Is China ready for labor camp reform?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Chinese media recently said infamous 'Re-Education Through Labor' system would be reformed


• HRW: Roughly 160,000 people are detained in China for up to four years without trial


• Maya Wang: Like other long-mooted reforms, this might only be a cosmetic gesture


• As a type of arbitrary detention, RTL should not be reformed, it should be abolished, she says

Editor's note: Maya Wang is a researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch based in Hong Kong. She is an expert on a wide range of human rights issues in China including arbitrary detention, torture and disability and women's rights. Follow her on Twitter @wang_maya.

New York (CNN) -- Did the Chinese government announce earlier this week that it would end its notorious detention system known as Re-Education Through Labor (RTL)?

On January 7, Meng Jianzhu, the head of the powerful Political and Legal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, reportedly announced that the government would "stop using" the system, in which roughly 160,000 people are detained for up to four years without trial for "crimes that are not severe enough to warrant a criminal sentence," by the end of 2013.

Read: China hints at ending its labor prison camps

After media outlets confirmed the news with officials who attended the meeting Meng spoke at, the original articles reporting the decision vanished from the Internet. A subsequent Xinhua news story watered down Meng's statement, committing the government only to "advancing reforms" of RTL -- which is old news -- a long-stated but never-implemented goal.

This episode highlights three realities of China's human rights situation: 1) the news is often not what it initially appears to be, especially if a key government decision is at stake; 2) the new leadership is struggling to reply adequately to growing popular demand for reform; and 3) changes to RTL, like other long-mooted reforms, might only be a cosmetic gesture, leaving intact laws and practices that violate domestic and international human rights standards.

Read: 'Lost generation' recall hardships of Cultural Revolution

China's new leaders have come to power during a serious legitimacy crisis, with a nation eager for political reforms. Indeed, party chief Xi Jinping has repeatedly vowed to "deepen reform." At the same time, there has been rising public discontent over local officials' abuse of RTL to muzzle ordinary people seeking justice or criticizing the government. The system was further discredited by the recent detentions of Tang Hui, a mother seeking redress for the rape of her young daughter, and Ren Jianyu, a village official who posted negative comments online about the government.

Meanwhile, the main obstacle to abolishing RTL, the Ministry of Public Security, which holds the unchecked power to detain individuals in these facilities, has seen its political clout diminished under the new leadership arrangement. The time for abolition of RTL appears ripe, but it's unclear whether Xi is ready to move from talking about reforms to delivering them.

As a type of arbitrary detention, RTL should not be reformed: it should be abolished outright.

The tepid Xinhua announcement promising to "reform" RTL suggests that instead of abolition, the government will merely tinker at the margins of the existing system. Fears this might be the case derive from the August 2012 announcement of a pilot scheme in four cities. Few details are available, except that the name of the system was revised from Re-education to "Education and Correction," and minor constraints on the police's ability to impose these punishments were established.

The debate in and outside of China this week echoes the 2003 debate about the abolition of "Custody and Repatriation." This system of administrative detention was designed to detain individuals found outside of their official location of residence (hukou). It was similarly discredited and abolished after a series of abuses, the last straw being the beating and death of a young man in a Custody and Repatriation center in Guangzhou in March 2003.

The decision to get rid of the system was made at the beginning of the then-new leadership of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, and was perceived as a signal of reform. Yet the failure to match the end of Custody and Repatriation with a wholesale prohibition on arbitrary detention mitigated the benefits of its abolition. Migrant workers who had been prey for the system benefited from its abolition, but local governments soon found new ways to deal with the other category of people detained in Custody and Repatriation centers -- petitioners.

Illegal and ad hoc "black jails" were set up to prevent them from trying to reach higher authorities to denounce local official misconduct. The central government tolerates the existence of these patently unlawful black jails, demonstrating that it continues to lack commitment to ending arbitrary detention.

Read: Chinese petitioners claim hotel used as 'black jail'

Swapping one system of arbitrary detention for another would be a missed opportunity for the new leadership. Real change requires that the government abolish RTL, and establish in its place a new system to punish minor crimes that is consistent with the Chinese Constitution as well as its international human rights obligations, and pass the necessary legislation during the next National People's Congress in March.

