The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) said Wednesday that a controversial 700-mile fence along the US-Mexican border may violate the 1970 Boundary Treaty, which resolved all pending boundary differences between the United States and Mexico. Sally Spener, spokesperson for the IBWC, said that impermeable fences on US territory but between existing rivers and levees could violate the treaty by deflecting or obstructing the natural water flow. The treaty established the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary between the two countries, and established provisions to avoid the loss of territory by either party as a result of changes to the river's flow due to causes other than natural lateral movement. Spener said that the IBWC is still waiting for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] to submit specific proposals detailing the fence's design and location before it can make a final determination. The IBWC is a a bi-national body created by the United States and Mexico in 1889 to administer boundary and water-rights treaties between the two parties.

President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in October 2006. The legislation authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the 2,000 mile US-Mexican border. Critics of the fence include locals in border communities, who feel that the the federal government has not addressed their concerns that a border fence would interfere with irrigation, harm wildlife, as well as disrupt Mexican consumers and investors that positively contribute to the local economy. The Vatican and the Mexican government have voiced strong criticism of the fence, characterizing it as "inhumane" and an embarrassment that "hurts bilateral relations and goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security." The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says it is scheduled to complete over half of the authorized fence by the end of 2008.

The 19-page complaint alleges the Daily Gazette Co. bought the Daily Mail in May 2004 intending to shut it down and create a newspaper monopoly in Kanawha County. The Justice Department said the Daily Gazette Co. suspended those actions in December 2004 but only after the company learned the federal agency had launched an investigation into the newspaper company's maneuvers.

The Justice Department's suit seeks to undo completely the 2004 sale and restore the Daily Mail to its previous competitiveness.

"When the Daily Gazette Co. acquired the Daily Mail with the aim of shutting it down, readers in the Charleston area and the advertisers who valued access to them, were denied the benefits of competition," Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said in a news release. Barnett works in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.

"The Department's investigation saved the Daily Mail from this unlawful termination, and this action seeks to remedy the competitive damage already done and to prohibit the parties from resuming an anticompetitive course in the future."

Trip Shumate, chief financial officer for Charleston Newspapers, which serves as the umbrella company handling the business side of the Gazette and Daily Mail, said the Daily Gazette will "vigorously defend" the Justice Department's lawsuit.

"We will win in court if it goes there," he said.

Messages left for Dean Singleton, MediaNews' vice chairman and CEO, and MediaNews President Joseph Lodovic IV were not returned.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the convictions except for the guilty verdict on one count of bank fraud apiece.

"We reverse defendants' conviction on (that count) and we remand for an entry of a judgment of acquittal on this count and for resentencing," the court said.

The Rigases, who both have been sentenced by a Manhattan federal court judge to lengthy prison terms, have remained free on bail while they have pursued their appeals.

The breach prompted immediate speculation about cracks in what has until now been a remarkably united movement.

In their ad, the leaders of the four anti-abortion groups say Mr Dobson was wrong to see last April's supreme court decision as a victory. The verdict banned a particular procedure for terminations later in pregnancy, which the anti-abortion movement has labeled "partial birth abortions".

The campaign against that particular procedure has been a rallying point in the anti-abortion movement. Last month's decision was also seen as an indication of a shift to the right on the supreme court following two appointments by President Bush. Opponents of abortion now believe it could soon be possible to overturn the decision legalizing abortion.

However, yesterday's ad argues that the ban on late abortions will not reduce terminations. Instead, the ad says the ban will simply encourage doctors to find other methods for such terminations.

"Dr Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will 'protect children.' The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child," the ad said. It also called on Mr Dobson to repent.

The U.S. House advanced a final $120 billion Iraq war spending bill today that would keep military operations afloat through September.

The bill was a major concession by Democrats who wanted to include a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals, but relented because they didn't have enough votes to override another presidential veto. The House and Senate both planned to approve the measure by the end of the day.

For his part, Bush agreed to accept some $17 billion in added spending so long as there were not restrictions on the military campaign.

"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Obey said the deal was the best that Democrats could manage because "the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq."

The bill includes the nearly $100 billion that President Bush requested for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as billions in domestic spending, including $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance.

Republicans were unhappy about the added domestic spending, but said they were relieved the final measure did not attempt to set a timetable on the war.

"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made."

The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.

Democratic presidential contenders on Capitol Hill are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.

"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "We're going to have to fund them."

Biden was alone among the potential Democratic candidates in immediately pledging his support for the bill.

Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.

Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.

Challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to President Bush on the Iraq war.

"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now — with clarity and conviction."

While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.

Biden said that while he would vote for the measure, he disagreed with the approach because it could hamper the Iraqi government's ability to take on more responsibility.

Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House today to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.

While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.

Last May, the House passed a similar bill, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act, that would have required the FTC to define price gouging within six months of the bill's final passage. That bill failed in the Senate.