By Aaron Sheldrick
March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Four U.S. soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in Baghdad, taking the American death toll in the Iraq War to at least 4,000, according to the independent icasualties.org group that tallies fatalities in the conflict.
The Multi-National Division - Baghdad soldiers were on patrol in the south of the capital yesterday when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb, the U.S. military said today in an e-mailed statement. More
Source: bloomberg.com
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
3 US Soldiers Killed Near Baghdad
By BRADLEY BROOKS
BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military said Tuesday that three soldiers were killed the day before by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, bringing to eight the number of troops who died that day.
An interpreter was also killed Monday along with the three soldiers when they were hit by the bomb in eastern Diyala province, a military statement said. Another soldier was injured in the attack. No other details were provided.
In another attack Monday in Baghdad, five American soldiers on a foot patrol were killed when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives vest after approaching them, the military said.
The names of the soldiers killed were withheld pending notification of their families, military officials said.
The attack showed the insurgents' ability to strike in the heart of the heavily fortified capital, as well as in restive Diyala province.
The attacks marked the deadliest day for American forces in Iraq since Sept. 10, when eight soldiers died in two road accidents and two Marines were killed fighting insurgents in Anbar province.
In the Baghdad attack, four of the soldiers died at the scene, and the fifth died later from wounds, the military said. Three other American troops and an Iraqi interpreter were wounded in the attack.
Iraqi police said two civilians were also killed in the bombing — the deadliest single attack against the U.S. military since Jan. 28 when five soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb in the northern city of Mosul.
The suicide bomber hit the soldiers after they had left their Humvees and were chatting with shop owners, an Iraqi police officer who witnessed the attack said on condition of anonymity as he wasn't authorized to speak to the media.
As part of the military's counterinsurgency plans, U.S. bases are now inside neighborhoods and more U.S. soldiers are getting out of their armored vehicles to patrol Baghdad on foot.
While the face-to-face contact builds goodwill, it also gives suicide bombers, who often slip past security vehicle checkpoints by walking, better access to striking soldiers.
According to military figures, attacks in Baghdad are down 75 percent since June 2007, largely because of a boost in U.S. troops, a cease-fire by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and the role of former Sunni militants and tribal groups who have switched sides to join U.S. forces against al-Qaida in Iraq.
But some fear that violence in Baghdad and elsewhere will accelerate after the withdrawal of thousands of American troops.
The drawdown began last December with the departure of one brigade, numbering about 5,000 troops, dropping the overall U.S. troop level in Iraq to 158,000. More troops are set to leave by July, though it has yet to be decided whether further reductions will be made after that.
Monday's suicide bombing in Baghdad and the roadside bomb in Diyala were two of several deadly attacks across the country.
Earlier in the day, a female suicide bomber killed a U.S.-backed Sunni leader who formed a group to fight against al-Qaida insurgents in central Iraq after his guards ushered her into the home without searching her.
A rare suicide car bomb Monday evening in the northern Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah outside a hotel killed at least two people and wounded more than a dozen, hospital officials said.
In another attack, police on Monday found the bullet-riddled body of Basra's only neurologist — kidnapped earlier by gunmen.
On Tuesday in the northern city of Mosul, four police officers were killed by gunmen at a checkpoint, a provincial police official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Gunmen also opened fire on a car carrying the deputy head of Mosul University, another police officer said on condition of anonymity. The academic escaped unharmed.
Source: AP Associated Press
BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military said Tuesday that three soldiers were killed the day before by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, bringing to eight the number of troops who died that day.
An interpreter was also killed Monday along with the three soldiers when they were hit by the bomb in eastern Diyala province, a military statement said. Another soldier was injured in the attack. No other details were provided.
In another attack Monday in Baghdad, five American soldiers on a foot patrol were killed when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives vest after approaching them, the military said.
The names of the soldiers killed were withheld pending notification of their families, military officials said.
The attack showed the insurgents' ability to strike in the heart of the heavily fortified capital, as well as in restive Diyala province.
The attacks marked the deadliest day for American forces in Iraq since Sept. 10, when eight soldiers died in two road accidents and two Marines were killed fighting insurgents in Anbar province.
In the Baghdad attack, four of the soldiers died at the scene, and the fifth died later from wounds, the military said. Three other American troops and an Iraqi interpreter were wounded in the attack.
Iraqi police said two civilians were also killed in the bombing — the deadliest single attack against the U.S. military since Jan. 28 when five soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb in the northern city of Mosul.
The suicide bomber hit the soldiers after they had left their Humvees and were chatting with shop owners, an Iraqi police officer who witnessed the attack said on condition of anonymity as he wasn't authorized to speak to the media.
As part of the military's counterinsurgency plans, U.S. bases are now inside neighborhoods and more U.S. soldiers are getting out of their armored vehicles to patrol Baghdad on foot.
While the face-to-face contact builds goodwill, it also gives suicide bombers, who often slip past security vehicle checkpoints by walking, better access to striking soldiers.
According to military figures, attacks in Baghdad are down 75 percent since June 2007, largely because of a boost in U.S. troops, a cease-fire by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and the role of former Sunni militants and tribal groups who have switched sides to join U.S. forces against al-Qaida in Iraq.
