"At the end of the day, everybody who serves in this building as senators or representatives knows we're making Colorado history," said the bill's sponsor, Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald. "We want to be able to look in the mirror and say we did legislation that is tough, enforceable and humane."

Republicans said the bill didn't go far enough, and left glaring loopholes, including allowing benefits for minors and denying voters the chance to have a direct say on the issue.

The bill would apply to Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, energy assistance programs and aging and adult services. Republican Gov. Bill Owens said an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants could be thrown out of those programs.

"It simply puts teeth into existing federal regulations," Owens said.

Sen. Dan Grossman was one of the four Democrats to vote against the measure.

"I don't think the poor people of the state of Colorado or businesses of the state of Colorado should have to pay because we want to play politics with immigration," Grossman said.

In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments by Jefferson and a bipartisan group of House leaders that the raid violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

Hogan acknowledged the "unprecedented" nature of the case. But he said the lawmakers' "sweeping" theory of legislative privilege "would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

A member of Congress is bound by the same laws as ordinary citizens, said the judge, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.

Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during the 18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office.

Hogan said the Justice Department can retake custody of the materials, which President Bush ordered held by the solicitor general until Congress and the agency could work out procedures for future raids on congressional offices.

Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout, said he was not surprised by the ruling and would appeal as soon as possible. Trout is expected to ask Hogan to stay his ruling to keep the materials away from investigators until an appeals court looks at the case.

"While a congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must also follow the law," Trout said. "We appreciate the consideration the judge accorded our motion for the return of the seized property, but we respectfully disagree with his conclusion."

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department was pleased with the judge's decision and said prosecutors would continue discussions with Congress to work out procedures for future raids.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California also said Congress will continue to work with the Justice Department on procedures for searches.

Still, "This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles," she said.

At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice Department budgets.

Bush stepped in and ordered the solicitor general to take custody for a 45-day "cooling off period," which ended Sunday.

Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.

In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash payments. Jefferson has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

An affidavit filed with Hogan to justify the May search says the FBI videotaped Jefferson in August 2005 accepting $100,000 from a business executive, who actually was a government informant. The FBI said it subsequently recovered $90,000 from a freezer at Jefferson's home.

The House leaders told Hogan in a court filing that the Justice Department had overstepped its authority by prohibiting Jefferson's private lawyer, House counsel and the Capitol Police from observing the search of Jefferson's office.

They also complained that agents showed up at the Rayburn Office Building unannounced and demanded that the Capitol Police chief let them into Jefferson's office immediately or they would "pick the office door lock."

Hogan said investigators do not need approval from elected officials or their lawyers to seize possible proof of a crime.

"The power to determine the scope of one's own privilege is not available to any other person, including members of the coequal branches of government: federal judges ... or the President of the United States," the judge said.

He also said judges have a legitimate role to play in ensuring prosecutors don't overstep their authority in investigating legislators.

"A federal judge is not a mere rubber stamp in the warrant process," Hogan wrote, "but rather an independent and neutral official sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution."

It was no big surprise that King would only probe Bush's epidermis about the occupation: "Concerning Iraq, do you ever have doubts about it?" And when both Bushes agreed that they haven't lost resolve and that the war in Iraq is making the United States more secure, Larry missed an opportunity to dig a little with a reference to a recent study showing that American terrorism experts say the opposite-that the incursion in Iraq has made us far less safe.

George, then, went on to assert that "it's important to deal with problems before they become acute." This was an opportunity for Larry to ask why Bush split for Crawford after papers crossed his desk, warning that terrorists wanted to hijack planes within the United States and fly them into buildings, killing thousands of Americans. Maybe, just maybe, 9/11 wasn't quite "acute" enough. At the least, King should have reminded Bush that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.

After a commercial break, King asked Bush about the war again. "Do you ever go to the funerals?"

"No, I don't," Bush replied. When Larry wanted to know why, George continued, "Because it's hard ... I want to honor those who sacrificed. I think the best way for me to honor them is to complete the mission"

No confrontation from King that it makes no sense to honor the fallen by sending more to fall.

And, then, one of the most illuminating moments-Larry asked Bush, "So there is no doubt, if you had it to do over again, knowing the WMDs weren't there, you'd still go in?"

And Bush said, "Yes, This is-we removed a tyrant, who was a weapon-he was an enemy of the United States who harbored terrorists and who had the capacity, at the very minimum, to make weapons of mass destruction. And he was a true threat. Yes, I would have done the same thing."

This is an astonishing revelation. After all, the original premise to invade Iraq was to find the WMD and eliminate their threat to Americans. Most assuredly, if Congress had not been convinced by Bush's fabricated intelligence that weapons existed, its members would never have voted to give George Bush the authority to wage a preemptive war with Iraq. Surely, the American public would not have endorsed Bush's actions either.

So, here we have George Bush, saying on national television that if he'd known then what he knows now, he'd still have waged this war that's sent almost 2, 550 American troops to their deaths and thousands to be wounded (some with severe brain injuries and others with multiple amputations) to take down a tyrant who didn't possess WMD.

Where is the outrage over this? Where is the call for justice?

I remember watching Larry King when he interviewed Mark Lunsford a couple of days after nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford's body was discovered. King asked the grieving father if he'd done anything to change his murdered daughter's room. I shook my head in disbelief and said, "Yeah, Larry, I boxed up all the stuffed animals, removed everything pink, and put in a pool table and decorated the walls with sports posters."

