings [JURIST news archive] Monday at the Iraq High Tribunal as the defense was scheduled to begin closing arguments. The court did hear from a lawyer for defendant Ali Dayih Ali, but Hussein sent a letter to the court saying "the tribunal is lacking in all procedures established by international and Iraqi law." Other defense lawyers, including lead defense lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi, said they would boycott proceedings until the court provides "adequate protection to the Iraqi lawyers and their families." A third lawyer from the defense team was murdered [JURIST report] last month, just days after the prosecution presented closing arguments, calling for the death penalty [JURIST reports] for Hussein and three other defendants. The defense also requested that proceedings be adjourned to allow time to recover from the disruption caused by the latest murder, but chief Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman [BBC profile] denied the request. Lawyers will present closing arguments for each of the eight defendants and then the court will hear statements from each defendant as well.

In the case currently being heard by the court, Hussein and his seven co-defendants are accused of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] for killing, torturing and illegally detaining Dujail residents, including executing 148 Shiites [JURIST report], and for committing other inhumane acts in response to an alleged 1982 assassination attempt on Hussein's life. If he is sentenced to death, Hussein's execution could be suspended until he completes several other trials relating to his former regime. A second trial, relating to the so-called "Anfal" operation [HRW backgrounder] that killed 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq in the 1980s, will begin on August 21 [JURIST report]. AP has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

[JURIST] Cyrus Kar [BBC backgrounder], the Los Angeles-based filmmaker of Iranian descent and US Navy veteran detained by US forces in Iraq for 55 days, has sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [official profile] and other top military officials in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website]. Kar argues that his detention in Iraq, which occurred when US forces stopped a taxi cab with Kar in it and found timing devices in the trunk, violated his civil rights, the law of nations and the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials]. The lawsuit seeks damages for Kar and changes in the government's detention polices, criticizing prolonged detentions without charge, denial of access to counsel, and the inability of detainees to challenge their detention in court.

Kar, who had traveled to Iraq to film a documentary about Cyrus the Great, was detained in May 2005 even though his taxi driver told military authorities that Kar and his cameraman had no knowledge of the devices found in the trunk of the taxi cab. Kar also took a polygraph test and allowed the FBI to search his Los Angeles apartment, but he was not released [JURIST report] until shortly after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] sued for his release last July [JURIST report]. Though Kar said he spent much of his detention in solitary confinement, he said that he had not been maltreated [JURIST report]. Henry Weinstein of the Los Angeles Times has more.

[JURIST] The trial of six men accused of war crimes in Kosovo in 1999, including former Serbian President Milan Milutinovic [BBC profile], began at the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Monday. Milutinovic and his five co-defendants - former Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic [BBC profile], former Yugoslav army chiefs of staff Dragoljub Ojdanic [BBC profile] and Nebojsa Pavkovic, and generals Vladimir Lazarevic and Sreten Lukic - face charges [indictment, PDF; case backgrounder] of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the deportation of 800,000 Kosovo Albanian civilians and the forcible transfer, murder and persecution of Kosovo Albanians at the hands of Serb troops. All six have pleaded not guilty.

Milutinovic took over as president in 1997 after Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive] ended his presidency, but Milutinovic reportedly continued to stay in close contact with Milosevic and carry out Milosevic's policies. The prosecution will use much of the same evidence that was presented in the Milosevic trial, which ended earlier this year when Milosevic passed away in prison [JURIST report]. The ICTY granted a provisional release [JURIST report] to Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic and Lazarevic in 2005 until their trial because they were not considered dangerous or a flight risk. Reuters has more. AFP has additional coverage.

[JURIST] AP is reporting that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts [official website] has ruled that a proposed state constitutional amendment [DOC text] that would ban same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] can be placed on the ballot for voter approval, if the amendment is approved by the state legislature. Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in 2003, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled [text] that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the current Massachusetts Constitution [text].

Monday's ruling [PDF text] comes in a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly's decision [DOC text] to allow a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage to proceed. The plaintiffs, represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website], argued that under the state constitution, ballot initiatives cannot overturn a previous court decision, a power delegated exclusively to the state legislature. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, saying "Neither the plain meaning of the words 'reversal of a judicial decision' nor their intended meaning as understood in the context of the Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, from which they emerged, supports the broad interpretation of the exclusion pressed by the plaintiff." Before the amendment can be presented to voters, the state legislature must approve the measure in two consecutive sessions. AP has more.

[JURIST] The first federal trial relating to insurance coverage for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive] begins Monday in Gulfport, Mississippi. In the lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company [corporate website], a Mississippi homeowner is disputing the insurance company's decision not to cover his property damage claim. Nationwide denied the claim because it contends the damage was caused by water; the homeowners assert that Katrina's wind caused the damage.

Though the case will not be binding in other lawsuits, it will set the stage for future cases against insurance companies in the wake of Katrina. Richard "Dickie" Scruggs [PBS profile], the attorney representing the homeowners in the present case, said that if the plaintiffs win this case and several similar lawsuits, insurance companies will likely begin to settle the thousands of pending cases. Scruggs represents about 3,000 families throughout Mississippi's Gulf Coast in their Katrina-related lawsuits. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood [official website] has also filed a class-action [press release, PDF] lawsuit in Mississippi state court. Hood has asked the court:

to declare that certain insurance contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are ambiguous. The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from coverage loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by water, whether or not driven by wind.

[JURIST] US Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) [official website], chairman of the House Intelligence Committee [official website], said that the Bush administration may have violated the law by failing to brief the committee on intelligence activities, in a May 18 letter [PDF text] to President Bush that was first disclosed in the New York Times Saturday. In his letter to President Bush, Hoekstra wrote:

Finally, Mr. President, but perhaps most importantly, I want to reemphasize that the Administration has the legal responsibility to "fully and currently" inform the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of its intelligence and intelligence-related activities. Although the law give you and the committees flexibility on how we accomplish that (I have been fully supportive of your concerns in this respect), it is clear that we, the Congress, are to be provided all information about such activities. I have learned of some alleged Intelligence Community activities about which our committee has not been briefed. In the next few days I will be formally requesting information on these activities. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law, and just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the Members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies. I strongly encourage you to direct all elements of the Intelligence Community to fulfill their legal responsibility to keep the Intelligence Committees fully briefed on their activities. The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play 'Twenty Questions' to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.