But some fear that violence in Baghdad and elsewhere will accelerate after the withdrawal of thousands of American troops.
The drawdown began last December with the departure of one brigade, numbering about 5,000 troops, dropping the overall U.S. troop level in Iraq to 158,000. More troops are set to leave by July, though it has yet to be decided whether further reductions will be made after that.
Monday's suicide bombing in Baghdad and the roadside bomb in Diyala were two of several deadly attacks across the country.
Earlier in the day, a female suicide bomber killed a U.S.-backed Sunni leader who formed a group to fight against al-Qaida insurgents in central Iraq after his guards ushered her into the home without searching her.
A rare suicide car bomb Monday evening in the northern Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah outside a hotel killed at least two people and wounded more than a dozen, hospital officials said.
In another attack, police on Monday found the bullet-riddled body of Basra's only neurologist — kidnapped earlier by gunmen.
On Tuesday in the northern city of Mosul, four police officers were killed by gunmen at a checkpoint, a provincial police official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Gunmen also opened fire on a car carrying the deputy head of Mosul University, another police officer said on condition of anonymity. The academic escaped unharmed.
Source: AP Associated Press
24 People Killed, 100 Hurt, in Lahore Suicide Bombs
By Farhan Sharif and James Rupert
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- At least 24 people were killed and another 100 injured in twin bomb explosions in Pakistan's eastern city of Lahore, the government said.
``These were both suicide attacks by unknown people in cars loaded with explosives,'' Pervez Khusro, the interior secretary for Punjab province, said in a telephone interview from Lahore.
There were two bomb blasts within moments of each other, the government's emergency service said. The first explosion took place in the building of the Federal Investigation Agency, a government office, and the second blast occurred in a house in the residential area of Model Town.
It was the second attack in Lahore this month. At least four people, including two members of the navy, were killed in a twin suicide attack in the city on March 4. The number of people killed in terrorist attacks in Pakistan more than doubled to 2,116 last year, according to the interior ministry.
The Model Town neighborhood is home to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Asif Ali Zardari. The house where the explosion took place was owned by Ijaz Batalvi, Sharif's former lawyer. Batalvi's son ran an advertising company from the house.
Death Toll
``The death toll is expected to rise sharply,'' Hafiz Faisal, a spokesman for Edhi Foundation, the nation's biggest ambulance service, said on the telephone from Lahore. ``Some people died on the spot from the impact. We are still trying to recover bodies from the debris.''
The first explosion, which killed 18 people, took place when a car full of explosives hit the gates of the building, the emergency service said. The second bomb, which killed four others, exploded on a motorbike.
``Most of the injured are very badly hurt because of the impact of the bomb blast,'' Fiyaz Ahmed Ranjha, medical superintendent at Mayo Hospital in Lahore, said by telephone. ``The death toll could rise further.''
Cars were set ablaze and windows of nearby buildings were shattered by today's blasts, GEO television reported. The building of the Federal Investigation Agency could collapse at any time after the blast, Dawn News reported, citing police.
The country has been placed on ``high alert'' to guard against further attacks, Interior Ministry Spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told reporters in Islamabad today.
To contact the reporter on this story: Farhan Sharif, in Karachi, Pakistan at fsharif2@bloomberg.net
Source: Bloomberg.com
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- At least 24 people were killed and another 100 injured in twin bomb explosions in Pakistan's eastern city of Lahore, the government said.
``These were both suicide attacks by unknown people in cars loaded with explosives,'' Pervez Khusro, the interior secretary for Punjab province, said in a telephone interview from Lahore.
There were two bomb blasts within moments of each other, the government's emergency service said. The first explosion took place in the building of the Federal Investigation Agency, a government office, and the second blast occurred in a house in the residential area of Model Town.
It was the second attack in Lahore this month. At least four people, including two members of the navy, were killed in a twin suicide attack in the city on March 4. The number of people killed in terrorist attacks in Pakistan more than doubled to 2,116 last year, according to the interior ministry.
The Model Town neighborhood is home to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Asif Ali Zardari. The house where the explosion took place was owned by Ijaz Batalvi, Sharif's former lawyer. Batalvi's son ran an advertising company from the house.
Death Toll
``The death toll is expected to rise sharply,'' Hafiz Faisal, a spokesman for Edhi Foundation, the nation's biggest ambulance service, said on the telephone from Lahore. ``Some people died on the spot from the impact. We are still trying to recover bodies from the debris.''
The first explosion, which killed 18 people, took place when a car full of explosives hit the gates of the building, the emergency service said. The second bomb, which killed four others, exploded on a motorbike.
``Most of the injured are very badly hurt because of the impact of the bomb blast,'' Fiyaz Ahmed Ranjha, medical superintendent at Mayo Hospital in Lahore, said by telephone. ``The death toll could rise further.''
Cars were set ablaze and windows of nearby buildings were shattered by today's blasts, GEO television reported. The building of the Federal Investigation Agency could collapse at any time after the blast, Dawn News reported, citing police.
The country has been placed on ``high alert'' to guard against further attacks, Interior Ministry Spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told reporters in Islamabad today.