King's questionable and anemic interviewing skills are reason enough that more isn't being made of Bush's startling disclosure-an admission that is characteristically Bushian in its righteous certitude. But there's the added truth that George Bush is painful to watch and hear. Had more Americans listened, there would be a louder, stronger demand for the impeachment of a president who has betrayed the trust of our military, the American people, and the citizens of Iraq.

Missy Beattie lives in New York City. She's written for National Public Radio and Nashville Life Magazine. An outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq, she's a member of Gold Star Families for Peace. She completed a novel last year, but since the death of her nephew, Marine Lance Cpl. Chase J. Comley, in Iraq on August 6,'05, she has been writing political articles. She can be reached at: Missybeat@aol.com

Bradley was arrested on Sunday morning when he walked into his local police station on Westgate Road at 6.15am and said there were four dead bodies at his home.

He had served for eight years with the Royal Artillery and had seen active duty in the first Gulf War, Bosnia and Northern Ireland, Northumbria Police said.

Detectives said the four family members - Mr and Mrs Purcell and two of their sons - had all died during a five hour period between 9pm on Saturday and 2.15am on Sunday.

Mr and Mrs Purcell, who were both retired, had lived at the end-terrace house in Benwell Grove for 22 years.

They shared their home with their disabled son Keith and nephew Bradley. Glen, a glass fitter, was visiting his parents for the weekend from his home in Wales.

As well as Keith and Glen, they had three other children: Peter, 49, Michael, 47, and Jacqueline, 46.

A second daughter, Lorraine, died of cancer two years ago at the age of 41.

Mr Purcell ran a family roofing business with his two sons Keith and Glen before retiring around 10 years ago.

"They have always lived in the West End of Newcastle and were extremely popular and well-known among the local community," said Superintendent Steve Wade at a news conference at Etal Lane police station.

"Peter was a popular man and well-known in the clubs in the West End and had an active social life.

"Josie, as well as raising a family, worked as home help. Keith suffered an accident at work, which left him disabled and recent ill-health left him needing crutches.

"Glen, after working for his father, had settled in Wales and worked as a glass fitter and visited Benwell Grove from time to time."

Many floral tributes were left outside the family house, including those from Keith's daughter, Bianca.

Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.

But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."

Challenges to the legality of this war can also be found at the ground level. First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, cites the rules of the U.N. Charter as a principle reason for his dissent.

Ferencz isn't using the invasion of Iraq as a convenient prop to exercise his longstanding American hatred: he has a decades-old paper trail of calls for every suspect of war crimes to be brought to international justice. When the United States captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, Ferencz wrote that Hussein's offenses included "the supreme international crime of aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of atrocities condemned by both international and national laws."

Ferencz isn't the first to make the suggestion that the United States has committed state-sponsored war crimes against another nation -- not only have leading war critics made this argument, but so had legal experts in the British government before the 2003 invasion. In a short essay in 2005, Ferencz lays out the inner deliberations of British and American officials as the preparations for the war were made:

U.K. military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in The Hague."

Ferencz quotes the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who, in the lead-up to the invasion, quit abruptly and wrote in her resignation letter: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution ... [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

While the United Kingdom is a signatory of the ICC, and therefore under jurisdiction of that court, the United States is not, thanks to a Republican majority in Congress that has "attacks on America's sovereignty" and "manipulation by the United Nations" in its pantheon of knee-jerk neuroses. Ferencz concedes that even though Britain and its leadership could be prosecuted, the international legal climate isn't at a place where justice is blind enough to try it -- or as Ferencz put it, humanity isn't yet "civilized enough to prevent this type of illegal behavior." And Ferencz said that while he believes the United States is guilty of war crimes, "the international community is not sufficiently organized to prosecute such a case. ... There is no court at the moment that is competent to try that crime."

As Ferencz said, the world is still a long way away from establishing norms that put all nations under the rule of law, but the battle to do so is a worthy one: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of all."

The suggestion that the Bush administration's conduct in the "war on terror" amounts to a string of war crimes and human rights abuses is gaining credence in even the most ossified establishment circles of Washington. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that Bush's attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the court rejected Bush's attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits "are considered 'war crimes' punishable as federal offenses," as Justice Kennedy wrote.

George W. Bush in the dock facing a charge of war crimes? That's well beyond the scope of possibility ... or is it?

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Some state politicians had called for the University of Wisconsin-Madison to fire Kevin Barrett, a part-time instructor, after he spoke about his theories on a radio talk show last month.

The university provost, Patrick Farrell, said in a statement late on Monday: "We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas.

"To the extent that his views are discussed, Mr Barrett has assured me that students will be free and encouraged to challenge his viewpoint."

Barrett can present his view as one of many perspectives on the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington DC when he teaches Islam: Religion and Culture this fall, Farrell said.

Farrell began a review after Barrett said he believed the attacks were the result of a conspiracy designed to cause war in the Middle East.

Barrett said he was happy the school "did the right thing".

"This university is a pretty professional organisation that is not going to buckle from political pressure from politicians," he said.

Criticism

Politicians who had called for Barrett's dismissal criticised the decision.

Matt Canter, a spokesman for the governor, Jim Doyle, said: "The governor would have come to a different conclusion about this."

Steve Nass, a state representative, said he would push next year for cuts to the university's budget.

The university does not endorse Barrett's theories, Farrell said, noting that they are widely believed in parts of the Muslim world.