The judiciary -- not the police -- should be responsible for considering charges, determining guilt, and assigning appropriate punishment. People who are accused must have the ability to confront and question their accusers, the right to counsel, and all fair trial guarantees. Anything short of this will not quench the public's thirst for the "deepening reform."

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Maya Wang.

Read More..

Punggol East ward saw 3-way fight in 2011 GE

SINGAPORE: In the 2011 General Election, the Punggol East Single Member Constituency (SMC) saw a three-way fight among political parties that contested.

The People's Action Party's (PAP) Michael Palmer won over half of the votes.

The Punggol East SMC had over 30,000 voters in the 2011 General Election and it was the only constituency that saw a three-cornered fight.

Then, the PAP's Michael Palmer, The Workers' Party's Lee Li Lian and the Singapore Democratic Alliance's Desmond Lim campaigned for residents' hearts and minds.

The three focused largely on ground concerns during the hustings.

Mr Lim promised new facilities of over a million dollars for residents if he won.

It was something Mr Palmer cast doubt on. He was the ward's incumbent, elected in 2006 when the area was still under Pasir Ris-Punggol Group Representation Constituency, before it was carved out as a single seat.

Mr Palmer had said his time in the ward was used to build cohesion among residents, and hoped for continuing support.

Ms Lee, on the other hand, chose to look at estate cleanliness and cost of living issues.

When the dust settled, Mr Palmer won, taking around 55 per cent of votes.

Ms Lee took about 41 per cent.

And Mr Lim got around four per cent.

- CNA/ck

Read More..

Online courses need human element

Online courses are proliferating, says Douglas Rushkoff, but will really succeed when they bring humanity to learning process

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Douglas Rushkoff: Education is under threat, but online computer courses are not to blame


• He says education's value hard to measure; is it for making money or being engaged?


• He says Massive Open Online Courses lack human exchange with teachers


• Rushkoff: MOOCs should bring together people to share studies, maintain education's humanity

Editor's note: Douglas Rushkoff writes a regular column for CNN.com. He is a media theorist and the author of "Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age" and "Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take It Back." He is also a digital literacy advocate for Codecademy.com. His forthcoming book is "Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now."

(CNN) -- Education is under threat, but the Internet and the growth of Massive Open Online Courses are not to blame.

Like the arts and journalism, whose value may be difficult to measure in dollars, higher education has long been understood as a rather "soft" pursuit. And this has led people to ask fundamental questions it:

What is learning, really? And why does it matter unless, of course, it provides a workplace skill or a license to practice? Is the whole notion of a liberal arts education obsolete or perhaps an overpriced invitation to unemployment?

Douglas Rushkoff

The inability to answer these questions lies at the heart of universities' failure to compete with new online educational offerings -- the rapidly proliferating MOOCs -- as well as the failure of most Web-based schools to provide a valid alternative to the traditional four-year college.

Education is about more than acquiring skills.

When America and other industrialized nations created public schools, it was not to make better workers but happier ones. The ability to read, write and think was seen as a human right and a perquisite to good citizenship, or at least the surest way to guarantee compliant servitude from the workers of industrial society. If even the coal miner could spend some of his time off reading, he stood a chance of living a meaningful life. Moreover, his ability to read the newspaper allowed him to understand the issues the day and to vote intelligently.

What we consider basic knowledge has grown to include science, history, the humanities and economics. So, too, has grown the time required to learn it all. While the modern college might have begun as a kind of finishing school, a way for the sons of the elite to become cultured and find one another before beginning their own careers, it eventually became an extension of public school's mandate. We go to college to become smarter and more critical thinkers while also gaining skills we might need for the work force.

Accordingly, we all wanted our sons and daughters to go to college until recently. The more of us who could afford it, the better we felt we were doing as a society. But the price of education has skyrocketed, especially in the tiny segment of elite schools. This has led to the widespread misperception that a good college education is available only to those willing to take on six-figure debt.

Worse, in making the calculation about whether college is "worth it," we tend to measure the cost of a Harvard education against the market value of the skills acquired. Did my kid learn how to use Excel? If not, what was the point?