To contact the reporter on this story: Farhan Sharif, in Karachi, Pakistan at fsharif2@bloomberg.net
Source: Bloomberg.com
Scandal Puts Spitzer's Career in Danger
By AMY WESTFELDT
NEW YORK (AP) — Gov. Elliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal came just over a year since he stormed into the governor's office, vowing to root out corruption in New York government.
But his first year in office was pockmarked by tumult, and the latest scandal raised questions about whether he can make it through a second year.
The first-term Democrat was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet a prostitute from a call-girl business, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still going on.
Spitzer allegedly paid for the call girl to take a train from New York to Washington — a move that opened the transaction up to federal prosecution because she crossed state lines.
The governor has not been charged, and prosecutors would not comment on the case Monday. A spokesman for Spitzer said the governor has retained a large Manhattan law firm.
At a Manhattan news conference, a glassy-eyed Spitzer, his shellshocked wife Silda at his side, apologized to his family and the people of New York.
"I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong," he said. "I apologize to the public, whom I promised better."
He did not say what he was apologizing for and ignored reporters' shouted questions about whether he would resign — 14 months after he boldly proclaimed at the start of his term, "Day One, Everything Changes."
Spitzer, the 48-year-old father of three teenage girls, retreated from his Manhattan offices to his Upper East Side home. Republicans immediately called for him to quit.
"He has to step down. No one will stand with him," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican from Long Island. "I never try to take advantage or gloat over a personal tragedy. However, this is different. This is a guy who is so self-righteous, and so unforgiving."
Attention turned to the state's lieutenant governor, David Paterson, who automatically becomes governor if Spitzer quits. There was no immediate comment from Paterson, who would become New York's first black governor.
Spitzer seized the governor's office with a historic margin of victory on Jan. 1, 2007, vowing to stamp out corruption in New York government in the same way that he took on Wall Street executives with a vengeance while state attorney general.
In his previous position, Spitzer uncovered crooked practices and self-dealing in the stock brokerage and insurance industries and in corporate board rooms; he went after former New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso over his $187.5 million compensation package.
Spitzer become known as the "Sheriff of Wall Street." Time magazine named him "Crusader of the Year," and the tabloids proclaimed him "Eliot Ness." The square-jawed graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law was sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate for president.
But he apparently became embroiled last year in a financial probe by the Internal Revenue Service into a high-end prostitution ring. The investigation into the Emperors Club VIP gathered more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages, and more than 6,000 e-mails, along with bank records, travel and hotel records and surveillance.
It was unclear whether Spitzer was a target from the start or whether agents came across his name by accident while amassing evidence.
In an affidavit filed in Manhattan federal court last week, Spitzer appeared as "Client 9," according to the law enforcement official. Client 9 personally made several cell phone calls to Emperors Club VIP to arrange a Feb. 13 tryst at a Washington hotel, the official said.
Client 9 wanted a high-priced prostitute named Kristen to come to Washington on a 5:39 p.m. train from Manhattan. The door to the hotel room would be left ajar. Train tickets, cab fare, room service, and the minibar were all on him.
"Yup, same as in the past. No question about it," the caller told Kristen's boss, when asked if he would make his payment to the same business as usual, a federal affidavit said. The client paid $4,300 to Kristen, touted by the escort service as a "petite, pretty brunette," according to court papers.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noted that prostitution customers are often not charged, and said charges against Spitzer might be unlikely.
"Especially if he resigns, he may just be left alone. It may be that the public is satisfied by his resignation as governor," Tobias said.
Spitzer's term as governor has been fraught with problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear his main Republican nemesis.
It would not be the first time that a high-profile politician became ensnared in a prostitution scandal. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana acknowledged in July that his Washington phone number was among those called several years ago by an escort service.
Scandals also recently derailed neighboring Connecticut Gov. John Rowland and New Jersey's Jim McGreevey. And Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after being arrested last June in a Minneapolis airport restroom.
Spitzer's cases as attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and tourism involving prostitutes. In 2004, he took part in an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.
Associated Press Writers Larry Neumeister in New York, Michael Gormley in Albany and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.
Source: AP Associated news
NEW YORK (AP) — Gov. Elliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal came just over a year since he stormed into the governor's office, vowing to root out corruption in New York government.
But his first year in office was pockmarked by tumult, and the latest scandal raised questions about whether he can make it through a second year.
The first-term Democrat was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet a prostitute from a call-girl business, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still going on.
Spitzer allegedly paid for the call girl to take a train from New York to Washington — a move that opened the transaction up to federal prosecution because she crossed state lines.
The governor has not been charged, and prosecutors would not comment on the case Monday. A spokesman for Spitzer said the governor has retained a large Manhattan law firm.
At a Manhattan news conference, a glassy-eyed Spitzer, his shellshocked wife Silda at his side, apologized to his family and the people of New York.
"I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong," he said. "I apologize to the public, whom I promised better."
He did not say what he was apologizing for and ignored reporters' shouted questions about whether he would resign — 14 months after he boldly proclaimed at the start of his term, "Day One, Everything Changes."
Spitzer, the 48-year-old father of three teenage girls, retreated from his Manhattan offices to his Upper East Side home. Republicans immediately called for him to quit.
