Supreme Court Sides With Obama on Torture Photos

Lawsuit tries to force CIA, FBI to come clean

(NEWSER) - The ACLU is suing the federal government for ignoring its Freedom of Information Act inquiry into the detention and torture of an American citizen overseas. Naji Hamdan, who spent 20 years in California before moving to the United Arab Emirates in 2006, was arrested in August 2008 and, according to the ACLU, subjected to brutal interrogation methods. Hamdan says he was blindfolded, beaten, strapped into an electric chair, and locked nearly naked in a refrigerated room. He also says some of his interrogators were American. More»

(NEWSER) - The White House is rethinking its promise to release photos of detainees being abused in US custody, press secretary Robert Gibbs suggested yesterday, saying President Obama has “great concern” about the impact they would have. At issue are 44 photos targeted in a Freedom of Information Act suit by the ACLU. A US attorney told a judge last month that the Defense Department had agreed to turn over the photos by May 28. More»

Condemned killer took bathroom break during lethal injection

(NEWSER) - Prison staff at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility spent two hours administering lethal injection to condemned killer Christopher Newton—inserting needles ten times before finding a suitable vein to inject the deadly chemicals. Newton had been sentenced to die for killing his cellmate during an argument after a chess game. More»

Or at least, with parts of it

(NEWSER) - Today the Supreme Court heard the final arguments in the case over Arizona's controversial immigration law, and it's not looking good for the Obama administration. Justices seemed decidedly skeptical about the Justice Department's central argument that the law impinged on the federal government's power to control immigration, the Washington Post reports. "What could possibly be wrong," John Roberts asked, with having police check detainees' immigration status, and pass the information to the federal government? More»

Most seem inclined to let parts of it stand

(NEWSER) - If the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional , should the rest of President Obama's health care reform die with it? Supreme Court justices wrestled with that question today in the third and final day of arguments, with the challengers' lead attorney stating his case simply: “If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the act cannot stand," said Paul D. Clement. That got a mixed reaction, reports the Washington Post and New York Times :

• Antonin Scalia: He sounded sympathetic. “My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute, the statute’s gone.”
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg: She disagreed. “There are so many things in this act that are unquestionably OK,” she said. If the choice is between "a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job."