To the rescue come the MOOCs, which offer specific courses, a la carte, to anyone with a credit card; some even offer courses for free.

Following the model of University of Phoenix, which began offering a variety of "distance learning" in 1989, these newer Web sites offer video lectures and forums to learn just about anything, in most cases for a few hundred dollars a class. MOOCs have exploded in the past few years, enrolling millions of students and sometimes partnering with major universities.

For pure knowledge acquisition, it's hard to argue against such developments, especially in an era that doesn't prioritize enrichment for its own sake. But it would be a mistake to conclude that online courses fulfill the same role in a person's life as a college education, just as it would be an error to equate four years of high school with some online study and a GED exam.

Don't get me wrong: I have always been a fan of online education -- but with a few important caveats.

First off, subjects tend to be conveyed best in what might be considered their native environments. Computers might not be the best place to simulate a live philosophy seminar, but they are terrific places to teach people how to use and program computers.

Second, and just as important, computers should not require the humans using them to become more robotic. I recently read an account from an online lecturer about how -- unlike in a real classroom -- he had to deliver his online video lectures according to a rigid script, where every action was choreographed. To communicate effectively online, he needed to stop thinking and living in the moment. That's not teaching; it's animatronics.

Online learning needs to cater to human users. A real instructor should not simply dump data on a person, as in a scripted video, but engage with students, consider their responses and offer individualized challenges.

The good, living teacher probes the way students think and offers counterexamples that open pathways. With the benefit of a perfect memory of student's past responses, a computer lesson should also be able to identify some of these patterns and offer up novel challenges at the right time. "How might Marx have responded to that suggestion, Joe?"

Finally, education does not happen in isolation.

Whether it's philosophy students arguing in a dorm about what Hegel meant, or fledgling Java programmers inspecting one another's code, people learn best as part of a cohort. The course material is almost secondary to the engagement. We go to college for the people.

Likewise, the best of MOOCs should be able bring together ideal, heterogeneous groupings of students based on their profiles and past performance, and also create ample opportunities for them to engage with one another in the spirit of learning.

Perhaps this spirit of mutual aid is what built the Internet in the first place. Now that this massive collaborative learning project has succeeded, it would be a shame if we used it to take the humanity out of learning altogether.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Douglas Rushkoff.

Read More..

House passes $50.7 billion Sandy relief bill

FILE - In this Oct. 30, 2012, file photo, a man walks with his dog to a National Guard vehicle after leaving his flooded home at the Metropolitan Trailer Park in Moonachie, N.J., in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. The storm drove New York and New Jersey residents from their homes, destroyed belongings and forced them to find shelter for themselves - and for their pets, said owners, who recounted tales of a dog swimming through flooded streets and extra food left behind for a tarantula no one was willing to take in. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle, File) / Craig Ruttle

The House of Representatives today passed a $50.7 billion bill to provide funds for Hurricane Sandy relief as well as other natural disasters. The vote was 241 to 180, with 179 Republicans and one Democrat voting no.

The bill will now move to the Senate, where it is expected to be passed by lawmakers after the new session begins on January 22, though it's possible it could be passed by voice vote this week. It is then expected to be quickly signed into law by President Obama.

The package was divided into two parts: A $17 billion bill for immediate recovery from Sandy, and another $33.7 billion amendment for long-term recovery and investment to limit the damage from similar events in the future. The October storm is believed to be responsible for 140 deaths and billions of dollars in damage centered in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It damaged or destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses and knocked out transit systems and power grids.

The package provides more than $16 billion for the New York and New Jersey transit systems as well as more $16 billion for Housing and Urban Development funding for recovery from Sandy and other disasters. Other funding goes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief aid fund and to Army Corps of Engineers projects to limit future damage. Funding is also authorized for repairs by the Coast Guard, Federal Highway Administration and Veterans Affairs Department.

Lawmakers from the Northeast criticized southern Republican lawmakers who had sought to reduce the size of the package or require that funding be offset with an across the board cut to discretionary spending. An amendment from Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., that would have offset the funding with spending cuts failed 162 yeas to 258 nays earlier in the day, and the Republican-led House Rules Committee blocked efforts to reduce the size of the package.