"He has to step down. No one will stand with him," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican from Long Island. "I never try to take advantage or gloat over a personal tragedy. However, this is different. This is a guy who is so self-righteous, and so unforgiving."
Attention turned to the state's lieutenant governor, David Paterson, who automatically becomes governor if Spitzer quits. There was no immediate comment from Paterson, who would become New York's first black governor.
Spitzer seized the governor's office with a historic margin of victory on Jan. 1, 2007, vowing to stamp out corruption in New York government in the same way that he took on Wall Street executives with a vengeance while state attorney general.
In his previous position, Spitzer uncovered crooked practices and self-dealing in the stock brokerage and insurance industries and in corporate board rooms; he went after former New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso over his $187.5 million compensation package.
Spitzer become known as the "Sheriff of Wall Street." Time magazine named him "Crusader of the Year," and the tabloids proclaimed him "Eliot Ness." The square-jawed graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law was sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate for president.
But he apparently became embroiled last year in a financial probe by the Internal Revenue Service into a high-end prostitution ring. The investigation into the Emperors Club VIP gathered more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages, and more than 6,000 e-mails, along with bank records, travel and hotel records and surveillance.
It was unclear whether Spitzer was a target from the start or whether agents came across his name by accident while amassing evidence.
In an affidavit filed in Manhattan federal court last week, Spitzer appeared as "Client 9," according to the law enforcement official. Client 9 personally made several cell phone calls to Emperors Club VIP to arrange a Feb. 13 tryst at a Washington hotel, the official said.
Client 9 wanted a high-priced prostitute named Kristen to come to Washington on a 5:39 p.m. train from Manhattan. The door to the hotel room would be left ajar. Train tickets, cab fare, room service, and the minibar were all on him.
"Yup, same as in the past. No question about it," the caller told Kristen's boss, when asked if he would make his payment to the same business as usual, a federal affidavit said. The client paid $4,300 to Kristen, touted by the escort service as a "petite, pretty brunette," according to court papers.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noted that prostitution customers are often not charged, and said charges against Spitzer might be unlikely.
"Especially if he resigns, he may just be left alone. It may be that the public is satisfied by his resignation as governor," Tobias said.
Spitzer's term as governor has been fraught with problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear his main Republican nemesis.
It would not be the first time that a high-profile politician became ensnared in a prostitution scandal. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana acknowledged in July that his Washington phone number was among those called several years ago by an escort service.
Scandals also recently derailed neighboring Connecticut Gov. John Rowland and New Jersey's Jim McGreevey. And Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after being arrested last June in a Minneapolis airport restroom.
Spitzer's cases as attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and tourism involving prostitutes. In 2004, he took part in an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.
Associated Press Writers Larry Neumeister in New York, Michael Gormley in Albany and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.
Source: AP Associated news
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Gay-marriage foes face tough questions from California high court
By Mike Swift and Howard MintzMercury News
The California Supreme Court heard three hours of legal arguments today over a constitutional challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Here's the latest update from the courthouse.
12:45 p.m.: Justices probe opponents' tradition, purpose-of-marriage arguments
A group of lawyers arguing to continue the current system received some tough questioning from the justices, particularly Moreno, George and Kennard.
Christopher E. Krueger, of the state attorney general's office, argued that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples, in part because it has an interest in preserving that traditional definition.
"This is a definition of marriage that has proven durable for the state," Krueger told the justices. "It's not just any line that was drawn here."
Krueger's argument, however, immediately ran into pointed questioning from Justice Joyce Kennard, who wanted to know why earlier "traditional definitions of marriage that prohibited people of different races from marrying, or defined a wife as the property of her husband" shouldn't similarly be allowed to stand, simply because they were traditional.
Krueger countered that California's law prohibiting interracial marriage, struck down by the California Supreme Court in 1946, "was specifically only for the invidious purpose of racial discrimination. Here, yes it is a distinction that same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same kind of exclusional statute."
In making that statement, Krueger sparked questions from the justices about whether California's prohibition of gay marriage was a version of the "separate but equal" segregated public schools struck down by U.S. Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Referring to the difference between domestic partnership and marriage, Justice Moreno asked Krueger, if he was "saying that separate is equal here?"
"There are parallel institutions," Krueger began.
"But that separate is equal?" Moreno persisted.
"Here there is equality."
"And what distinguishes this," from laws that prohibited interracial marriage "is that there's no animus against gays and lesbians?"
"There's no animus."
"That that didn't motivate the creation of the law?" Moreno asked, doubt in his voice.
"It's not just that there's a lack of animus," Krueger said, arguing that the original conception of marriage couldn't have included hatred of homosexuals because no one could foresee such a thing as gay marriage so far in the past.
"Intimate relations between same-sex couples have been around for centuries, if not for thousands of years, is that correct? Does anybody dispute that?" Moreno said.
"It's pretty plain that when the marriage laws were created, when they were taken into our culture . . . they knew what marriage was," Krueger said.
Glen Lavy, a lawyer representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund, told the justices that they did not have the authority to define marriage outside of the legislative process.
"At most this Court could say the marriage laws are unconstitutional," Lavy told the justices. "I don't think this court has the constitutional authority to rewrite the laws."
