Amanda Across America visits Atrios in Philly.

It's over in the House. They voted today, 253-168, to pass Bush's military commission bill. It's expected to pass the Senate tomorrow.

The mostly party-line 253-168 vote in the Republican-run House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.

Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

What a blow for due process and justice. Shame on all who voted for it.

I don't want Jeanine Pirro to win the election for New York Attorney General, but I'm sorry to see her personal life splashed all over the papers. This is really sordid. I also don't wish a federal investigation on anyone, especially over marital problems.

Shorter version: Pirro asked Bernie Kerik to bug her husband to find out about his mistress. This is the same husband who went to jail a few years ago for tax evasion, where Jeanine wasn't indicted because she had innocent spouse status even though she signed the return. The feds were tapping Bernie in 2005 on an unrelated matter and they caught his coversations with Jeanine. Now she's under investigation.

There are two horrible provisions in the military commissions bill. One would grant amnesty to Bush administration officials who authorized the use of torture techniques. The other would eliminate habeas for detainees.

While we've all focused a lot on the habeas provision, Sen. Dick Durbin points out in this long statement he delivered today in the Senate that the torture amnesty provision is not receiving nearly enough attention.

In the pants on fire department, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she doesn't recall seeing this memo from Richard Clarke in January, 2001, describing the severity of the al-Qaeda threat.

In it, Clarke advocates for a principal level review of Al Qaeda threat, calling Al Qaeda "not some narrow, little terrorist issue" but a "transnational challenge."

Update: Hillary weighs in on Condi issue.

Update: The hostage who was shot has died. She was 16 and her name was Emily Keyes. The gunman killed himself. The question now is why did the cops rush in?

Update: It's over. The gunman's dead.

*******
Is this Columbine redux?

One person has been brought out on a gurney at the scene of a hostage standoff at a high school in Bailey. Two girls were being held by a gunman there. Jefferson County spokesperson Jackie Kelley said the parents of the two students being held have not yet been notified.

"We have almost no information on this suspect," she said. We don't know who he is or what he wants."

Columbine expert and author Dave Cullen is following events closely and made a google map. This is in a county close to Jefferson where Columbine is situated, but here's the key difference: The perp is reported to be a parent, not a student:

The ACLU puts the lie to Republican spin on S. 2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (Received by e-mail, it's not up on their website yet, so I don't have a link.)

First, the background:

On Monday, Senator John Sununu (R-NJ) distributed a press release heralding an .agreement reached between the White House and Senators Larry Craig (R-ID), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and himself on S. 2453, the National Security Surveillance Act. These three senators had previously raised concerns about legislation on the NSA warrantless surveillance program.

In his release, Senator Sununu said the bill, "protects the rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution." Nothing could be further from the truth - the bill would authorize what the president has admitted and then some-- more wiretapping of Americans without court oversight of individual wiretaps than has ever been approved in US history. The press release goes on to spin three areas in which the new bill is a supposed win.

Here is the ACLU's breakdown of the Republican rhetoric and the reality of what the bill would do:

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

WaPo columnist David Ignatius pens a column entitled The Big Question the Dems are Ducking:

This should be the Democrats' moment, if they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country. But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next. They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls out its troops. Alas, that is not the case. That is the problem with Iraq -- it is not an easy mistake to fix.

Here is David Ignatius' problem, his support for the Iraq Debacle in 2003:

My own gut tells me that this is a war worth fighting. But I'm bothered that America still hasn't had the kind of broad national debate that would provide a solid foundation of public support for sending U.S. troops into battle.

No credibility. More on the flip.

Christy at Firedoglake is following the CIPA/Graymail hearing in Scooter Libby's case today.

BREAKING: Suspicious package found at Federal courthouse where Libby hearing was to have been held this morning. MSNBC reports that Fitz had arrived for the hearing along with his team, and they were all evacuated outside the building along with everyone else. Judges have been moved to the federal courthouse across the street. Team Libby had not yet arrived. The hearing will clearly be delayed, if not rescheduled altogether. More as I get it.

The Military Commissions bill must be rejected. There is no reason Congress has to pass it before it adjourns. Here is a sign-on letter for you to fax to your Senator. Some of the language is taken from a letter that 13 groups sent to Sen. McCain this weekend urging him to clarify ambiguities in the War Crimes definitions, but this letter addresses the overall bill and urges Members to vote "no" on final passage.

Please, flood your Senators' offices with objections to the bill moving forward.

Dear Senator:

We are writing to strongly encourage you to reject the "compromise" Military Commissions Act of 2006 and to vote no on final passage of the bill. More than anything else, the bill compromises America's commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

For the last five years the United States has repeatedly operated in a manner that betrays our nation's commitment to law. The US has held prisoners in secret prisons without any due process or even access to the Red Cross and has placed other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in a transparent effort to avoid judicial oversight and the application of US treaty obligations.

There's a federal terrorism trial going on in Albany, NY I've written about a few times. It is US v. Aref, which came about as a result of an FBI sting involving Yassin M. Aref and Mohammed M. Hossain, two members of an Albany mosque.

Prior to trial there were issues of warrantless NSA electronic surveillance. From a defense motion:

"The government engaged in illegal electronic surveillance of thousands of U.S. persons, including Yassin Aref, then instigated a sting operation to attempt to entrap Mr. Aref into supporting a nonexistent terrorist plot, then dared to claim that the illegal NSA operation was justified because it was the only way to catch Mr. Aref."

Fast-forward to today, the Government is about to call its final witness, a so-called terrorism expert named Evan F. Kohlmann. The Government's initial expert became unavailable so it hired Kohlman as a last-minute substitution.

by TChris

Fearful of being labeled "soft on terror," Senate Democrats continue to be timid in their opposition to the president's plan to give detainees sham trials before military tribunals. They need to wake up. Recent Republican changes in the bill endanger the rights of everyone.

The current definition of "enemy combatant," to whom the law would apply, broadens its reach from those who "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to those who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Material support is a vague concept that can be, and has been, applied to lawyers and interpreters assisting clients. Should lawyers who are United States citizens, acting within the boundaries of the United States and plainly protected by the Constitution, be subjected to trials before a military tribunal rather than a criminal court?

Another change undermines the meager progress that Republicans made to improve the bill. To avoid trials based on secret evidence, the bill gave suspects the right to "examine and respond to" the evidence. The latest version drops the word "examine," leaving suspects with the useless right to respond to evidence they aren't permitted to see.