Report: Anna Nicole Marries Lawyer
Headlines: Amanda Peet to wed this weekend... Madonna tops list of celebrity record holders... Secret Service denies "Borat" entry to White House... Billy Joel selling Long Island mansion... Don Ho released from Honolulu hospital... 98 Degrees' Jeff Timmons gets probation for reckless driving... Audioslave's Tom Morello arrested at hotel worker protest... Matthew McConaughey and Juliette Lewis, what are you wearing?... Video: Ashlee Simpson singing live (and apparently unaided) in the London production of "Chicago."
Rumor Mill: Anna Nicole Smith weds lawyer Howard K. Stern... Candice Bergen's representatives deny stroke reports... George Clooney, Rennee Zellweger dating?
UPDATE: From the Associated Press -- "Reality TV star Anna Nicole Smith exchanged vows with boyfriend Howard K. Stern on a boat near Nassau, but there was no formal marriage and the ceremony is "not legally binding," her attorney Michael Scott said Friday." (Full Story) -- 1:16 p.m. ET
P.S. Paris Hilton's "Nothing In This World" video:
By Liz |
September 29, 2006; 8:44 AM ET
| Category:
Daily Mix
Previous: Lindsay's Jailhouse Pen Pal, aka Dad |
Next: Be a Virtual Celebrity Stylist
» Share Tips and Submissions
Posted by: DC_lady | September 29, 2006 9:53 AM
Dare to dream!...that even if you are a loser and 10 years too young for her, Paris Hilton may still give you a chance.
Well, at least it was better than the Stars Are Blind video. I'd give this video an 8.5 on the cheesey scale, and I love cheese.
Posted by: katerkat | September 29, 2006 10:45 AM
Never has the little icon that indicates I don't have the Flash plugin installed for this browser been more welcome.
Posted by: byoolin | September 29, 2006 10:53 AM
I object to the Simpson singing.
Isn't enough that Bush has tortured Iraqi prisoners? Now we're treating chicago even worse.
...and what's funnier is that the press is now reporting what a great singer she is. She isn't, but it's funny that if you grease the right palms in the press, they'll report anything.
I guess that explains our current government. It's the best that money can buy!
Posted by: Bunkley | September 29, 2006 11:27 AM
For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
US Congress legalizes torture and indefinite detention
The legislation adopted by the House of Representatives Wednesday and the Senate Thursday, legalizing the Bush administration's policy of torture and indefinite detention without trial, as well as kangaroo-court procedures for Guantánamo detainees, marks a watershed for the United States.
For the first time in American history, Congress and the White House have agreed to set aside the provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and formally adopt methods traditionally identified with police states.
This bill is the outcome of a protracted process of decay of American democracy, which has accompanied the immense growth in social inequality and reached a turning point in the stolen election of 2000. In early December of 2000, on the eve of the US Supreme Court ruling that halted the counting of votes in Florida and awarded the presidency to George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote nationally to his Democratic opponent Al Gore, David North, the national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party of the US and chairman of the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site, in a report on the US election crisis said:
"What the decision of this court will reveal is how far the American ruling class is prepared to go in breaking with traditional bourgeois-democratic and constitutional norms. Is it prepared to sanction ballot fraud and the suppression of votes and install in the White House a candidate who has attained that office through blatantly illegal and anti-democratic methods?
"A substantial section of the bourgeoisie, and perhaps even a majority of the US Supreme Court, is prepared to do just that. There has been a dramatic erosion of support within the ruling elites for the traditional forms of bourgeois democracy in the United States."
The Supreme Court ruling and the refusal of the Democratic Party to oppose it demonstrated that there remained no significant constituency within the American ruling elite for the defense of democratic rights.
The battery of police state measures enacted by the Bush administration, without any serious opposition from within the political establishment, has confirmed this analysis.
The Military Commission Act of 2006 will do far more than set down the procedures to be used to rubber-stamp the incarceration of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and other US-run detention camps throughout the world. It attacks the rights of all American citizens as well as all legal residents and other immigrants, who will now be subject to the threat of arrest and imprisonment for life, on the order of the president alone, without judicial review.
The legislation now goes back to the House of Representatives for a final vote Friday, to reconcile minor language differences between the two versions. President Bush is expected to receive the bill for signing by the weekend.
Under the terms of this law, the president may designate any person as an "unlawful enemy combatant," to be rounded up by intelligence agents and jailed indefinitely without legal recourse. The law defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as "an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States" who is not a regular member of an opposing army.
Given the Bush administration's elastic view as to what constitutes "hostilities," this definition has the potential to erase any legal distinction between an actual Al Qaeda terrorist, an Arab immigrant who makes a charitable donation to Lebanese relief, and an American college student who clashes with police during a protest demonstration against the Iraq war.
The legislation passed the House Wednesday with the support of 34 Democrats, who joined 219 Republicans in the lopsided vote of 253-168. The Senate adopted the bill the next day, by an even wider 65-34 margin, with 12 Democrats joining a near-unanimous Republican bloc.
Before voting on the overall bill, senators defeated four amendments: to restore habeas corpus rights for prisoners, defeated 51-48; to increase congressional oversight of the CIA torture program, which lost 53-46; to impose a five-year limit on the military commissions, which lost 52-47; and to ban specific, named torture techniques, which lost by a similar margin.
The sweeping legislation meets all the desires of the Bush administration except for an explicit repeal of the Geneva Convention. The White House agreed to slightly weaker language that gives the president the power to "interpret" the Geneva Convention to permit lesser forms of torture.
Its major provisions include:
* Authorizing the president to establish military commissions to prosecute detainees taken into US custody, either overseas or within the United States.
* Giving the military commissions power to determine punishment, up to and including death.
* Rules of evidence that permit hearsay evidence and testimony coerced from witnesses.
* Permitting the use of testimony obtained by "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" if the torture took place before December 30, 2005, when it was banned by Congress.
* Allowing prosecutors to withhold from defendants evidence given to a jury, if it involves classified information, and substitute unclassified summaries.
* Stripping US courts of jurisdiction over detainees, and stripping detainees of their right to seek a writ of habeas corpus.
Violations of the Constitution
Many of the provisions of this legislation are flagrant violations of the US Constitution. This was acknowledged by Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who
For the rest of this article please go to:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml
Posted by: che | September 29, 2006 11:27 AM
And a happy weekend to you, too, Che.
Posted by: Liz | September 29, 2006 12:54 PM
In a divorce does Anna Nicole Smith receive "non-leagally binding" spousal support? or just "legally binding" child support?
Posted by: Lisa | September 29, 2006 1:46 PM
Can somebody out there PLEASE find Che a life?
Posted by: concerned | September 29, 2006 2:36 PM
che has a point we should all include comments in blogs that have nothing to do with the topic of the blog. Jeez.
Posted by: petal | September 29, 2006 4:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The must- bookmark blog for your daily dose of celeb- centric news, irreverent analysis and the best celeb-tracking community on the Web.
Um, nothing quite like a grown woman seducing a 15 year old HS kid...