The "no-fly" terrorist watch list now used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is being redrafted and will likely be cut in half, according to testimony given by TSA Administrator Kip Hawley during a Thursday Senate Commerce Committee  hearing. Hawley said that "To assure the accuracy of the No-Fly list itself, we will shortly conclude a case by case review of every name on the No-Fly list" and that the TSA Secure Flight Program, scheduled to come into effect in 2008, will replace current watch list efforts. The Secure Flight Program will transfer the responsibility of checking passenger information against the watch list from the aircraft operator to the TSA itself. Hawley also testified that a 100 percent requirement for physically inspecting all air cargo, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and passed by the House of Representatives last week, may not be as effective as other security measures.

In October, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) reported that erroneous terrorism watch lists slow travel, and a July study by the Department of Homeland Security suggested that the watch list system was inefficient. The US Department of Justice reported last year that the list was missing some names, was based on incomplete and inaccurate information, and mischaracterized the danger posed by nearly 32,000 suspects who are not designated as targets of significant security action.

The Bush administration changed course and agreed Wednesday to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program.

Officials say the secret court has already approved at least one request for monitoring.

The shift will probably end a court fight over whether the warrantless surveillance program was legal.

The program, which was secretly authorized by President Bush shortly after 9/11, was disclosed a little more than a year ago, resulting in widespread criticism from lawmakers and civil libertarians questioning its legality.

The program allowed the National Security Agency – without approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected.

In a letter to senators Wednesday, Attorney General Al Gonzales said "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

Mr. Gonzales said Mr. Bush won't reauthorize the program once it expires.

On October 26, 2006, Fredericy pleaded guilty to conspiring to interfere and interfering with the federally protected housing rights of an interracial family because of their race, and for making false statements to federal investigators. Another Cleveland resident, Joseph Kuzlik, pleaded guilty to the same charges on November 27, 2006, and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 21, 2007.

Fredericy and Kuzlik engaged in a series of acts intended to threaten and intimidate African-American residents in their neighborhood. Among other acts, the defendants placed toxic mercury on the porch of a family with children for the purpose of intimidating them because they were an interracial family. In order to keep their unlawful actions secret, both Fredericy and Kuzlik lied to federal investigators from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that was initially charged with cleaning up the mercury and investigating the incident. Fredericy was ordered to pay restitution to the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA for the cost of cleanup, and was also ordered to pay restitution of a to be determined amount to individual victims who suffered financial losses as a result of the offenses.

"Any vicious act of racism is deplorable," said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "What these men did is despicable, and the Justice Department will continue to vigorously prosecute those who violate the federally protected civil rights of others."

"Today's sentence is a fitting conclusion to a joint effort by the FBI, the U.S. EPA, the Ohio EPA, and the Cleveland Police Department, and demonstrates the commitment of both state and federal law enforcement authorities to protecting every citizen's basic right to live in and enjoy his or her own home without fear of racial intimidation," said Gregory White, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann C. Rowland and Trial Attorney Kristy L. Parker of the Civil Rights Division.

They also say the bugs infested their luggage, which led to further problems in their apartment when they returned home. Mrs Bluming claims the trauma was made worse as she is recovering from cancer and her immune system is still weak.

Their lawyer, Michael Weinstein, said they were forced to fumigate their home and throw away clothing, bedding, luggage and personal effects. Mr Weinstein added: "People associate bed bugs with more of a lower end class of hotel. Clearly, that is not the case here. The Mandarin is as premier and luxurious as any hotel could make themselves out to be."

Jill Kluge, communications director for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, said: "We can confirm a regrettable, but isolated, incident of infestation occurred in May 2006 within one guest room at our London property.

"On discovery, a full investigation was carried out and the problem fully rectified. There have been no subsequent incidents. The matter has been referred to our insurers.

"Mandarin Oriental's policy is to operate with the highest standards of conduct, with stringent hygiene systems and processes in place at all of our hotels to safeguard the health and safety of our guests."

The hotel chain is accused of fraud, negligence, recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress deceptive trade practice and nuisance.

The Justice Department, easing a Bush administration policy, said Wednesday it has decided to give an independent body authority to monitor the government's controversial domestic spying program.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and that it already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.

The court orders approving collection of international communications _ whether it originates in the United States or abroad _ was issued Jan. 10, according to the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.

The White House said it is satisfied that the new guidelines meet its concerns about national security.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.

A lawsuit that could determine whether Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians can use the holy texts of their faith to affirm courtroom testimony can move forward, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The decision means the controversy that started three years ago when a Guilford County Muslim was not allowed to use a Quran will likely go to trial.

"I'm just excited that we're going to be back in court," said Syidah Mateen, who sparked the debate. "We got over one hurdle."

State law describes laying one's hand on "Holy Scriptures" to take an oath — and it's that phrase that is at issue. The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina argues it is broad enough to include the holy texts of Islam, Judaism and other faiths.

"All we want is people to be allowed to use the holy book of their faith," said Seth Cohen, lead attorney for the ACLU of North Carolina, which initially filed the lawsuit against the state.

Some judges in the state have allowed people to take their oaths on the Quran, but that is rare. State law also allows people to affirm their testimony by raising their right hand without using the Bible.

In August 2003, Mateen asked to take her oath on a Quran in a Guilford County court during a domestic-violence hearing. The 42-year-old Browns Summit woman was told she couldn't because the court didn't have any.

Believing she had the approval of the judge, Mateen shared her experience with other members of Greensboro's Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center, which then raised money to buy and donate at least eight Qurans to the Guilford County courts.

But when the Islamic center tried to deliver the holy books in 2005, the offer was rejected by the county's two top judges, who contended that state law only allows for oaths on the Bible.

When the Administrative Office of the Courts did not intervene, the ACLU of North Carolina filed a lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court on behalf of its 8,000 members, some of whom are Jewish and Muslim. Mateen was later added as a plaintiff.

In December 2005, Judge Donald L. Smith tossed the case out, ruling that both the ACLU and Mateen failed to show a legal controversy existed with the state. A three-judge panel of the appeals court disagreed.

"We conclude the complaint is sufficient to entitle both plaintiffs to litigate their claims," Chief Judge John Martin wrote in the unanimous opinion.

Cohen said the ACLU's position is that if the "Holy Scriptures" phrase in state law is not broad enough to include texts other than the Christian Bible, then it is unconstitutional and should be struck down under the First Amendment's establishment clause. But the ACLU thinks there is room under the existing law to include the Hebrew Bible, the Quran and other sacred books.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, said lawyers with the state were reviewing the appeals court decision and had not yet decided whether to ask the N.C. Supreme Court to take up the matter. The state has 30 days to appeal the decision.

Without an appeal, a trial would likely be several months away, Cohen said.