Another lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage, Mathew D. Staver of the Campaign for California Families said the state has a compelling interest in protecting heterosexual marriage - the procreation of children.
Same-sex marriage "would undermine opposite-sex marriage . . . it would lose its meaning. . . . it would create a new system that is no longer recognizable as marriage," Staver said.
But when Staver said that children do best when raised by their biological parents, he drew an immediate rejoinder from Chief Justice George.
"Do you mean adoptive parents are not as adept at raising their children?" a visibly dubious George asked.
10:20 a.m.: Justices begin questioning attorneys right from the start:
Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, was the first lawyer to present her arguments in the case, but the justices jumped in with questions less than a minute after she began speaking.
Stewart argued that domestic partnership and marriage are not exact legal equivalents, and that there is no constitutional justification to exclude lesbians and gay men from exactly sharing those rights.
But almost immediately, Stewart faced pointed questioning from Chief Justice Ronald M. George and all six other justices. The justices conceded the point that society's view of marriage is evolving. But Justice Carol Corrigan, referring to the state's vote in Proposition 22 in 2000, that limited marriage to a man and a woman, questioned why the Supreme Court should overrule the people's decision.
"Who decides where we are as California in this evolution of our understanding - of marriage? Is it for this Court to decide, or is it for the people of California to decide?"
Stewart answered that is the Supreme Court's responsibility to critically judge the Constitutionality of laws - whether they are passed by the Legislature or by initiative.
"The Court doesn't leave decisions like that to the political process," Stewart answered.
"We have raised the issue today," Stewart told the justices, responding to questions from Justices Marvin Baxter and Kathryn Werdegar about why the Court should be compelled to consider the moving forward that evolution of the legal definition of marriage now.
"The state has to look at the standards of equality that exist in contemporary society."
One line of questioning the justices followed was to ask if by enacting domestic partnership, and bestowing virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage on same-sex partnerships, had the state opened itself to the possibility that there is no legal reason not to bestow the exact same rights on gay couples.
Stewart argued, and the justices appeared inclined to agree, that marriage was more than "a bundle of rights," but a status and identity bestowed by society.
"Hasn't this boiled down to the use of the 'M word' - marriage?" asked Justice Carlos Moreno.
"Words matter; names matter," Stewart said.
As the Justices continued their questioning of the next lawyer arguing for the plaintiffs, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, they grappled with some of the most basic questions about sexuality and marriage:
Is sexual orientation an immutable characteristic, like race or gender? Is sexual orientation a form of gender discrimination, or are these two concepts different? Have gay people always had the abstract right to marry, but were those rights simply not recognized by the institutions of government? And what is marriage, anyway?
8:55 a.m.: Crowd of supporters and opponents gathers
Vocal advocates on both sides of the gay marriage issue had already claimed the curb outside the California Supreme Court building more than an hour before arguments began, with signs like "Re-Criminalize Sodomy" dueling with "Stop Using Jesus to Promote Hatred."
Media attention was strong, with the Supreme Court getting credential requests from more than 30 media outlets, including CNN and U.S. News and World Report.
Victor Choban, who drove from Sacramento to protest against the possibility of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples, noted that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans just two days before the city was to hold a gay pride parade.
"I believe the Bible, that God condemns homosexuality," Choban said. "This nation is going down morally and God's judgment is very close."
In New Orleans, "God swept the streets clean," Choban said. "We're here to warn the people of San Francisco."
At the entrance to the Supreme Court building, gay marriage protester Luke Otterstad of Placerville debated what Thomas Jefferson's position on same-sex couples with Kerry Coles of San Franciso, who held up a sign saying, "Your religion is not my government."
"I'm out here so there isn't just a one-sided argument," Coles said. "It's not just about being a gay man, it's about equality, and having the same rights as any other citizen in the United States."
6 a.m.: Lawyers, advocates, opponents ready for gay marriage hearing
In a long-awaited showdown, the seven justices of the state's high court will review a divided 2006 state appeals court ruling that upheld California laws restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
During today's hearing in San Francisco, the Supreme Court will hear from civil rights lawyers for gay couples who argue that the same-sex marriage ban violates their equal protection rights because they do not get the same treatment as heterosexual couples. The San Francisco city attorney's office, led by chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart, will also argue in favor of gay marriage.
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will lead the state's defense of the current law, arguing that gay couples already essentially enjoy equal treatment because of California's strong domestic partners law.
In addition, conservative organizations opposed to same-sex marriage will argue that traditional marriage would be undermined if California permits gay couples to wed. Lawyers for those groups, led by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, insist that marriage is meant to foster procreation and therefore must be limited to heterosexual couples.
The justices have 90 days from today's arguments to rule in the case, and they typically take most or all of that time when addressing hot-button issues.
Source: MercuryNews.com
The California Supreme Court heard three hours of legal arguments today over a constitutional challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Here's the latest update from the courthouse.
12:45 p.m.: Justices probe opponents' tradition, purpose-of-marriage arguments
A group of lawyers arguing to continue the current system received some tough questioning from the justices, particularly Moreno, George and Kennard.
