U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, is being threatened with a military court-martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan, despite having been told she would be granted extra time to find someone to care for her 11-month-old son while she is overseas. Hutchinson, of Oakland, California, is currently being confined at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, after being arrested. Her son was placed into a county foster care system. Hutchinson has been threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, Nov. 15. She has been attempting to find someone to take care of her child, Kamani, while she is deployed overseas, but to no avail.---

To be fair, Clarence Thomas was one of the DISSENTERS in this gross miscarriage of justice. Pfizer and the city of New London used the eminent domain case to uproot long term residents of an established and thriving waterfront neighborhood to make way for BIG BIG development plans. All the planning has now fallen through and the city is left with empty buildings and vacant lots as Pfizer deserts the city for greener pastures in Groton.

A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org finds that most people in 17 of 21 nations surveyed say their government should abide by international law and reject the view that governments are not obliged to follow such laws when they conflict with the national interest. Most respondents in two out of three nations polled are also confident that the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, would treat their country fairly and impartially, the WPO poll shows. The poll, conducted in 21 nations from around the world asked respondents which of two statements is closest to their own view. The first statement said, "Our nation should consistently follow international laws. It is wrong to violate international laws, just as it is wrong to violate laws within a country": the second said, "If our government thinks it is not in our nation's interest, it should not feel obliged to abide by international laws." On average, across all nations polled, 57% said that their country should put a higher priority on international law than national interest. WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,202 respondents in 21 nations that comprise 64 percent of the world's population.

An Italian judge sentenced 23 Americans to up to eight years in prison on Wednesday for the abduction of a Muslim cleric, in a symbolic condemnation of the CIA "rendition" flights used by the former U.S. government.The Americans were all tried in absentia because the United States refused to extradite them but the sentence, the first of its kind, was welcomed by campaigners who have long complained that the renditions policy violated basic human rights."This decision sends a clear message to all governments that even in the fight against terrorism you can't forsake the basic rights of our democracies," said prosecutor Armando Spataro.

The US Supreme Court has declined to decide whether the federal statute of limitations bars the prosecution of a former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) member accused of kidnapping and murdering two black teens in 1964. James Ford Seale was tried, convicted, and sentenced to three life prison terms in 2007. His lawyers challenged the prosecution on grounds that a five-year statute of limitations for kidnapping had long since passed. By declining to take up the case, the high court's action leaves in place a decision by Mr. Seale's trial judge allowing his prosecution to go forward and upholding his conviction and life sentences. But the issue remains unresolved in future cases. The statute of limitations issue is significant because it could undermine efforts by the Justice Department to prosecute suspects in as many as 22 other alleged racially-motivated killings and civil rights crimes dating to the 1950s and 1960s. Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia issued a statement saying the high court should have agreed to resolve the issue now. "The question is narrow, debatable, and important," Justice Stevens wrote. "I see no benefit and significant cost to postponing the question's resolution. A prompt answer from this court will expedite the termination of this litigation and determine whether other similar cases may be prosecuted," he wrote. A 40-year-old case

A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed today to reconsider a ruling that allowed five men who claim they were tortured in overseas prisons to sue a San Jose aviation company.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by the Obama Administration for a rehearing on the government's claim that the lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan Inc. should be dismissed.Jeppesen, a subsidiary of Boeing Co., is an aviation services company.The five men, all foreign citizens, claim the company violated international human rights law by aiding the CIA in plane flights that took them in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to overseas sites where they were allegedly tortured while being interrogated.The alleged CIA program to transport terrorism suspects to other countries for interrogation is known as extraordinary rendition. The lawsuit claims Jeppesen provided flight plans and other aviation support.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether Guantanamo detainees who are considered no threat can be ordered released in the United States - over the objections of the Obama administration and Congress - if the prisoners have nowhere else to go. The case could further complicate the administration's plans to close the Guantanamo prison where 220 or so men are still held. The court's fourth look at the terror-suspects detention system, created by the Bush administration following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will focus on 13 Chinese Muslims, most of whom were cleared by the Pentagon for release in 2003. Six years later - and eight years after their capture in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001 - they remain in custody at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The first three high court decisions were rebukes to the government for denying detainees their day in court.

"Have you heard that one of the world's leading economic powers, the fourth largest economy in the world, banned electronic voting; said it was undemocratic? Given the multitude of problems encountered in the U.S. and the number of questionable election results, wouldn't it make sense that when Germany banned electronic voting and replaced it with paper ballots, there would be at least a days worth of national coverage in the United States?"

