The Supreme Court today ruled a domestic violence victim's responses to questions posed by a 911 operator are admissible at trial if the victim doesn't testify because they were made during the crime and for the purpose of assessing whether there was an emergency. As such, the Court ruled they were not "testimonial." Because they are not "testimonial", the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront witnesses does not preclude their admission. At least that's what I gleaned from a quick read of the opinion.

From the Supreme Court opinion (pdf):

Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Update: Howard Bashman has a complete rundown with links to all of today's opinions and see Scotus Blog for their excellent commentary.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq, has claimed on its website it is holding the two U.S. soldiers who have been missing since an attack Friday at a checkpoint in Yusufiya, about 30 miles south of Baghdad.

The statement said, "the strongest army in the world is turned around, ashamed of their failure [to find the soldiers] and we will give you more information on the incident in the following days."

The military has identified the missing soldiers as Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas.

No video has been posted on the website and the group's claim has not been verified.

by TChris

The police say Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy "approached the scene and involved himself in the investigation" of a couple who were arguing outside a bar owned by Healy's sister.

Officers warned Mr. Healy that his involvement would get him arrested, but he repeatedly intervened, according to the statement. He was handcuffed, taken to police headquarters and charged with one count each of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the statement said.

Why would Healy interfere with a police investigation? His account of the eventful evening differs sharply from the police report.

by TChris

An evangelical Christian, Randall Balmer, takes a thoughtful look at the relationship between evangelical Christianity and the Republican party. Among other questions raised in his essay, Jesus Is Not a Republican, Balmer asks why the religious right hasn't taken a stand against the Bush administration's reliance on torture.

Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.

I was wrong. Of the eight religious-right organizations I contacted, only two, the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, answered my query. Both were eager to defend administration policies.

Balmer's conception of Christianity differs from that promoted by right-wing evangelists.

As President Bush flew off on his cheerleading trip to Iraq last week, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq sent a cable with some very distressing information about problems employees are facing. The Washington Post published a copy of June 16 cable.

John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" sentenced to 20 years is doing his time at Victorville Prison under the most severe restrictions.

In the new issue of Esquire, Tom Junod pens a very long portrait of Lindh, from his conversion to Islam through his capture, court case and now, his jail sentence.

Very bad news from Iraq. The AP reports that a farmer in Iraq witnessed the kidnapping of two U.S. soldiers missing from Yusufiyah, a mostly Sunni town about ten miles south of Baghdad.

The White House promised to do everything it could to find the soldiers and said it had a message for anybody who may have taken the two men: "Give them back."

Gunmen, meanwhile, kidnapped 10 bakery workers in Baghdad, and a mortar attack killed four people in the capital. Police also found 17 bodies around the city, including four women and a teenager handcuffed and shot in the head - apparently the latest victims of sectarian death squads.

It has been more than two years since a U.S. soldier has been kidnapped in Iraq.

Observer reporter David Rose was en route to Guantanamo when the suicides occurred and the Pentagon cancelled his pass. He has a very powerful article on what happened and what might have happened.

Here are some snippets from Rose's report:

Newsweek has a new detailed analysis of the Duke lacrosse players' alleged rape case, asking whether it has collapsed. The facts revealed to date don't seem to support the charges. But DA Nifong is sticking to his guns:

Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

There's a good editorial in the Des Moines Register on our vanishing privacy rights:

President Bush dismisses the privacy implications of this government spying by calling it a "terrorist surveillance program." That suggests only those guilty of something are affected. But there's no way to know for sure in advance of a search that the party is guilty of anything. Besides, that makes a mockery of the American system of criminal justice, which contains elaborate safeguards that protect even the guilty from unconstitutional searches.

Even if government spying is intended to be directed only at criminal or terrorist plots, there is no way to guard against abuses when the process is done in total secrecy and there are no checks by either Congress or the courts.

Is this enough to make you sick, or what? I take it with a grain of salt, since Joe DiGenova seems to be the one pushing it.

To put this out in the media through DiGenova now, Team Libby (the p.r. team, not the lawyers) is either testing the waters or hoping to demoralize Team Fitz by making them wonder if Libby's prosecution is all for naught.

One thing I agree with: If the Dems take the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections, a pardon before his last day in office may be too dangerous for Bush -- it could have severe adverse consequences for the Republicans in 2008.

If you have any doubts about DiGenova's rooting for Libby, check out Libby's website, which touts these quotes by DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing:

As if it's not bad enough that at least one of the Guantanamo detainees who committed suicide last week didn't know he had been cleared for release, now we find out some of them didn't even know they had lawyers.

The Yemeni captive who killed himself at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had an attorney arranging to visit him in August, but did not know it when he committed suicide. One of the Saudis, Mani Shaman al Utaybi, 30, had been approved for transfer to a jail back home, but also had never been told he was cleared to depart the U.S. detention center.

The military first maintained the men who hanged themselves did not have lawyers.