Apologies to Drudge, from whom we have shamelessly lifted the alliterative headline. He has now replaced it with the more accurate, but less sexy, "Split Verdict at Gitmo."

Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, was cleared of a conspiracy charge. But he was convicted of "supporting terrorism," which carries a potential life sentence.

Military jury convicts bin Laden's driver [AP via Drudge]
Breaking News: Gitmo Jury Returns Split Verdict in Hamdan Case [WSJ Law Blog]

Dana Milbank is a great political columnist at the Washington Post. He flavors his writing with a hilarity and mockery not usually found in the Post's newsy pages (though certainly found in the Style section). We fear the Washington Post will lose him to The Daily Show any minute now.

Last week, David Addington was the subject of Milbank's Washington Sketch. Addington is chief of staff and former legal counsel to VP Dick Cheney. He replaced Scooter Libby after Libby's fall from grace. Addington is a Duke law grad and "the most powerful man you've never heard of."

He's also mean and scary, judging from these exchanges during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week:

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I'm not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of," Addington growled.

Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? "That's irrelevant," he barked.

Would it be legal to torture a detainee's child? "I'm not here to render legal advice to your committee," he snarled. "You do have attorneys of your own."

The dialogue reminds us of arguing with a precocious, but mean-spirited, 10-year-old. Except this one has a lot of power. And helped determine the country's policies for torturing detainees. More scary Addington after the jump.

Or maybe "broken"; the news came in about an hour ago, and we're a little slow on the draw. From Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog:

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows -- when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released -- that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that "we do not address whether the President has authority to detain" individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

Sounds like there's a little punting going on. But that's why the Supreme Court is supreme: they give the district judges the first crack at things, then show up and tell the DJs where they went wrong.

More here from the New York Times, which describes the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) as "a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security."

Court gives detainees habeas rights [SCOTUSblog]
Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts [New York Times]
Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) [SCOTUSblog]

Today's Washington Post has this interesting article about the living conditions of "enemy combatant" Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Marri has been held in solitary confinement for 6 1/2 years. Although he has been accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, he has yet to be tried for any crime.

The bulk of the article focuses on concerns that Marri's lawyers have raised about his well-being and mental health. They argue that years of isolation have impaired his ability to participate in his own defense.

Their concerns appear to be serious and well-founded. But the real estate voyeur in us found this paragraph to be the most interesting:

Marri has a 1,000-square-foot dayroom with cable television and recently was given access to a computer. He also can read books from an approximately 400-volume library, including religious texts; has his own exercise equipment; and can read articles from USA Today and a local newspaper, except for news about the counterterrorism effort, along with magazines such as Men's Fitness and PC World.

With 1,000 square feet of living space to himself, Marri is living better than most Manhattanites. But that periodical selection leaves something to be desired. Were those Marri's selections, or the Pentagon's picks? Why not, say, the New York Times and Vanity Fair?

(But photoshop those Miley Cyrus pics to put her in a burqa.)

Lawyers Fear for Marri's Sanity [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* Spitzer may -- or make that will -- resign today. [CNN; New York Times]

* Obama wins Mississippi, picks up more Texas delegates than Clinton. [CNN]

* Gitmo war-crimes tribunal to hear detainee's case. [MSNBC]

* Houses passes proposal to create independent ethics panel. [Washington Post]

* Another French trader taken into custody in connection with gigantic trading scandal. [AP]

* Irish appeals court chews up, spits out, libel ruling against restaurant critic. [AFP via Drudge]

* "T.Owes." [ESPN]

* Rebates to $500? [CNN]

* AG Mukasey won't label waterboarding. [MSNBC]

* Sen. McCain wins Florida, Rudy to bow out. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Federal inquiry into stolen artifacts expands. [New York Times]

* Margaret Truman, only child of President Truman and author of mysteries set at the Supreme Court and the FBI, RIP. [AP]

* Former congressman indicted in connection with group that allegedly funded terrorism. [Washington Post; CNN]

* Randy Moss denies battery allegations. [SI.com]

* SCOTUS upholds NY judicial selection. [New York Times]

* OJ released on doubled bail. [AP; Reuters]

* Delicious, buttery lawsuit pops up in Colorado. [MSNBC]

* Big award round-up: Apollo Group must pay shareholders $280 million; Libya must pay $6 billion for airplane bombing. [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Bush administration seeks greater power over promotions of military lawyers. [Boston Globe via How Appealing]

* Saudi king pardons rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes (for being alone with a man at the time of the attack). [AP via New York Times]

* Limited effects of recent SCOTUS sentencing decision? [Chicago Tribune]

* CNN's guide to Mitchell report players. [CNN]

* Law Blog's guide to Sen. George Mitchell (including a funny story of a minor faux pas). [WSJ Law Blog]

* Poll suggests support for individual rights reading of Second Amendment. [CNN]

* Comcast v. NFL Network dispute produces another lawsuit. [Sportsline]

* So, it's gonna be illegal now, which means the CIA can't do it, right? [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* New Jersey gets rid of the death penalty; now if they could just tackle that disgusting odor. [BBC]

* Prosecutors go 0-1-6 in Sears Tower trial. [CNN]

* Hey, look everybody! International law! They've got a court with judges and lawyers and stuff, and they even issue rulings! Just like it's real! That's cute. ICJ upholds treaty giving islands to Colombia. [Jurist]

* Hollywood writers take this strike thing up a notch. [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Arar v. Ashcroft, a high-profile lawsuit arising out of the U.S. government's rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria.