Christopher E. Krueger, of the state attorney general's office, argued that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples, in part because it has an interest in preserving that traditional definition.
"This is a definition of marriage that has proven durable for the state," Krueger told the justices. "It's not just any line that was drawn here."
Krueger's argument, however, immediately ran into pointed questioning from Justice Joyce Kennard, who wanted to know why earlier "traditional definitions of marriage that prohibited people of different races from marrying, or defined a wife as the property of her husband" shouldn't similarly be allowed to stand, simply because they were traditional.
Krueger countered that California's law prohibiting interracial marriage, struck down by the California Supreme Court in 1946, "was specifically only for the invidious purpose of racial discrimination. Here, yes it is a distinction that same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same kind of exclusional statute."
In making that statement, Krueger sparked questions from the justices about whether California's prohibition of gay marriage was a version of the "separate but equal" segregated public schools struck down by U.S. Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Referring to the difference between domestic partnership and marriage, Justice Moreno asked Krueger, if he was "saying that separate is equal here?"
"There are parallel institutions," Krueger began.
"But that separate is equal?" Moreno persisted.
"Here there is equality."
"And what distinguishes this," from laws that prohibited interracial marriage "is that there's no animus against gays and lesbians?"
"There's no animus."
"That that didn't motivate the creation of the law?" Moreno asked, doubt in his voice.
"It's not just that there's a lack of animus," Krueger said, arguing that the original conception of marriage couldn't have included hatred of homosexuals because no one could foresee such a thing as gay marriage so far in the past.
"Intimate relations between same-sex couples have been around for centuries, if not for thousands of years, is that correct? Does anybody dispute that?" Moreno said.
"It's pretty plain that when the marriage laws were created, when they were taken into our culture . . . they knew what marriage was," Krueger said.
Glen Lavy, a lawyer representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund, told the justices that they did not have the authority to define marriage outside of the legislative process.
"At most this Court could say the marriage laws are unconstitutional," Lavy told the justices. "I don't think this court has the constitutional authority to rewrite the laws."
Another lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage, Mathew D. Staver of the Campaign for California Families said the state has a compelling interest in protecting heterosexual marriage - the procreation of children.
Same-sex marriage "would undermine opposite-sex marriage . . . it would lose its meaning. . . . it would create a new system that is no longer recognizable as marriage," Staver said.
But when Staver said that children do best when raised by their biological parents, he drew an immediate rejoinder from Chief Justice George.
"Do you mean adoptive parents are not as adept at raising their children?" a visibly dubious George asked.
10:20 a.m.: Justices begin questioning attorneys right from the start:
Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, was the first lawyer to present her arguments in the case, but the justices jumped in with questions less than a minute after she began speaking.
Stewart argued that domestic partnership and marriage are not exact legal equivalents, and that there is no constitutional justification to exclude lesbians and gay men from exactly sharing those rights.
But almost immediately, Stewart faced pointed questioning from Chief Justice Ronald M. George and all six other justices. The justices conceded the point that society's view of marriage is evolving. But Justice Carol Corrigan, referring to the state's vote in Proposition 22 in 2000, that limited marriage to a man and a woman, questioned why the Supreme Court should overrule the people's decision.
"Who decides where we are as California in this evolution of our understanding - of marriage? Is it for this Court to decide, or is it for the people of California to decide?"
Stewart answered that is the Supreme Court's responsibility to critically judge the Constitutionality of laws - whether they are passed by the Legislature or by initiative.
"The Court doesn't leave decisions like that to the political process," Stewart answered.
"We have raised the issue today," Stewart told the justices, responding to questions from Justices Marvin Baxter and Kathryn Werdegar about why the Court should be compelled to consider the moving forward that evolution of the legal definition of marriage now.
"The state has to look at the standards of equality that exist in contemporary society."
One line of questioning the justices followed was to ask if by enacting domestic partnership, and bestowing virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage on same-sex partnerships, had the state opened itself to the possibility that there is no legal reason not to bestow the exact same rights on gay couples.
Stewart argued, and the justices appeared inclined to agree, that marriage was more than "a bundle of rights," but a status and identity bestowed by society.
"Hasn't this boiled down to the use of the 'M word' - marriage?" asked Justice Carlos Moreno.
"Words matter; names matter," Stewart said.
As the Justices continued their questioning of the next lawyer arguing for the plaintiffs, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, they grappled with some of the most basic questions about sexuality and marriage:
Is sexual orientation an immutable characteristic, like race or gender? Is sexual orientation a form of gender discrimination, or are these two concepts different? Have gay people always had the abstract right to marry, but were those rights simply not recognized by the institutions of government? And what is marriage, anyway?
8:55 a.m.: Crowd of supporters and opponents gathers
Vocal advocates on both sides of the gay marriage issue had already claimed the curb outside the California Supreme Court building more than an hour before arguments began, with signs like "Re-Criminalize Sodomy" dueling with "Stop Using Jesus to Promote Hatred."
Media attention was strong, with the Supreme Court getting credential requests from more than 30 media outlets, including CNN and U.S. News and World Report.
Victor Choban, who drove from Sacramento to protest against the possibility of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples, noted that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans just two days before the city was to hold a gay pride parade.
