The 31-year-old blogger, who went by the handle "Minerva" after the Greek goddess of wisdom, rocketed to fame in South Korea for his startlingly accurate predictions about the economy, including the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

But prosecutors said he went too far in saying on an online discussion site that the government had banned major financial institutions and trade businesses from purchasing U.S. dollars in an apparent move to shore up the local currency, calling it inaccurate information that disrupted the foreign exchange market.

His arrest last week ignited a debate about freedom of speech in cyberspace in South Korea, one of the world's most wired and tech-savvy nations.

Prosecutors have extended the detention period for the blogger, identified in court documents as Park Dae-sung, for further questioning and plan to indict him next week, Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unidentified prosecution official.

Prosecutors were not immediately available for comment late Friday.

In some 100 postings on bulletin boards on a popular Internet portal last year, "Minerva" denounced the government's handling of the economy and made predictions, largely negative, for the future. His writings were sprinkled with jargon that suggested he was an economic expert, and his identity was a hot topic of discussion in South Korea.

Prosecutors say the suspect is actually an unemployed Seoul resident who studied economics on his own after graduating from a vocational high school and junior college with a major in information and communication.

Judge Hou Man of Seoul Central District Court ruled Thursday that the suspect must remain in custody, saying he was a risk for fleeing or destroying evidence, defense lawyer Park Chan-jong said.

The lawyer said the blogger did not intend to harm the public. If convicted of spreading false information, he faces up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 50 million won ($36,360).

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges cast doubt at a hearing on claims by Noriega's lawyers that the Geneva Conventions treaties regarding prisoners of war require Noriega be returned to Panama because his sentence for drug racketeering ended in September 2007.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes repeatedly asked Noriega attorney Jonathan May whether Congress eliminated the legal underpinnings of Noriega's argument when it passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The law created judicial procedures for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but also could be applied to POWs and anyone else, the judges said.

"Do you disagree with the plain meaning of that language, or what?" Carnes said. "You're using the Geneva Conventions as a source of your client's right ... (the law) says you can't."

May said that was an incorrect interpretation of what Congress sought to do. He insisted the law was meant to apply solely to court proceedings, not an executive branch matter such as extradition.

U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner restricted the live streaming to a Jan. 22 hearing, saying she will decide later whether to make other proceedings in the case, set for March 30 trial, available online.

The lawsuit is one of a series filed by the Recording Industry Association of America since 2003 against about 35,000 people who allegedly swapped songs online. Most of those sued are college students, and many have defaulted or settled for amounts between $3,000 and $10,000, often without legal counsel.

Charles Nesson, a Harvard University professor representing BU student Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., is challenging the constitutionality of the lawsuits, which, based on the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, can impose damages of $150,000 per willful act of infringement.

Nesson had asked Gertner to authorize video cameras already installed in courtrooms to be used to capture the proceedings and transmit the material to Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet, which will then stream it on its Web site for free. Gertner approved the request and authorized New York-based Courtroom View Network, which has webcast state court trials, to "narrowcast" proceedings to the Berkman Center.

Gertner said local district judges have the discretion under the guidelines of the policy-setting federal Judicial Conference to allow recording and broadcast when it serves the public interest, particularly of legal arguments without the presence of witnesses and jurors in a case.

Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden sat in front of a fire on a cold January day in a court conference room with Chief Justice John Roberts and seven other justices.

They chatted for about 45 minutes, then toured the courtroom and justices' private conference room.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice absent, although Alito was on the bench for two hours of argument Wednesday morning. Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said she did not know why Alito wasn't there.

Reporters and photographers were not allowed in, so this account comes wholly from Arberg.

Obama and Biden voted against Roberts and Alito when their court nominations were before the Senate in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Roberts will see Obama Tuesday when he administers the presidential oath. Justice John Paul Stevens, who will mark his ninth inauguration on the court, will swear in Biden.

Last month, the chief justice sent a letter inviting Obama and Biden to drop by before the inauguration and promised them a "warm welcome."

Roberts' Dec. 5 letter noted that justices had occasionally met with incoming presidents and vice-presidents in the past. "The associate justices and I would be pleased to see that sporadic practice become a congenial tradition," Roberts said.

Court staffers were kept well away from Obama and Biden, who spent about an hour at the court. When employees glimpsed Obama on his way out, a loud cheer went up in a building that exudes decorum.

In a four-page opinion issued Thursday, Magistrate Judge John Facciola (Fatch-ee-OH-la) says the White House has been ignoring his instructions to search for all electronic messages that may be missing.

The Executive Office of the President, the magistrate said, appears to be avoiding its legal obligation to ensure that electronic messages subject to the Presidential Records Act are preserved.

The court says there is a profound societal interest as well as a legal obligation to protect such records.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that said the federal government could not collect royalties from eight deepwater leases held by Anadarko in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were obtained between 1996 and 2000 by Kerr-McGee Corp., which Anadarko later acquired.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. says the lawsuit involves more than $150 million in royalties sought by the U.S. Interior Department, which leases offshore tracts to oil and gas producers and, as owner, stands to collect a percentage of revenue. But the ruling could affect other leases and prohibit the government from collecting royalties from other producers.

The Interior Department said it may work with Congress to resolve the issue or appeal the case again.

At issue is interpretation of a 1995 law designed to provide a break from royalties at a time when oil and natural gas prices were extremely low. The law waived all royalty payments until a specific amount of oil and gas was produced.

"If the court's interpretation of Congress' action in 1995 is correct, certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas — perhaps amounting to one of the biggest giveaways of federal resources by Congress in modern history," Interior spokesman Shane Wolfe said.

The court heard arguments in a case from Vermont in which the state Supreme Court threw out the assault conviction of career criminal Michael Brillon because his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. Brillon was jailed for three years and went through six defense attorneys before his trial for hitting his girlfriend in the face.

The justices are trying to determine when delays caused by public defenders can amount to a constitutional violation and when governments can be held responsible since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.

As the lawyers for Brillon and Vermont recounted the actions of Brillon, his lawyers, the state's public defender office and the courts, it became clear that, as Justice David Souter said, "There's plenty of blame to go around."

For some other violations, criminal defendants are entitled to new trials. But when a defendant is deprived of a speedy trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that dismissal of the charges is the only remedy.

"Aren't you giving defense attorneys a perverse incentive" to delay, asked Justice Samuel Alito.

Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.