Now this is an interesting piece of dirty gossip from the DNC.

From the New York Post's Page Six:

WE HEAR....THAT the DNC made Al-Jazeera take down its banner at the Fleet Center even though the Arab TV network is broadcasting 90 minutes of coverage a night to viewers in the Middle East, more than any of the big American networks.

DNC Makes Al-Jazeera remove banner

Although I'm not a major advocate of the government, something about this troubles me. The 9/11 report is not the word of god. Please, let the lawmakers weight the pros and cons of each recommendation without feeling like a gun is being put to their head.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sept. 11 families to create watchdog list
By DEVLIN BARRETT
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Families of Sept. 11 victims vowed today to keep a "watchdog" list of any members of Congress who oppose legislation implementing changes recommended by the 9/11 commission.

The Family Steering Committee, composed of activist families who forced the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks, now plans to adopt a new strategy to advance its agenda, including a list of lawmakers' positions on Sept. 11-related legislation.

"We're going to watch events unfold in Congress, and we want America to watch as well," said Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband at the World Trade Center and is a member of the committee.

"We need to have a list of the lawmakers ... We need to follow who's opposing and disagreeing and why," she said.

Talk of listing contrary members of Congress comes even before legislation has been offered to implement the recommendations — a sign of how intent some Sept. 11 families are to maintain the momentum of public opinion on the issue and see change come quickly.

"This watchdog list, this report card, it's a shame that it's come to this, but we want to work with everyone to ensure that people aren't just feigning cooperation," said Kristen Breitweiser, who has become perhaps the most visible advocate among outspoken Sept. 11 families.

The commission released its final report last week urging major, rapid changes in how the legislative and executive branches of government oversee the nation's intelligence apparatus, consolidating oversight into one group of lawmakers, and one person in the White House who answers directly to the president.

The families' efforts come at an extremely sensitive time for both political parties.

Democrats and Republicans are vying to portray themselves as best-suited to safeguard the nation. But the recommendations, if implemented, would also require some lawmakers and agencies to cede a certain amount of jurisdictional turf, something they are usually loathe to do.

Van Auken said no lawmakers had been singled out for criticism yet, but the families are trying to take an up-front role from the very beginning of the process.

Bill Doyle, whose son Joseph also died in the trade center, said a more informal strategy worked well in getting the commission formed in the first place.

"The idea now is to have a list that works like a watchdog so that people can see what their individual congressman is doing," said Doyle. "If a lawmaker from say, Montana, objects to a particular bill, well I know a couple of Sept. 11 families there who can get on the phone with that person, who can speak out."

Already, pressure from the families has produced results.

When the commission released its 567-page report Jul. 22, Congress had planned to be away for all of August.

Several committees quickly scheduled a return to Washington to hold hearings on the commission's findings.

The Senate Governmental Affairs committee plans to hear testimony Friday from the two leaders of the bipartisan, 10-member commission.

Sept. 11 families to create 'watchdog list'

Here's a grey area:
From Reuters

Kobe Bryant’s accuser says her privacy is threatened

EAGLE (Colorado): A lawyer for the woman who has accused basketball star Kobe Bryant of rape was set to argue on Monday that court filings should no longer be published on the Internet because of errors that have identified the woman and jeopardised her safety.

The court filings will be one of several issues taken up during Monday’s pretrial hearing – one of three before the trial begins. The judge will also consider whether television cameras should be allowed during the trial and which procedures will be used to question potential jurors. The Los Angeles Laker, who pleaded not guilty to the sexual assault charge, is scheduled to go on trial Aug. 27. Bryant, 25, said the two had consensual sex. The woman’s security has become a serous issue. She was 19 last year when she said Bryant raped her at a Vail-area resort where she worked. Since then she has received numerous threats, including one from an Iowa man who was sentenced on Friday to four months in a federal prison. Once, the woman’s name was mistakenly left in a filing published on the court’s Web site.

And last month, a court reporter inadvertently e-mailed transcripts from a closed hearing on the woman’s sexual history to seven media outlets. US District Judge Terry Ruckriegle told the media groups not to publish anything from the transcripts, prompting them to ask Colorado’s highest court to overturn the order. The high court has not ruled on the matter yet. “The worldwide publication of the victim’s name potentially jeopardised the victim’s safety and greatly contributed to her already existing fear for her own physical well-being,” attorney John Clune said in a recent filing.

But attorneys for media groups said there is intense interest in the case and the public would not have access to the court filings if they were only available in the Eagle County courthouse. Clune, the accuser’s attorney, said in his filing: “The court’s interest in protecting victim’s rights as well as personal safety must come before mere convenience to the media.”

According to the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How far does this go? While the woman's privacy should be protected as much as possible, what about the people's right to know? When does it become ok to censor the media and tell them what they can and can't say? If they censor this, than what's next and if they don't, what does it mean for victim's rights? I'm glad I am not the judge making the decision here, its certainly a tough one.

Victim's rights or freedom of speech: Which is more important?

From Debka.com:

Top US official Armitage arrives in Baghdad for talks with interim Iraqi leaders – highest ranking US visitor since June 28 sovereignty transition. DEBKAfile reveals: Allawi relays information from secret contacts that Baathist insurgents are reluctant to topple his government and oust US forces for fear Iran will step into vacuum.

US military capture in Tikrit Special Republic Guards ex-General Sufyan Maher Hussain, who led Saddam’s forces in Baghdad against US troops April 2003. General suspected of planning guerrilla attacks on US and Iraqi government. Two Iraqi police officers killed in town Sunday.

Debka.com is an Israeli news site, that usually reports the news a day or two before it happens. Sometimes they're wrong, but most of the time, they're dead on.

Check it out at www.debka.com