"To me that's a continuation of the war," Edwards said. "Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe the war needs to be brought to an end."

Edwards' broadside put Clinton on the defensive at a time when she is enjoying a comfortable lead in opinion polls and trying to appear above the fray. But there was no sign that the debate would prompt a major shake-up in the Democratic field.

"There may be a continuing counter-terrorism mission," she said, while adding that "the vast majority" of American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of her prospective first term in 2013.

The cross-fire on the campus of Dartmouth College came at the first debate of the critical autumn season leading up to the early voting contests in January ahead of the November 2008 election to replace President George W. Bush.

Iraq was a dominant theme of the debate as Democrats seek a way to force Bush to change his war strategy, which may leave as many as 100,000 troops there by the time the next president is inaugurated in January 2009.

"This is a tremendous victory for the civil liberties of young adults," said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan.

Under the 1998 law, pedestrians under 21 who refuse to take a breath test face a $100 fine. To require a breath analysis, an officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a minor has been drinking.

Backers of the law have said police need breath testers and other tools to enforce the legal drinking age.

In 2006, the city of Mount Pleasant and Isabella County agreed to pay $5,000 to two of the plaintiffs, Cullin Stewart and Samuel Maness, and stop warrantless pedestrian breath tests until Lawson issued a final ruling.

Both Stewart and Maness attended a 2003 post-prom party in Isabella County where, according to the lawsuit, an interagency police task force called the "Party Patrol" broke up the party, placed the students in a circle and asked if they had been drinking.

They had to blow into a portable breath tester, according to the suit. Stewart was not charged, but Maness was issued a citation accusing him of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Michigan State Police, Central Michigan University and Saginaw County's Thomas Township Police Department also are defendants in the case.

A telephone message seeking comment was left at the office of state police spokeswoman Shanon Akans.

PCT Law Group, PLLC announced today that it has opened the doors of its new office in McLean, Virginia. The firm, which is located in the heart of Tysons Corner, will devote its practice to representing regional and national clients in a broad range of corporate, intellectual property, employment, and litigation matters.

PCT Law Group has tapped H. Scott Johnson, Jr. to serve as its Managing Member. Johnson was previously with Arlington-based Albo & Oblon, LLP and has worked in the General Counsel’s office of Noblis, Inc. (formerly Mitretek Systems, Inc.) and the Washington, D.C. real estate transactional boutique Krooth & Altman, LLP. Prominent intellectual property attorney Raymond Millien will manage PCT’s patent, copyright, and trademark practice. Prior to joining PCT, Millien was General Counsel for Ocean Tomo, LLC. Millien has also served as Vice President and IP Counsel at The American Express Company and practiced at the Washington, D.C. offices of DLA Piper US, LLP and Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC.

“Tysons Corner is the epicenter for businesses competing in the 21st century knowledge economy,” said Johnson. “PCT’s central location between the District of Columbia and the Dulles Technology Corridor provides us with a unique opportunity to serve companies at all stages of the growth cycle. Our talented team of established attorneys will offer the experience and legal acumen of a large law firm at a fraction of the cost.”

About PCT Law Group, PLLC:

PCT Law Group, PLLC is a full-service law firm that provides legal counsel and representation to businesses competing in the 21st century knowledge economy in the complimentary practice areas of corporate, intellectual property, employment, and litigation. For more information, please visit http://www.pctlg.com or call (703) 752-3742.

The world's largest retailer said it will make available for $4 drugs to treat glaucoma, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fungal infections and acne. Fertility and prescription birth control will also be available for $9, Wal-Mart said.

Last year, Wal-Mart began selling certain generic drugs for $4 per monthly prescription in September and by the end of November had extended the program to all its U.S. pharmacies -- far ahead of schedule.

The company said $4 prescriptions now account for nearly 40 percent of all prescriptions filled in its Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market pharmacies. It estimates that over the past year, the program has saved customers $613.6 million.

Earlier this year, it said it would open as many as 400 in-store health clinics in the next two to three years, and that number could jump to 2,000 in five to seven years.

The judge also dismissed claims against Thomas W. Jones, the former chief executive of Citigroup Asset Management, and Lewis E. Daidone, the former treasurer and chief financial officer of the Smith Barney family of funds.

"It is undisputed that defendants disclosed the amount of fees paid by the funds. Thus, plaintiffs were in possession of all material information, i.e., they knew the value of the funds," the judge said in a nine-page opinion.