"We are asking, we are pleading and we shouldn't have to beg for money for the Northeast, to be able to survive this tragedy that hit us," said Rep. Rosa Delauro, D-Conn., who added: "I might remind my colleague from Louisiana that between Rita, Wilma and Katrina, this institution appropriated $133.9 billion in disaster relief."

Critics of the bill derided it as "an excuse for a grab-bag of spending, having nothing to do with emergency relief," in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif.

The Senate passed a $60 billion Sandy relief bill before the end of the last Congress, but House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, declined to schedule a House vote on that measure in the wake of the contentious vote on "fiscal cliff" legislation. That decision prompted harsh criticism from northeastern lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., forcing Boehner to hastily schedule today's vote in addition to $9.7 billion in flood relief that was passed Jan. 4.

Read More..

NRA Ad Calls Obama 'Elitist Hypocrite'

Jan 16, 2013 12:04am

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

As the White House prepares to unveil a sweeping plan aimed at curbing gun violence, the National Rifle Association has launched a preemptive, personal attack on President Obama, calling him an “elitist hypocrite” who, the group claims, is putting American children at risk.

In 35-second video posted online Tuesday night, the NRA criticizes Obama for accepting armed Secret Service protection for his daughters, Sasha and Malia, at their private Washington, D.C., school while questioning the placement of similar security at other schools.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” the narrator says.

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” it continues. “Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The immediate family members of U.S. presidents – generally considered potential targets – have long received Secret Service protection.

The ad appeared on a new website for a NRA advocacy campaign – “NRA Stand and Fight” — that the gun-rights group appears poised to launch in response to Obama’s package of gun control proposals that will be announced today.

It’s unclear whether the video will air on TV or only on the web. The NRA did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.  The domain for the website is registered to Ackerman McQueen, the NRA’s long-standing public relations firm.

The White House had no comment on the NRA ad.

In the wake of last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Obama administration has met with a cross-section of advocacy groups on all sides of the gun debate to formulate new policy proposals.

The NRA, which met with Vice President Joe Biden last week, has opposed any new legislative gun restrictions, including expanded background checks and limits on the sale of assault-style weapons, instead calling for armed guards at all American schools.

Obama publicly questioned that approach in an interview with “Meet the Press” earlier this month, saying, “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

Still, the White House has been considering a call for increased funding for police officers at public schools and the proposal could be part of a broader Obama gun policy package.

Fifty-five percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they support adding armed guards at schools across the country.

“The issue is, are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion.  And surely, we can do something about that,” Obama said at a news conference on Monday.

“Responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don’t have anything to worry about,” he said.

ABC News’ Mary Bruce and Jay Shaylor contributed reporting. 

SHOWS: Good Morning America World News

Read More..

Are gun curbs just symbolism?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gun violence recommendations are expected from Vice President Biden on Tuesday


• The proposals are expected to contain substantive and symbolic ideas to curb gun violence


• Presidents use symbolism to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change

Washington (CNN) -- The pictures told the story: Vice President Joe Biden looked solemn, patrician and in control as he sat at a long table in the White House, flanked by people on both sides of the gun control issue.

The images conveyed a sense that the White House was in command on this issue.

And that's the point. Historically, presidential administrations have used symbolic imagery—at times coupled with marginal actions—to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change.

"Politics is a risk taking project," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and CNN contributor. "They put together these commissions in response to some crisis. You try a hundred things and hope something works."

On the eve of the Biden-led gun control task force recommendations to President Barack Obama, political experts say it is important that his administration sends a clear signal that it has things in hand.

That is especially critical in what will likely be an uphill battle to push specific changes, like an assault weapons ban, as part of a broader effort on gun control.

The first move in the image battle will be to appear to move quickly and decisively.

"You have to give the Obama administration credit for one thing: They've learned from history to do things quickly," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said of previous task force initiatives that fizzled.

In 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic White House chief of staff, to come up with a proposal to balance the budget and cut the debt.

