Despite having the support of a majority of the Senate, the alternative plan for military commissions backed by Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner might face a filibuster led by Sen. Bill Frist, who is seriously toeing the White House line on the treatment of detainees and warrantless wiretapping. But since the White House might ultimately get most of what its wants out of a possible compromise bill, why the threat of a filibuster? Could it be that Frist, who clearly harbors presidential aspirations, wants to steal McCain's spotlight?

In other news, the International Committee of the Red Cross will meet next week for the first time with the 14 high-level detainees now held at Gitmo who sparked off this current row in the first place.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Won't the midterms be dirty. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet. In his speech today, the president announced that he is immediately sending legislation to Congress that would allow the United States to establish military tribunals for enemy combatants - the same tribunals that the Supreme Court struck down in June (finding them unconstitutional because Congress hadn't approved them). This move is predictable. Ever since the Supreme Court decision came down, the administration has been planning to seek congressional approval. But the announcement today that more than a dozen high-value enemy combatants - including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the architects of the 9/11 attacks - have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay puts anyone wishing to debate the legality, fairness, and sensibility of these tribunals - during the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the run-up to the midterms - in a very unenviable position. Hence the brilliant political timing.

So, it looks very likely that the administration will get to keep its closed tribunals - where those prosecuted and their counsel can be prohibited from even learning the evidence against them. I haven't yet seen the legislation in question, which could be vastly different from what ultimately emerges from Congress. But the tribunal the administration wanted initially looked a little something like this:

The 24 suspects arrested by the British authorities can be held for 28 days before they are charged. Their prosecution will create a politically charged debate about the trade-offs between security and liberty. Any defense lawyer worth his salt is going to challenge the evidence being used against them, claiming that suspects implicating them in the plot were likely tortured in Pakistan. (Information obtained in this manner is inadmissible in British courts.) Considering that Pakistan was instrumental in the arrest and the year long investigation into the 24, this could be a fertile furrow for the defense.

One can just imagine the row that would follow if the case against these men collapsed because key prosecution evidence was deemed inadmissible. In the past, members of the judiciary have shown themselves to be willfully blind to the dangers posed by terrorism, with Law Lords making glib statements about how the "real threat" comes not from terrorism, but from anti-terror laws. All of which makes one wonder if the combative Home Secretary John Reid was launching a pre-emptive strike when he lashed out on Wednesday at judges, among others, for failing to "understand the depth and magnitude" of the terrorist threat to Britain and bemoaned that we are "unable to adapt our institutions and legal orthodoxy as fast as we need to."

What happens when 10,000 lawyers get together in Hawaii? I don't know either, but I'm sure someone is going to get sued. And apparently, the American Bar Association thinks so too. 

The ABA is holding its annual meeting in Honolulu starting tomorrow, but it won't be sponsoring the previously-scheduled longboard surfing contest. It seems the ABA lawyers are a little too afraid of the liability. But never fear: The litigators will still surf. The Hawaii State Bar Association and LexisNexis have just agreed to sponsor the event in the ABA's place. And just in case, they'll have lifeguards on duty.  

From the start, Uganda has been a tricky case for the International Criminal Court. The ICC issued indictments for several Lord's Resistance Army leaders last year, but prominent voices in the country have argued all along that the indictments are getting in the way of a negotiated settlement. As we've discussed on Passport recently, there has been a lot of talk about amnesty for LRA fighters who come in from the field. As we mentioned in the Morning Brief today, there is now news that the familar peace versus justice dilemma has become even more acute: The Ugandan government is actually seeking a waiver from its international obligation to arrest LRA leaders so that it can negotiate with them. So far, the ICC appears to be standing its ground.

The precise motivations of the Ugandan authorities in the unfolding saga are unclear. The government, we should recall, formally asked the ICC to investigate LRA atrocities. So its current stance is a dramatic reversal. It could be that the government is now wary that the court's investigators might be nosing into the conduct of government officials and so would prefer to pull the plug. Whatever their calculations, it's important to recognize that the ICC's founding document, the Rome Statute, offers a way out: The UN Security Council has the power to suspend investigations in the interests of international peace and security. It would be an embarrassing climb-down, but it may yet happen.     

Yesterday's election in Kuwait was a resounding disappointment for female candidates, who were permitted to compete against men for the first time in the history of Kuwait's parliament. Although women make up 57% of the 340,000-strong electorate, that didn't translate into any seats for them. However, many remain hopeful that the increased presence of reformist candidates, who will now hold 33 of the 50 seats, will make it easier for women to win next time around. But reformists will have to tread carefully; despite a reputation for standing up to the ruling family, the parliament always faces the possibility of being dissolved at the emir's pleasure.

The BBC has pulled back from its earlier report today that an impending Fatah-Hamas deal would include the provision that Hamas implicitly recognizes Israel's right to exist. They are now reporting that while Fatah and Hamas have agreed to a common political strategy, the accord has no mention of recognizing Israel. Despite this new accord - the text of which hasn't been released - Israel has stated that it has no bearing on the current crisis. Israeli troops and armed Palestinian militants are massing on either side of the Gaza border. Progress that seemed to be made after the meeting between Olmert and Abbas last week appears naive in hindsight.

But in a new ForeignPolicy.com exclusive, former Swedish diplomat Mathias Mossberg has a radical proposal for ending the territorial stalemate in Israel and the occupied territories. What if Israelis and Palestinians abandoned the seemingly endless and bloody road to a two-state solution, and instead adopted a completely original form of statehood? What if they adopted not two states next to one another, but states on top of one another? Check it out.  

The ICC's chief prosecutor says his office has so far documented "a significant number of large scale massacres," each "with hundreds of victims," as well as hundreds of cases of alleged rapes in Darfur, according to a report to the UN released yesterday. The report goes on to state that Sudanese authorities have failed to investigate or prosecute cases currently under investigation, which means the ICC would have jurisdiction to proceed with prosecutions. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo says he expects to file charges, presumably in the next few months, but Sudanese officials said today that the ICC doesn't have authority and that Sudanese trials have simply been slowed by logistical factors.

The ICC moving forward on Darfur is good news not just for Darfur, but for the ICC. If the court can bring Darfur war criminals to justice, it may signal to the Bush administration that their cold-shoulder stance toward the court deserves a rethink.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Google founder Sergey Brin admitted his company may have acted a little too hastily in censoring results for its China search engine, and that it might consider reversing course. Brin said,

"It's perfectly reasonable to do something different, to say, 'Look, we're going to stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there.' That's an alternate path," Brin said. "It's not where we chose to go right now, but I can sort of see how people came to different conclusions about doing the right thing."

I wonder if Brin read the current issue of FP, in which David Vise questioned Google's commitment to its principles. At any rate, Google can't have been happy about all the backlash when it decided to do business in China. Personally, I'm on the fence about this. Censorship is clearly wrong, but I don't know if it helps the Chinese for Google to completely withdraw. At any rate, I do think that Brin has expressed some thoughtfulness with his statements yesterday. Too often, you hear corporate execs unequivocably touting free market principles without considering other implications. It will be interesting to see if Google actually does revamp its China policies. To keep up with all things search engine-related, check out Danny Sullivan's outstanding Search Engine Watch blog. By the way, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more about this in today's news, but I guess with British Parliament closing and gearing up for the World Cup, people have been otherwise distracted.