The consolidated lawsuit alleged that Citigroup's asset-management business took most of the benefit of a discount from using an affiliated transfer agent for itself, pocketing more than $90 million, rather than passing on those savings to the mutual funds and their customers.

In February, another federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a similar case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Jones and Daidone. Citigroup itself settled the SEC's charges in May 2005 and agreed to pay $208 million to affected mutual-fund customers. In settling, the financial-services company didn't admit or deny wrongdoing.

A lawyer for the investors and a Citigroup spokesman didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment Wednesday.

The Supreme Court will now examine whether a fatal three-drug cocktail most of the states use to execute inmates may violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Among the four key questions the justices will consider is whether states can execute an inmate if there is a "substantial risk" of pain and suffering through lethal injection.

By taking the Kentucky case, the justices are expected to provide a road map for judges across the country, including in California, where a San Jose federal judge has been reviewing the issue for more than a year.

"They decided to take the bull by the horns," said Ronald Matthias, a senior assistant attorney general in charge of California's death penalty appeals. "It is a very significant development, and we expect a very far-reaching and important decision which we'll obviously be bound by."

The Supreme Court review is likely to further delay California's effort to resume executing death row inmates.

Matthias would not speculate whether the court's intervention would halt the ongoing challenge in California by death row inmate Michael Morales, whose case has prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to overhaul the state's lethal injection procedures.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel is scheduled to hold additional hearings on the Morales case in December and to tour a newly constructed death chamber in November. But some legal experts now expect the case may wait until the Supreme Court makes its ruling.

California has put executions on hold since early 2006 while Fogel has been reviewing Morales' lawsuit, which maintains the state's lethal injection method poses an undue risk of an inhumane execution for the more than 650 inmates on the state's death row.

John Grele, one of Morales' lawyers, said he would need to review the Kentucky case more closely to determine its effect on the California litigation.

But legal experts agreed the decision to hear the Kentucky case would have broad implications for states across the country, particularly given the scattershot results that have come from different courts asked to review the arguments of death row inmates.

In some states, executions have been put on hold, whereas other states have kept executing people despite nearly identical challenges pending in their courts.

The Supreme Court's decision to take the Kentucky case is "huge news" that should lead to a "de facto moratorium" on executions nationwide, Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor and leading expert on the issue, said on his law blog. Berman does not expect a ruling until the end of the court's next term, in June.

Elisabeth Semel, head of the death penalty clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said the case is crucial to settling questions surrounding lethal injection but cautioned that the justices do not necessarily have to settle them all.

"The court is taking a bite of the apple," she said. "But how big a bite is not known."

"It puts Judge Fogel and other judges in the middle of this process in a position where they have to step back," she added.

A Supreme Court review of lethal injection has been brewing for years. Most states with a death penalty have turned to the method after similar legal challenges of alternatives, such as the gas chamber and the electric chair.

A federal appeals court declared California's gas chamber unconstitutional in the mid-1990s, prompting the switch to lethal injection.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been repeatedly asked to review challenges to various states' lethal injection procedures but has steered clear of the central constitutional issue. The justices did make it easier for condemned inmates to file challenges, prompting a number of cases to unfold in states such as Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky.

A federal judge in Tennessee recently put executions on hold there after concluding that the state's lethal injection method was too flawed. Fogel, in the California case, called this state's execution procedures "broken" but fixable.

In the Kentucky case, the state courts rejected challenges from death row inmates Ralph Baze and Clyde Bowling Jr. after a trial was held in 2005 to review Kentucky's execution method. It was the Baze and Bowling case the Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear.

Kentucky uses the same three drugs to put an inmate to death as California -- sodium thiopental to sedate the inmate, pancurium bromide to paralyze the muscles in breathing and potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

Lawyers for death row inmates say pancurium bromide conceals an inmate's suffering and masks the potential of the third drug, causing a searingly painful death.

One of the four issues the Supreme Court may address is whether it is unconstitutional to use those three drugs if other chemicals are available that pose "less risk of pain and suffering."

But legal experts say the court's ultimate ruling may focus more on how a state administers those drugs, rather than what drugs are used.

The Supreme Court, experts say, can instead clarify the standard for what amounts to a cruel and unusual execution and the obligations of states to administer the fatal drugs with proper safeguards.