"I believe the Bible, that God condemns homosexuality," Choban said. "This nation is going down morally and God's judgment is very close."
In New Orleans, "God swept the streets clean," Choban said. "We're here to warn the people of San Francisco."
At the entrance to the Supreme Court building, gay marriage protester Luke Otterstad of Placerville debated what Thomas Jefferson's position on same-sex couples with Kerry Coles of San Franciso, who held up a sign saying, "Your religion is not my government."
"I'm out here so there isn't just a one-sided argument," Coles said. "It's not just about being a gay man, it's about equality, and having the same rights as any other citizen in the United States."
6 a.m.: Lawyers, advocates, opponents ready for gay marriage hearing
In a long-awaited showdown, the seven justices of the state's high court will review a divided 2006 state appeals court ruling that upheld California laws restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
During today's hearing in San Francisco, the Supreme Court will hear from civil rights lawyers for gay couples who argue that the same-sex marriage ban violates their equal protection rights because they do not get the same treatment as heterosexual couples. The San Francisco city attorney's office, led by chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart, will also argue in favor of gay marriage.
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will lead the state's defense of the current law, arguing that gay couples already essentially enjoy equal treatment because of California's strong domestic partners law.
In addition, conservative organizations opposed to same-sex marriage will argue that traditional marriage would be undermined if California permits gay couples to wed. Lawyers for those groups, led by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, insist that marriage is meant to foster procreation and therefore must be limited to heterosexual couples.
The justices have 90 days from today's arguments to rule in the case, and they typically take most or all of that time when addressing hot-button issues.
Source: MercuryNews.com
Lies, Damned Lies and Memoirs
by Patt Morrison
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on … who? The author, and who else? Publishers? Readers?
Margaret Jones, white/native American foster child growing up with black family amid gangbangers in South LA, pens acclaimed memoir. Now she’s outed as a fake – not just any fake, but Margaret Seltzer, a privately schooled white girl from Sherman Oaks, who, as ``Jones,’’ even gave broadcast interviews about her book in tough-girl cadences.
Been there, done that, homegirl. Twenty-five years ago, East LA homeboy Danny Santiago wrote his own story, a novel called ``Famous All Over Town,’’ about his get-down life running with the wild boys. It was a very good book. It won awards; it was part of a song lyric; it was required reading in schools, literature from a real East LA life.
And it too, was fake. Danny Santiago was Daniel James, a once-blacklisted screenwriter who had worked on the Chaplin tour de force, ``The Great Dictator.’’ He had also done social work in the 1950s and ‘60s among Latinos, which is how he knew something of what he wrote. Margaret Seltzer says she did her research by listening to friends’ stories, and tapping out her book sitting among Black Panthers and just regular kids at a Starbucks in South LA.
Both authors were outed – Seltzer, after the glowing reviews for ``Love and Consequences’’ started coming out but before her book tour was to begin this week, but James, not for a long while, not until the novel had won awards and been acclaimed as an authentic new Latino voice.
We expect actors to make us think he is someone or something else. We don’t mind when female novelists write feelingly about male characters, and vice versa. Old writers create touching young characters, and sometimes vice versa. But we know the author’s age, and gender, and that it’s a novel we’re reading.
Only the memoir that sets itself and us up for hopes and disappointment. Would ‘’Love and Consequences’’ have been published and praised if it had been called a novel? Especially one written by a privileged white woman? Does our hunger for ‘’true stories’’ feed this phony memoir machine?
The judges who gave ‘’Famous’’ a literary prize were to have considered only literary merit, but supposedly admitted that if they’d known the author was an old white guy and not a young Latino, they might have had second thoughts.
What’s the difference? And why does it matter to us?
You tell me.
Source: OPINION L.A
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on … who? The author, and who else? Publishers? Readers?
Margaret Jones, white/native American foster child growing up with black family amid gangbangers in South LA, pens acclaimed memoir. Now she’s outed as a fake – not just any fake, but Margaret Seltzer, a privately schooled white girl from Sherman Oaks, who, as ``Jones,’’ even gave broadcast interviews about her book in tough-girl cadences.
Been there, done that, homegirl. Twenty-five years ago, East LA homeboy Danny Santiago wrote his own story, a novel called ``Famous All Over Town,’’ about his get-down life running with the wild boys. It was a very good book. It won awards; it was part of a song lyric; it was required reading in schools, literature from a real East LA life.
And it too, was fake. Danny Santiago was Daniel James, a once-blacklisted screenwriter who had worked on the Chaplin tour de force, ``The Great Dictator.’’ He had also done social work in the 1950s and ‘60s among Latinos, which is how he knew something of what he wrote. Margaret Seltzer says she did her research by listening to friends’ stories, and tapping out her book sitting among Black Panthers and just regular kids at a Starbucks in South LA.
Both authors were outed – Seltzer, after the glowing reviews for ``Love and Consequences’’ started coming out but before her book tour was to begin this week, but James, not for a long while, not until the novel had won awards and been acclaimed as an authentic new Latino voice.
We expect actors to make us think he is someone or something else. We don’t mind when female novelists write feelingly about male characters, and vice versa. Old writers create touching young characters, and sometimes vice versa. But we know the author’s age, and gender, and that it’s a novel we’re reading.
