The trickle of Republican rebellion against President George W.Bush's Iraq policy has turned into a stream with two more previously loyal senators joining the swelling ranks ofcritics.

Lamar Alexander said "it should be clear to the President that there needs to be a new strategy", while Judd Gregg called for a "clear blueprint for how we were going to draw down".

Although they stopped short of backing the Democratic proposals for a fixed timetable of withdrawing US troops from Iraq, their comments came before a week in which the Senate is once again debating funding for the war and the military will deliver an interim progress report on Mr Bush's "surge strategy".

The interim report is believed to conclude that US combat deaths have escalated, violence has spread beyond Baghdad and sectarianism has further polarised Iraq, the Washington Post has reported.

It is also expected to acknowledge tacitly that the Iraqi Government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals Mr Bush set for it in January.

"The security progress we're making in Iraq is real," a senior intelligence official in Baghdad was quoted as saying, "but it's only in part of the country and there's not enough political progress to get us over the line in September."

Six Republican senators have now announced they can no longer support Mr Bush's Iraq strategy, and demanded change.

The dissent has been led by senior figures including Richard Lugar and John Warner, the Republican leaders - or "ranking members" - on the Senate foreign and armed forces committees.

Senator Lugar yesterday used a TV interview to explain that his public intervention had been intended as a "reaching-out to the President".

He suggested that remaining opportunities for a centrist "bipartisan consensus" on Iraq were fast disappearing before presidential elections next year in which Democrats are being pushed by activists to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Along with other Republicans who have spoken out in recent days, such as George Voinovich and Pete Domenici, Senator Lugar appears to be advocating measures similar to those of last year's Iraq Study Group report.

That report proposed shifting American troops away from the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites so that a reduced force could concentrate on counter-terrorism and support functions.

"We have to be thoughtful about the safest route for our forces out of Iraq," Senator Lugar said, adding that most ofthe 160,000 US troops stationed in the country could be "redeployed by the middle part of next year".

Moderate Republicans fear that Mr Bush's apparent determination to fight on will lead to a panic pullout that could set off awider conflict across the MiddleEast.

But the White House is urging them to hold the line at least until September, when General David Petraeus will present his assessment of the effectiveness of the 30,000-troop "surge".

Mr Bush has repeatedly said he wants as much time as possible for his 30,000-troop increase to show results.

But the American military is already overstretched, with the Pentagon making troops serve longer in battle zones - and more often - as it tries to sustain the surge.

There is now growing pressure on Mr Bush to pre-empt the September report by setting out a time frame for withdrawing at least some of the troops.

Some Bush aides believe forces are combining against him as the Senate prepares to begin a contentious debate on the defence authorisation bill.

Democrats are gearing up for a new push for a US exit from Iraq amid a surge in bloodshed at the weekend.

With public discontent with the war growing, house Speaker Nancy Pelosi is set to introduce a bill to authorise troop redeployments to start within four months and be completed by April, a formula Mr Bush has blocked once with a presidential veto.

But aides are now believed to be advising Mr Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a more narrowly defined mission for US troops that would allow for a staged pullback, The New York Times reported yesterday.

The number of US combat brigades in Iraq is, in any case, scheduled to be reduced from 20 to 15 by this time next year.

Meanwhile, US military sources in Baghdad said fiery Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the the Mahdi Army militia insurgency group, has gone back to Iran. Sadr led two uprisings against US forces in 2004 before becoming more involved in mainstream politics.

The case, Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar, was filed in Seattle in 2005, but a district court dismissed it. After this hearing, the appeals court will rule whether the suit should be dismissed or sent back to the lower court.

Cindy and Craig Corrie, the woman's parents, allege Caterpillar violated human rights and committed war crimes by knowingly selling its equipment to the Israeli army, which used the bulldozers to raze Palestinian homes and endanger people. Rachel Corrie was run over by a bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier as she tried to block a home from demolition.

"We are essentially arguing that you cannot knowingly provide substantial assistance — the means to commit war crimes, which is essentially what Caterpillar has done here," said Maria LaHood, with the Center for Constitutional Rights, on the Corries' legal team.