Like the gun task force, Simpson-Bowles reviewed current regulations, gathered input from the public and engaged in tense internal conversations. But after months of working on a proposal—a blend of steep revenue increases and spending cuts—the group struggled to agree to a solution. The president did not take up the recommendations.

Obama largely avoided the issue of gun control during his first term.

He wrote an opinion piece two months after the 2011 assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, acknowledging the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the piece he also called for a focus on "effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."

But in the aftermath of that shooting and as the election season loomed, the Justice Department backed off from a list of recommendations that included a measure designed to help keep mentally ill people from getting guns.

For now, at least, there is a sense in Washington that the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting where 26 people -- 20 of them young children -- were slaughtered could lead to meaningful legislative reform.

Public opinion would seem to suggest that the White House efforts are well timed.

In the month since the massacre, a new poll showed the percentage of Americans who said they were dissatisfied with America's gun laws has spiked.

The Gallup survey released on Monday showed 38% of Americans were dissatisfied with current gun regulations, and wanted stricter laws. That represented 13-point jump from one year ago, when 25% expressed that view. "You want to strike while the iron is hot," Sabato said. "We Americans have short attention spans and, as horrible as the Newtown shooting was, will anyone be surprised if we moved along by spring?"

The White House has since worked overtime to show it considers gun control an urgent matter.

The vice president has spent the last week meeting with what the White House calls "stakeholders" in the gun control debate.

On Monday, Biden was to meet with members of a House Democratic task force on guns, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services.

In a series of face to face discussions on Thursday, Biden sat down with the National Rifle Association and other gun owners groups before conferring with representatives from the film and television industry.

In a sign the White House is prepared to move aggressively on its proposals, Biden made public comments just before meeting with the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby.

"Putting the vice president in charge of (the task force) and having him meeting with these groups is intended to show seriousness and an effort to reach out and respond to concerns and wishes of various groups," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.

Still, the NRA expressed disappointment in its discussion with Biden and later released a statement that accused the administration of mounting "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

Organizations seeking tougher gun control laws insist an assault weapons ban is critical to addressing the nation's recent rash of mass shootings. However, such a ban could be difficult in a Congress mired in gridlock.

"The bully pulpit is limited. It's hard for the president to sustain that momentum," Zelizer said of the White House's gun control efforts after the Newtown shootings. "The thing about symbolism is, like the shock over Newtown, they fade quickly."

CNN's Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report

Read More..

New Holocaust museum opens at gruesome WW2 site

BRUSSELS: Belgium's newly-opened Holocaust and human rights museum stands symbolically on the site of barracks commandeered by the Nazis as a wartime transit centre for Jews and Gypsies being sent to the death camps.

The new "Kazerne Dossin" in the Flemish town of Mechelen, comprising a museum, memorial and documentation centre, is located at the site of an 18th century barracks that officials dub "a silent witness to the greatest war crime, in the form of genocide, in Belgium".

The new World War II remembrance complex some 30 kilometres from Brussels was inaugurated by Belgian King Albert II and opened to the public last month.

Like the Drancy camp outside Paris where Jews were rounded up and sent to death camps, the Dossin barracks -- directly linked to the Belgian rail network -- was turned into a last-stop transit centre for the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau camp run by the Nazis during the war.

More than 25,500 Jews and 350 Gypsies from both Belgium and northern France were sent there after their arrest, often with the help of local police.

There were more than 70,000 Jews in Belgium before the Second World War broke out, notably 18,000 in the nearby port city of Antwerp.

After two or three months at Dossin, deportees were herded into trains for the Third Reich's death camps. Only five percent of the Jews and Gypsies who left Mechelen in 28 convoys ever returned.

Last September, Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo presented the country's apologies for crimes committed by people who had worked hand-in-hand with Nazis to deport Jews.

"This new museum takes a more profound look at the history of the persecution of the Jews in Flanders and Belgium, based on new historic sources of information and insights," said Kris Peeters, who heads the Dutch-speaking government of Flanders.

"It also provides a link between the concepts of holocaust and human rights."

In 1995, members of the Jewish community opened a small museum in a part of the barracks but much of the building had already been turned into flats and sold.