(updated below)... The High Court's original ruling in Mohamed's favor contained seven paragraphs which described the torture to which Mohamed was subjected. It has been previously reported that those paragraphs contain descriptions of abuse so brutal that not even our own American media could dispute that it constitutes "torture": The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said. [Note: a portion of the court's ruling]: Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State when the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment politically embarrassing that it might be.]

All of this highlights two vital points: (1) the extent to which the Obama administration has been willing to go to cover up evidence of the Bush administration's torture regime; when I interviewed Mohamed's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, in April, he made clear that these threats were part of a joint cover-up between the U.S. and Britain; and (2) the way in which American citizens are forced to rely on the institutions in foreign countries -- British courts and Spanish prosecutors -- to learn about what our own government has done. War crimes can never stay hidden for long. It's only a matter of time before all of this evidence comes out one way or the other, and when it does, those who worked so vigorously to keep it concealed will be rightly judged to have been complicit in its cover-up.

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that if a criminal defendant wants a jury with fewer than 12 people and the judge allows it, a state prosecutor can't stop it. In a unanimous opinion, the court rejected DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett's request for a writ of mandamus to force DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Peter Dockery to deny a request for a six-person jury made by defendant William Krolik, who is charged with attempted home invasion and armed robbery. The court said that it was an issue best left to the discretion of the trial judge and that the defendant has a right, under Illinois state law, to choose a smaller jury. "The state has not established that the seating of a 12-person jury is simply a ministerial action allowing it absolute veto power to foreclose a defendant from requesting, and the circuit court from considering, the empaneling of a jury of a lesser number," the Supreme Court said in its Oct. 8 opinion.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case could change the political landscape in the United States Of America forever. So how do we get audio or video of this? Well we don't get video. Audio! Click here to see the Supreme Court Of The United States 19th Century audio policy. Now ain't that a joke? So here we are in the 21st century with a Supreme Court living in the 19th Century, hiding behind closed doors making decisions that may change our country forever and they want me to believe this is a free open society. I don't think so. It's time for Supreme Court Of The United States of America, to get with the program. Do these robed 19th Century folks think we are incapable of understanding what's going on? Do they feel they are superior to the rest of us and we as citizens of the United States of America we don't deserve to see video of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Material witness laws used detain former student for two weeks 04 Sep 2009 A federal appeals court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft may be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In a harshly worded ruling handed down Friday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the government's use of material witnesses after Sept. 11 "repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."

In an extraordinary order, the U.S. Supreme Court has given Troy a chance to prove he did not commit murder.

Chief Justice John Roberts has sworn in Sonia Sotomayor as the Supreme Court's first Hispanic justice and the third female justice in the court's 220-year history. Sotomayor's family and friends joined her for the occasion.

It appears that it won't be long before the Obama administration brings the U.S. in line with 110 other countries -- China, Russia, Israel and Sudan not included -- and joins the International Criminal Court. Clinton is reportedly among several top foreign policy officials who back the idea, while others say that the U.S. shouldn't join the court while Guantanamo Bay remains open and troops are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The move would also have serious domestic repercussions and would be certain to anger former Bush administration officials, who were deeply concerned about its own members ending up at The Hague. During the campaign Obama said he'd consult with the Pentagon and gauge the court's performance before making a decision. But for a brief moment yesterday, America's top diplomat made her views clear.

More British and American troops will die in Afghanistan, but the war against the Taliban is in the national interests of both countries, the US vice-president, Joe Biden, said today. Speaking in the deadliest month for British troops since the US-led invasion in 2001, Biden insisted that the current offensive against the Taliban in Helmand province was worth the effort and was a "prerequisite" to get the country ready for presidential elections next month. In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme Biden said: "In terms of the national interests of Great Britain and the national interests of the United States and Europe, it is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt and more will come." [Note: Now there's a real bastard for you. He can predict that your children will die for nothing. What was his astute comment: "In terms of the national interests, blah,blah,blah..." But do we know what the great sacrifice is that are troops should be shedding their blood for?]

I think it means Graham is tired of hearing how bigoted he and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) came across during the confirmation hearings.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have taken heat for their relentless beating on the dead horse of Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment. Is this their petulant revenge?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor signalled an openness to television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings Thursday as she neared the end of three grueling days of questioning.