Israel said the death was an accident, according to The Associated Press. Caterpillar has said in the past that it can't be held responsible for how its bulldozers are used.

On Friday, a Caterpillar spokeswoman declined to comment on the development.

The Corries seek monetary damages in the civil suit, and they want to stop Caterpillar from selling its products to groups they say violate human rights. Four Palestinian families whose homes were bulldozed are also plaintiffs.

"We hope that this decision would mean eventually that Caterpillar shouldn't sell D9 bulldozers to Israel while they are using them to commit human-rights violations," LaHood said.

The death of The Evergreen State College student polarized political camps about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not the first time corporations have been tried or held liable for their involvement in alleged human-rights violations or war crimes, LaHood said.

Three judges will hear arguments, and a ruling could take a few months, LaHood said.

Although unions, which often back Democrats, benefit from the ruling, conservative Republicans are particularly thrilled because right-to-life groups have been aggressive in using such attack ads.

Note that Congress had not said such groups could not run attack ads. The law simply required that they be paid for with regulated "hard money" donations and not with unregulated "soft money."

The newly conservative court also took aim at Brown vs. Board of Education. Unlike that unanimous landmark delivered more than a half-century ago, the Roberts court could muster only a bare 5-4 vote to chip away at that important precedent. But the Bush administration's core supporters never have been shy about claiming total power from a slight - or even nonexistent - majority. The Roberts court said schools can't consider race as a factor when trying to rectify racial imbalance in schools. The upshot is that, in too many cases, schools will be unable to rectify racial imbalances. It's a step toward the bad old days of separate but equal.

The Roberts court has a habit of denying it is overturning established precedent even as it blatantly overturns established precedent. Expect, given the court's decision to outlaw a procedure used in mid- and late-term abortions, that other precedents concerning abortion rights will receive the same lack of respect.

The Bush presidency has been, by most methods of reckoning on the left and the right, a disaster. Depending on how long Mr. Bush's backward-looking majority dominates the high court, it could prove to be his biggest disaster, no matter how much his narrow base might celebrate it as his only victory.

The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, the decision found that the American Civil Liberties Union, academics, lawyers and journalists who brought the case did not have standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.

The decision vacates a ruling in the case last August by a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit, who found that the administration's program to monitor private communications violated the Bill of Rights and a 1970s federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Friday's action in the 6th Circuit means that the principal remaining legal challenge to the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program is a group of cases pending before a U.S. District Court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California.

The primary issue before that appeals court, differing somewhat from that in

the Michigan case, is whether the administration may claim that a privilege covering state secrets precludes the litigation.
In January, after Democrats gained control of Congress, the administration abruptly shifted its position. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the surveillance program would start to be overseen by a court established to hear FISA cases.

But administration officials have not described critical details of the new approach, including whether a separate warrant is required for each instance of monitoring. Aides to Bush also have asserted that the president still retains the authority to conduct surveillance without court permission.

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, a Democratic appointee, disagreed in a dissenting opinion in which he concluded the plaintiffs were entitled to sue because they felt a need to alter their communications after the program was disclosed. Gilman also wrote that the case was not moot because "the president maintains that he has the authority to 'opt out' of the FISA framework at any time," and he agreed with the lower court judge that the program violates federal law.

Administration officials lauded the 6th Circuit's decision. Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto called the lower court finding that the program was unconstitutional "wrongly decided." Fratto said the appellate court "properly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to show their claims were entitled to review in federal court."

The ACLU's legal director, Steven Shapiro, said, "As a result of today's decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance."

Shapiro said the ACLU was examining its legal options, including the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The suit likely will not affect tuition rates this fall, but if it's successful, it could lead to a rise in the cost of a college education in Florida, where tuition is among the lowest in the country.
Established in 2003 with a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters, the Board of Governors was given "exclusive power to operate, regulate, control, and manage" the overall state university system.

A state law allowing the Legislature to control tuition is therefor unconstitutional, the complaint states.

"They are violating the will of the people of Florida," Graham said during a conference call with reporters Friday morning. "(The Board of Governors) has a constitutional responsibility."

However, Senate President Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. Lucie, who, along with House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, is named as a defendant in the suit, fired back. He called it "nothing more than an attempt to get unbridled tuition increases."

