The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped. It is also accused of impeding the inquiry by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The results of the staff inquiry come less than a week before Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and Blackwater's founder, is scheduled to testify before the committee, which is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a longtime critic of Blackwater.

The March 2004 incident involving Blackwater was widely viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war after images of the mutilated bodies of the four guards were seen around the world. Four days after the Blackwater guards were killed, a major military offensive, known as the Battle of Fallujah, began.

The combat lasted almost a month in Fallujah, which is 40 miles west of Baghdad. At least 36 U.S. military personnel were killed along with 200 insurgents and an estimated 600 civilians, the congressional investigation found.

Proponents of the laws that have been passed since the contested 2000 presidential election say the measures combat fraud. But opponents said poor people and minorities who often don't have driver's licenses, passports or other government-issued identification would be excluded from the polls.

Seven states require a photo identification to vote and 17 states require identification without photos. The battle has broken down over partisan lines with Republicans favoring laws they said would combat voter fraud while Democrats have pushed proposals they said would encourage more voter participation.

The voter identification case is from Indiana, where Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, said "voter fraud exists and Hoosiers shouldn't have to become further victims of it."

But state Democratic Party chairman Dan Parker, whose party urged the court to take the case, said Republicans have "relied on fear and flimsy legal logic to push through a policy that deters voting instead of promoting it."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee responded cautiously to the announcement. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court is bringing attention to this important issue," Danny Diaz said.

"This is another step to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote will have that right."

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who heads the DNC Voting Rights Institute, likened voter requirements to a "modern-day poll tax" designed to disenfranchise black and poor voters.

"Some of us in the voting rights community are very nervous because we fear the court will make matters worse," she said.

At that point, Porter will have saved Craig from yet another of the senator's bizarre errors in judgment.

Compounding his previous errors, the Idaho Republican this week sent lawyers to persuade Porter to undo his guilty plea and let him go to trial. As Craig says, he wants ``to clear my name.''

He probably doesn't mean he wants to clear his name of the taint of a disorderly conduct conviction.

He means, of course, he wants to clear it of any link to homosexuality. He will have a hard time doing that because technically, officially, he isn't charged with homosexuality. Technically, officially, it is no longer a crime in America to be gay. The U.S. Supreme Court said so ages ago, in 2003.

No, Craig was instead charged with being disorderly because the officer in the next stall took his peculiar hand and foot movements as a sexual come-on.

A bogus charge? You betcha, as they say here in Minnesota. There is simply nothing criminal about toe-tapping, shoe-to-shoe contact or someone putting his hand beneath a bathroom stall divider, as one of his lawyers, Billy Martin, told the judge at this week's hearing.

``None of those facts, in and of themselves, constitute a crime,'' Martin told Porter. It would be a ``manifest injustice'' to let the conviction stand, he argued.

Guilty Plea

He's right. But the law makes it almost impossible to set aside a guilty plea. And Craig had weeks to decide whether to admit guilt before he mailed in his plea, as the prosecution noted.

Since then, he has had weeks to think what might happen in the improbable event that he gets a trial.

Police would testify that closeted gay men (like Craig?) pose a menace when they troll public bathrooms for sex.

They might say that this particular bathroom at this particular airport had become famous on the Internet as a rendezvous point for men seeking men.

As for Craig's actual conduct, remember that he exposed no part of his body that is normally covered, nor did he fondle or grope or grab anyone.

But the prosecutor in the case, Christopher Renz, can make even the running of a hand beneath a stall divider sound like soft-core porn.

Stroking the Divider

``Repeated stroking of the stall divider,'' Renz called it at this week's hearing, ``each stroke showing more of his left hand.''

Then there would be the chance that the judge might let the prosecution put on the stand the man who told the Idaho Statesman he had sex with Craig in the men's room of Union Station in Washington.

Does Craig really want that?

In his defense, Craig might raise his ``wide stance'' to explain away the apparent attempt at footsie. And it would be ridiculed, as it has been already, mercilessly.

The best Craig could get is a jury focused only on the facts of what he did, a jury that labors to see whether that conduct met the legal elements of disorderly conduct.

Throw in a little reasonable doubt, and Craig just might get acquitted.

So what? He would stand acquitted of disorderly conduct, which no one cares about anyway, aside from legal wonks like me. There would be no verdict on whether he committed homosexual conduct, which is all his Grand Old Party and his ``family values'' constituents care about.

Muddying His Name

But there would have been lots of testimony that would do more to muddy his name than clear it.

Fortunately for Craig, Porter seemed to be buying none of Martin's argument, except for when he said the law makes it ``next to impossible'' to set aside a guilty plea.

Fortunately for Craig, the judge argued with Martin on matters large and small.

When Martin said his client wanted to plead innocent, Porter interrupted to chide him on a point that was clearly meant to be more rhetorical than legal. There is no such plea in Minnesota, the judge told Porter.

Here, as elsewhere, you are either guilty or not guilty, he said.

It's an obvious point, and yet it is one that Craig seems to have missed. There is no way he will be declared innocent, even if he wins a trial and is found not guilty.

A student at Delaware State University is scheduled to appear in court today on attempted murder, assault and other charges.

Loyer Braden is accused of shooting two students last week near a dining hall on campus. Officials say the shooting followed a fight that Braden was involved in days before.

According to a police affidavit, a witness told police that he heard Braden say that he'd stay out of trouble if he managed to get away with the shooting. The affidavit also mentions a witness who saw Braden coming from the direction of the shooting and leaving in a car.

Braden is being held in jail on $$75,000. Prosecutors have filed a motion to increase his bail.

Craig said earlier he planned to resign Sept. 30, then left the door open to stay if he could successfully withdraw his plea.

Craig, serving his third term as senator, pleaded guilty in August to disorderly conduct following a June 11 sting operation in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport.

That he will stay in the Senate past Sunday was an unwelcome development for Senate Republican leaders who have made clear they wish Craig would step down and let Idaho's GOP governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter name a replacement.

Otter canceled an extended tour of the state's overcrowded prisons this week to interview some of the nearly 30 people _ including Lt. Gov. Jim Risch and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden _ who have publicly expressed interest in Craig's job.

"He wanted to be ready to act if we received a letter of resignation," said Jon Hanian, Otter's spokesman in Boise. "Obviously, we had not. ... Until he receives a letter of resignation, we have no vacancy, therefore, there is no replacement."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters he had nothing to add to previous statements in which he said he thought Craig made the proper decision on Sept. 1, when he announced his intention to resign by month's end.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Craig's strongest ally in the Senate, said that Craig, "like every citizen facing allegations, deserves to be able to fully defend himself."

Craig's lawyer, Billy Martin, said it is "near impossible, and it should be" for Craig to withdraw his plea. But he said his client's conduct _ shoe tapping and hand gestures under a men's room stall divider _ was not criminal.

The arresting officer described those gestures as signals recognized in the gay community as an invitation for sex. Craig has repeatedly said he is not homosexual.

Jim Weatherby, professor emeritus of political science at Boise State University, said Craig has been permanently weakened by the charges.

"How effective can he be, when his leadership wants him out?" Weatherby asked. "I suspect they would want to punish him further than the steps they've already taken."

Craig gave up his leadership posts on Senate committees after his arrest become public. Senate Republicans would have to vote to restore those posts, an action seen as highly unlikely.

"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.