Mohammed is the 31st Guantanamo detainee to win his petition for habeas corpus, which challenges the government’s right to continue to hold him without charge. According to David Remes, a lawyer who represents about a dozen Guantanamo detainees and closely tracks these cases, federal courts have ruled that the government can continue to detain eight of the 39 prisoners whose habeas cases have been heard.

I admit I overlooked this case, because it was initially reported as a suicide. But it’s no longer so clear that that’s the case.  now looks like that may not have been the case. Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt told According to journalist Naomi Wolf, “the status of the investigation into Mr al-Hanashi’s death … is now a Naval criminal investigation – meaning that he is no longer considered a suicide but a victim of a murder or a negligent homicide.”

Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Cmdr Brook DeWalt, however, who I spoke to after initially writing this post, denies that interpretation. According to DeWalt, “any death is investigated by NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] on navy bases. Whether it be natural causes, whether it be suicide, criminal, across the board.”

Wolf’s “news” has just gotten a little fuzzier. What is clear, though, is that five months after al-Hanashi’s death, we still don’t know what happened to him.

In all the discussion of where the administration is going to try Guantanamo detainees, the news about Hanashi has been buried.  It’s In fact, both the Bush and Obama administrations have been extremely tight-lipped about the deaths of detainees in U.S. custody. Although the government reports when a Guantanamo detainee dies, As I’ve pointed out before, at some point the military stopped reporting the deaths of its prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve repeatedly asked why, and I’ve asked the Pentagon to define its current policy for reporting deaths of detainees in U.S. custody overseas.

I’ve never received any explanation. I’ll keep trying.

This post has been updated for clarification, based on DeWalt’s statement that Wolf misinterpreted his remarks.

Under the Senate legislation as it is currently written, Americans with employer-provided coverage, whose income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and whose premiums are between 8 and 9.8 percent of their total income will be exempt from having to purchase health coverage but will not be able to access the exchange to qualify for government assistance to purchase insurance.  The agreed to amendment will make it possible for these individuals to convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges.

Critics contend that the proposal will cause a flood of young, healthy workers to flee employer-sponsored plans, hiking rates for the older, sicker folks who remained. But a number of Senate Democrats had recently joined Wyden in urging adoption of the so-called “free-choice” amendment.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the change will cover an additional 1 million people, Wyden says.

It’s a ridiculous set of recommendations. It’s causing mass confusion among women, because we have been trained to know that, when we’re 40 years old, we should get a mammogram routinely.

Wasserman Schultz also criticized the suggestion that women between the ages of 40 and 49 should simply talk with their doctors to gauge their breast-cancer risk.

About 75 percent of women who have breast cancer didn’t have any risk, weren’t in a higher-risk category. I was in a higher-risk category, didn’t even know it until I found my lump myself and went to the doctor.

So, these recommendations are really patronizing, because they’re presuming that women can’t handle more information and make a rational decision with their health care provider.

The congresswoman’s office hasn’t returned calls this week about whether Congress needs to enter this fray legislatively.

“The reason I ask you,” said O’Donnell, “is that I think there’s some confusion about Sarah Palin’s policies.”

It wasn’t a man-on-the-street interview with a dopey tourist being asked a surprise question, of the kind John Ziegler conducted with Obama supporters to “prove” that they had no idea what Obama believed. Jackie was a political activist with a political message. And the history of the bailouts has really been mangled by conservative spin since September 2008, when, in a panic, most Republicans (in Congress) supported them. When former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gave a speech at the Value Voters Summit this year and attacked “bailing out banks,” few people in the crowd remembered that Romney had supported the bailouts.

By and large, I’ve found that Tea Party activists and conservatives do not forgive Republicans who supported the bailouts — there is a lot of anger toward former President George W. Bush, and more toward former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. And here is what Palin said about the bailouts in her debate with Joe Biden.

John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.

People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn’t want to listen to him and wouldn’t go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain’s bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.

In September 2008, McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington to help negotiate a government response to the financial crisis, resulting in a $700 billion bailout bill.

And here is what Palin says in “Going Rogue” about the bailouts, on page 270.

[T]he House of Representatives rejected a Bush-backed economic bailout plan in a vote in which two-thirds of Republicans voted no. The impression this made on the electorate was not helpful to our cause. Millions of Americans were poised to go bankrupt or lose their savings, and the perception was that Republicans had failed to respond.

I don’t think you can avoid the conclusion that Palin supported the bailout package. If a Palin supporter doesn’t know this, it’s perfectly legitimate to find out why. And yet The Weekly Standard, not alone in the conservative media, takes this exchange and makes it all about a brave 17-year-old girl battling back against an “ambush” from MSNBC.

My test on this is easy: Would George C. Marshall have accepted such payments? I doubt it. (Remember, he declined to write a memoir that would have made him wealthy because he thought it would have been improper to get into the failings of some of his comrades.)

“This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor,” Nelson says. “The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans.”

Nelson has previously indicated that his vote for passage of a final bill is far from certain, but his announcement today removes one potential Democratic roadblock on the path to a final vote. TPM also reports that two other fence-sitting Demoratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, remain uncommitted on tomorrow’s vote but have hinted they intend to vote in favor of sending the bill to the floor to debate.

Blackburn was joined by GOP Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Sue Myrick (N.C.), Candice Miller (Mich.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).

Funny, though, that none of the participants has signed on in support of legislation to ensure that all women aged 40 and up have access to routine mammograms. That bill, sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.

Only one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), is among the 79 co-sponsors of Nadler’s bill.

The message from the Republicans seems to be: We’re wary of the government recommending fewer tests based on independent research, but it’s OK for private insurance companies, driven by profit motives, to deny access to the same services.

The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those  conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Sentate. [...]

The Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Translation: We know you lied under oath; here’s your slap on the wrist.

Is it any wonder that watchdog groups don’t trust the system of Congress policing itself?