Only the memoir that sets itself and us up for hopes and disappointment. Would ‘’Love and Consequences’’ have been published and praised if it had been called a novel? Especially one written by a privileged white woman? Does our hunger for ‘’true stories’’ feed this phony memoir machine?
The judges who gave ‘’Famous’’ a literary prize were to have considered only literary merit, but supposedly admitted that if they’d known the author was an old white guy and not a young Latino, they might have had second thoughts.
What’s the difference? And why does it matter to us?
You tell me.
Source: OPINION L.A
Dannielynn Named Anna Nicole's Sole Heir
By Natalie Finn
Dannielynn Hope Marshall Birkhead has been handed the keys to the castle.
Larry Birkhead's 18-month-old daughter with Anna Nicole Smith was declared the sole beneficiary to the late model's estate Tuesday, after a Los Angeles judge approved Howard K. Stern's petition to clarify his departed paramour's earthly intentions.
"We and Mr. Stern always believed that Anna Nicole never intended to disinherit her daughter," Stern's attorney, Bruce S. Ross, said after court Tuesday. "I'm pleased to say this chapter in the saga is closed."
L.A. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff's ruling also establishes a trust on Dannielynn's behalf, with her father and Stern serving as cotrustees.
(View the documents.)
The once litigious pair were not present in court, but Ross said that neither had any particular disagreement as far as Dannielynn's financial future was concerned. DNA confirmed that Birkhead is Dannielynn's biological father about two months after Smith's death.
Smith's assets at the time of her passing were estimated at $710,000, but Tuesday's ruling leaves Dannielynn poised to inherit millions if the decade-plus legal battle between Smith (and now Smith's estate) and the family of her late husband, billionaire oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, turns in her favor.
Marshall, who was 90 and had been married to Smith for 14 months when he died in 1995, left most of his fortune to his widow, a decision his family has been raging against ever since.
Stern filed papers Oct. 18 seeking to having Dannielynn singled out as Smith's heir, presuming the former Playboy Playmate would have certainly provided for her daughter had she drawn up a more recent will.
Smith died Feb. 8, 2007, of an accidental prescription drug overdose in Hollywood, Florida. She was 39.
The will filed in probate court was made out in 2001 and named Smith's son, Daniel, who died several days after Dannielynn's birth in September 2006, as the sole heir. The document also said, however, that the assets in Daniel's trust should be divided equally among any siblings if Smith had other children.
"As a matter of law, Dannielynn is a pretermitted heir," Stern's petition stated, meaning she was an accidental omission, or someone who likely would have been named in the will except for the fact that the person drawing up the will didn't know her at the time.
An ongoing inquest into Daniel's death is scheduled to resume Mar. 17 in the Bahamas. Birkhead and Stern are expected to be called to testify about his close relationship with his mother and the days leading up to the 20-year-old's death, also of an accidental Rx overdose.
Source: E News
Dannielynn Hope Marshall Birkhead has been handed the keys to the castle.
Larry Birkhead's 18-month-old daughter with Anna Nicole Smith was declared the sole beneficiary to the late model's estate Tuesday, after a Los Angeles judge approved Howard K. Stern's petition to clarify his departed paramour's earthly intentions.
"We and Mr. Stern always believed that Anna Nicole never intended to disinherit her daughter," Stern's attorney, Bruce S. Ross, said after court Tuesday. "I'm pleased to say this chapter in the saga is closed."
L.A. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff's ruling also establishes a trust on Dannielynn's behalf, with her father and Stern serving as cotrustees.
(View the documents.)
The once litigious pair were not present in court, but Ross said that neither had any particular disagreement as far as Dannielynn's financial future was concerned. DNA confirmed that Birkhead is Dannielynn's biological father about two months after Smith's death.
Smith's assets at the time of her passing were estimated at $710,000, but Tuesday's ruling leaves Dannielynn poised to inherit millions if the decade-plus legal battle between Smith (and now Smith's estate) and the family of her late husband, billionaire oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, turns in her favor.
Marshall, who was 90 and had been married to Smith for 14 months when he died in 1995, left most of his fortune to his widow, a decision his family has been raging against ever since.
Stern filed papers Oct. 18 seeking to having Dannielynn singled out as Smith's heir, presuming the former Playboy Playmate would have certainly provided for her daughter had she drawn up a more recent will.
Smith died Feb. 8, 2007, of an accidental prescription drug overdose in Hollywood, Florida. She was 39.
The will filed in probate court was made out in 2001 and named Smith's son, Daniel, who died several days after Dannielynn's birth in September 2006, as the sole heir. The document also said, however, that the assets in Daniel's trust should be divided equally among any siblings if Smith had other children.
"As a matter of law, Dannielynn is a pretermitted heir," Stern's petition stated, meaning she was an accidental omission, or someone who likely would have been named in the will except for the fact that the person drawing up the will didn't know her at the time.
An ongoing inquest into Daniel's death is scheduled to resume Mar. 17 in the Bahamas. Birkhead and Stern are expected to be called to testify about his close relationship with his mother and the days leading up to the 20-year-old's death, also of an accidental Rx overdose.
Source: E News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