We interviewed DLA Piper partner Joshua Sohn (at right), co-counsel to Mr. Arar along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, about this interesting case and his firm's work on it.

For readers who aren't familiar with the case, what's it all about?

It's about the federal government's extraordinary renditions program, which sends "people of interest" to sites around the world for indefinite detention and interrogation under harsh conditions -- in this case torture. Mr. Arar, who is a computer engineer, Canadian citizen, husband, and father of two young children, was pulled out of the immigration line at JFK when he was attempting to change planes, but not enter the United States. Mr. Arar was interrogated at the airport, detained and interrogated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and ultimately flown by private jet in the dead of night to Jordan and delivered to Syria. Mr. Arar was never charged with a crime, was not allowed to consult with an attorney for many days when he was first detained and both he and his attorney were lied to about what was going to happen to him and the fact that he was being sent to Syria.

Mr. Arar made plain to those holding him that he feared being tortured in Syria and that he wanted to be sent to Canada-where he lived and was a citizen. Those pleas were ignored and Mr. Arar was sent to Syria where he was tortured and kept in a grave-like cell for almost a year. This case seeks to hold the federal officials who are responsible for Mr. Arar's treatment, responsible.

Read the rest of the interview, after the jump.

One of our favorite Supreme Court reporters, the fabulous Jan Crawford Greenburg, gave a speech at Harvard Law School today. But she didn't tarry in Cambridge:

Not sure what is going on, but JCG just finished giving a speech at HLS and said that:

a) She was turning around to go back to Washington immediately (this was not her original plan) and that the folks in DC had actually wanted her to turn around and catch the next shuttle back right away this morning after she landed.

b) We should be sure to watch the news tonight.

Not sure if there is anything to this, but checking Drudge and everything else there don't seem to be any legal headlines going on. So the whole thing just seemed sort of weird.

Sure, I guess a few hundred bucks is nothing to ABC News, but the whole thing just seemed sort of odd. So I thought I'd throw it your way in case there were any other rumors flying about.

Correction / Update: We've been advised that the foregoing information actually came from the remarks introducing Jan Crawford Greenburg, not from the speech of JCG herself, and was mentioned only by way of explaining why the event was being cut somewhat short (with a planned lunch cancelled).

Has anyone heard anything? Nothing over at JCG's blog, Legalities, hints at the reason for her rapid return to Washington.

Might Jan Crawford Greenburg's hasty retreat back to DC be related to the embattled nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General? Maybe Mukasey will give her an exclusive interview, in which he will declare waterboarding "not cool"?

Your speculation, informed or otherwise, is welcome in the comments.

P.S. On the subject of Mukasey and waterboarding, see this editorial cartoon.

Mukasey Mulls Waterboarding [The Illustrated Daily Scribble]
Bush Moves to Save Mukasey Nomination [New York Times]
Open Thread — The Nomination of Michael Mukasey [WSJ Law Blog]
Mukasey Confirmation Unlikely as Sen. Kennedy Joins Opposition to President's AG Nominee [Blogonaut]

* Happy Birthday, Mrs. President! Scott Shrake conducts an astrological analysis of Hillary Clinton. [Huffington Post]

* Speaking of witch, is Stephen Colbert "the best-scripted candidate this side of Hillary Clinton"? [Radar Online]

* "'Terrorism,' Censored Legal Briefs & The Blogosphere: Awesome Together." [Fishbowl NY]

* Lawsuit of the Day: Mom of "Let's Go Crazy" Baby fights back. [ABC News]

* Benchslap of the Day: federal judge tells SEC lawyer, to "sit down" and "shut up." [WSJ Law Blog]

This email was sent around Cleary Gottlieb earlier this afternoon:

There has been a bomb threat received by one of the tenants of OLP [One Liberty Plaza] that is not specific as to details of the threatened event. The police have been conducting an investigation of the premises, including with dog squads, and have turned up nothing. No recommendation has been made by the police or other authorities that we evacuate the building, although one or two tenants have taken it upon themselves to do so.

The police do not believe this is a credible threat, but we felt that our employees should have the benefit of this information nevertheless.

If you have any details about the incident, please add them in the comments, or email us. Thanks.