"God help our students if they win," Pruitt said in a statement. "I don't think voters were trying to turn the Board of Governors into the fourth branch of government."

None of the plaintiffs sit on the policy-making board, but several are university trustees and professors.

One of them, FAU marketing professor Eric Shaw, said university resources have become increasingly stretched in recent years as student enrollment increases.

More money is needed, either from the state or students, to provide quality higher education in Florida, where low tuition has led to high faculty-to-student ratios, Shaw said.

"Classes sizes get larger, faculty teach more and that cuts into their research time," he said. "But mostly you don't have as much contact with students."

Although board members would not comment on the lawsuit Friday, Shaw said he expects them to join the plaintiffs.

The board will take up the issue at a public meeting Tuesday at the University of Central Florida, said Bill Edmonds, board spokesman.

Crist's spokesman said the governor would need to review the lawsuit before commenting.

Meanwhile, Graham said the 20-page lawsuit, filed in Leon County Circuit Court in Tallahassee, has been in the works for a while but was pushed into court now because of the recent tuition increase freeze, which has universities scrambling to tighten their budgets.

"The legislature not only provides taxpayer money but decides what the student contribution will be," he said. "It does it in a way that it makes it almost impossible to have effective management of the university system."

"He doesn't respect the court. He ain't here," attorney Gregory Lattimer told the U.S. District Court jury, motioning toward an empty chair next to Iverson's lawyer at the defense table. "He doesn't respect anything that isn't Allen Iverson."

Marlin Godfrey and David Anthony Kittrell say the fight was started by Iverson's bodyguard and entourage when the pair refused to vacate a VIP section for Iverson at the Eyebar nightclub in Washington. Iverson, 32, testified that he didn't see the fight.

Godfrey and Kittrell claim the bodyguard, Jason Kane, and Terrance Williams assaulted them. They allege that Williams, a friend of Kane, was acting on Iverson's behalf.

Godfrey was badly beaten during the melee, suffering head and other injuries. Lattimer said he suffered depression and other long-term health problems from the incident.

The lawsuit says Iverson is responsible for the brawl because he failed to properly supervise Kane and Williams _ but it does not claim he took part in the fight. The suit also accuses Kane of assault and battery for allegedly beating Godfrey with items that include a bottle.

Iverson said Monday the suit was a get-rich-quick scheme by the two men, who targeted him because of his wealth and fame. Kane testified he wasn't involved in the fight and hustled Iverson out of the club when a brawl appeared imminent.

Iverson's lawyer, Alan Milstein, told jurors Thursday that Kittrell and Godfrey lied about details of the fight and who instigated it.

Iverson had no role in the melee, and wasn't responsible for Williams, who was not working for him, Milstein said. He echoed Iverson's claim that the case was an attempt to fleece the wealthy NBA star.

"The only reason Mr. Iverson is sued is because he's got the money. This whole case is about who's got it and how do we get it," Milstein said.

Iverson faces another lawsuit for another nightclub fight involving his security in Hampton, Va. That happened less than two weeks before the Washington fight.

In June, the State Department announced that employment visa numbers were available for all people seeking employer-sponsored green cards, except unskilled workers. The announcement meant that as early as this past Monday, Citizenship and Immigration Services would begin accepting applications, which require a lengthy process including certified documents and medical exams.

But an update posted Monday on the State Department Web site said 60,000 such numbers were no longer available because of "the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month," meaning no further applications would be authorized, effective immediately.

The department called the backlog reduction efforts an "unexpected action" and said employment visa numbers would be available Oct. 1.

Ptasinska—who flew from Chicago to Lincoln, Neb., on Monday in hopes of being among the first to submit a green card application—is seeking

a ruling that would keep the application from being rejected, according to her attorney Ira Azulay.
The lawsuit names several government officials and agencies, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of State and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

State Department spokeswoman Leslie Phillips said that the agency does not comment on litigation. Calls to Citizenship and Immigration Services went unanswered.

Immigration groups like the American Immigration Lawyers Foundation claim thousands of people across the country have spent time and money on attorneys and the application.

Spokesman Tim Vettel said the foundation is in the process of preparing a similar lawsuit.