* Dems to propose new surveillance bill? [Newsweek]

* Only a Garrison Keillor stalker would call it "transcendental love." [CNN]

* Pearl drops lawsuit against terrorists. [MSNBC]

* Law firm World Series. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Today's stupid crimes from Court TV. [CourtTV]

* Mistrial in case against Muslim organization; retrial likely. [AP; New York Times]

* California wildfires lead lawyers to flee from their homes and offices... [The Recorder via Law.com]

* ... and may give rise to insurance battles, too. [CNN]

* Ex-stripper convicted in "Last Seduction" trial. [MSNBC]

* White House accused of doctoring environmental testimony. [MSNBC]

* Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) retracts her expressions of concern over the prosecution of an L.A. councilman. [Washington Briefs]

Here's a quick follow-up to our prior coverage of the mysterious Under Armour briefs that somehow made their way into the hands, and onto the loins, of Guantanamo Bay detainees. From Reuters:

The U.S. military has ended an inquiry into who smuggled unauthorized underwear and a bathing suit to two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without learning the source of the contraband skivvies, an attorney said on Wednesday.

The investigators concluded more vigilance was needed to prevent contraband from entering the camp that holds 330 suspected al Qaeda operatives, said Capt. Pat McCarthy, the military's chief lawyer for the detention operation at Guantanamo.

Is the inability to solve the Riddle of the Briefs a sad commentary on the state of military intelligence? Or is this perhaps a mystery that they didn't want to be solved?

Mystery underwear stymies Guantanamo investigators [Reuters]

Earlier: Guantanamo Bay Perk Watch: Under Armor Briefs!

We always get excited about law-related movies. E.g., Michael Clayton; A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar. If you hear of any in the pipeline, please let us know.

Today we're pleased to present an exclusive clip for the upcoming release by Magnolia Pictures, Terror's Advocate, which opens in theaters tomorrow. Here's a brief blurb about this legally-themed film:

TERROR'S ADVOCATE is a controversial documentary that explores the legal practices of the charismatic and devious-until-proven-innocent French lawyer Jacques Vergès. He is best known for defending Carlos the Jackal and members of the Nazi party. In addition, TERROR'S ADVOCATE features the recently arrested former Khmer Rouge Second in Command, Nuon Chea.

“Jaw-dropping and all the more amazing for being true.” A.O. Scott - NY Times

“A riveting drama. This fascinating drama is fresh and epic” - Time Magazine

An Official Selection at Cannes Film Festival, Toronto Film Festival and Telluride Film Festival.

You can check out the ATL exclusive clip, an interview with this rather charming defender of terrorists, by clicking here. Additional information, including the official trailer, is available at the film's website.

Terror's Advocate [film clip]
Terror's Advocate [official website]
L'Avocat de la terreur [IMDb]

* Does a federal district court have to recruit pro bono counsel for a pro se litigant? [Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals via How Appealing]

* DOJ cool with torture tough interrogation techniques. [New York Times]

* Bush doesn't care about poor kids. [AP via Athens Banner-Herald]

* The ACLU doesn't want to let Bush protect us. [Jurist]

* Falcons want their money back; so do Falcons fans (last week's fine win notwithstanding). [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Life for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, while difficult, isn't 100 percent grim. From yesterday's Washington Post:

Undergarments from Under Armour, the sports apparel line, offer "all-day performance, delivered in a lightweight compression fit," at least according to the company' s promotional material. While "unprecedented" in its ability to deliver comfort, Under Armour underwear is not standard issue for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So when two men in detention there were found to possess the contraband briefs, the Navy attorney contacted their attorneys. One of the detainees in question is Shaker Aamer, whose release the British government wrote to request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August.

But before turning to the larger question of whether Aamer will stay or go, there's the question of what he's wearing. And as the recent exchange between the Navy lawyer and Aamer's attorney Clive Stafford Smith illustrates, in the legal wrangling over detention, even details on intimates can lead to contentious debate...

You read excerpts from the hilarious correspondence, which showcase the dry British wit of Clive Stafford-Smith, over here.

But for those of you who like to look at original documents -- and we know that, since you're mostly lawyers, you love yourselves some primary docs -- we're pleased to present the complete correspondence (with original letterhead, signatures, etc.). Just click here (PDF). Enjoy!

Correspondence Between Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, and Clive A. Stafford-Smith [PDF]
An Incursion of Briefs at Guantanamo [Washington Post]

Ed. notes: First, B. Clerker is unavailable this morning, so we're doing Morning Docket ourselves. Second, by the time you read this, we'll be attending this event. But we've arranged for previously written posts (like this one) to be published in our absence.

* John Edwards tries to put a noble spin on the financial desperation of his flailing campaign. Stick a fork in him; he's done. [WP; NYT]

* Jena One released on bail. [AP]

* Fourteen "high-value" terrorism suspects will be allowed to request lawyers. KSM will use his to sue Teleflex. [WP]

* In Pakistan, the Supreme Court gets involved in elections too. From the gallery: "Go, Musharraf, go!" [AP via WP]

* Set your TiVo, judicial groupies: Justice Thomas will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Thankfully, his interview -- in which he's rumored to call Anita Hill "a nappy-headed ho" -- doesn''t conflict with the season premiere of Desperate Housewives. [WSJ Law Blog]