The new complex, built with the help of a 25-million-euro investment by the government of Flanders, adds a state-of-the-art cube-like museum designed by celebrated Flemish architect Bob Van Reeth.

The top fourth floor, destined to house temporary exhibitions, is open to the light of day but the other three storeys smack of a mausoleum.

Rectangular shapes in the white facade symbolise bricked-up windows while the heavy sliding steel door recalls those on the freight trains used to carry the victims to their death.

Van Reeth said the total volume was equivalent to that of the freight cars used in the 28 convoys to the death camp; the number of bricks used being the same as the number of people deported.

The three floors touch on three themes -- intolerance, fear and death.

The museum expects to see 100,000 visitors a year.

- AFP/al

Read More..

Clarence Thomas ends seven-year silence

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

updated 8:17 PM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

Clarence Thomas

John G. Roberts

Antonin Scalia

Anthony M. Kennedy

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen G. Breyer

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Sonia Sotomayor

Elena Kagan

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Clarence Thomas known for remaining quiet during oral arguments


• On Monday, he joked about lawyers educated at Yale, his alma mater


• Current Supreme Court known as 'hot bench' for the rhetorical scrum during arguments

Washington (CNN) -- It was just a few words and a joke at that. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke his seven-year long silence on Monday when he spoke at oral arguments.

He made fun of lawyers from Yale, his law school alma mater.

Thomas has become known for rarely commenting on cases from the bench, another reflection of the complex and often misunderstood personality of the court's only African-American jurist.

On Monday, the justices were hearing an argument about the state of Louisiana's delay in paying for counsel for a death penalty defendant. Should that count against the state for the purposes of the right to a speedy trial?

A lawyer for the state was making the case for the inmate's appointed counsel, saying the woman was "more than qualified" and "very impressive."

"She was graduate of Yale Law School, wasn't she?" said Justice Antonin Scalia in apparent support, noting another member of the legal team went to Harvard.

The next words were hard to hear in the back-and-forth between the justices. But Thomas made a joke about the competence of Yale lawyers when compared to their Harvard colleagues, according to two witnesses.

Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

HIDE CAPTION

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

>

>>

Six members of the current high court attended Harvard Law School. Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor attend Yale.

Sotomayor describes life journey in new memoir

The official transcript released by the court does not capture the flavor of the colorful exchange. But the lawyer arguing before the court was apparently not pleased.

"I would refute that, Justice Thomas," said Carla Sigler, the assistant district attorney in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

The rest of the time, Thomas kept his own counsel as he is known to do.

"One thing I've demonstrated often in 16 years is you can do this job without asking a single question," he recalled in a speech five years ago.

Written opinions remain the main way the court expresses itself. But the current court is known as a "hot bench" for the busy back-and-forth rhetorical scrum during arguments.

Eight of the justices compete for time to make their questions and views known.

Thomas does occasionally speak from the bench when announcing opinions he has written, but before arguments commence.

Off the bench in friendly audiences, he can be gregarious, inquisitive and often self-reflective. He has a booming voice, and his hearty laugh is easily recognizable.

Some scholars have said Thomas' aversion to talking has reached epic heights.

A study of transcripts by Timothy Johnson of the University of Minnesota found in the past four decades, no justice besides Thomas had failed to speak at least once during an entire 12-month term.

The last time he spoke was February 22, 2006, during a capital appeal.

Part of complete coverage on

updated 1:58 PM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

"Argo" and "Les Miserables" were the big winners at this year's Golden Globes.

updated 5:06 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

VIDEO: CNN's Kristie Lu Stout and Hollywood.com's Matt Patches discuss the nominees for the 85th Academy Awards.

updated 10:31 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

Photos: Fashion at the Golden Globes on Sunday -- which outfit was your favorite?

CNN reports from Syria and Turkey on the human suffering of those who have survived the civil war, but now face further hardship.

updated 8:20 PM EST, Sun January 13, 2013

This is not worksafe. It's a hyperlink to Hiropon, the pornographic fiberglass creation of Japanese artist Takashi Murakami.

updated 7:44 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

The advance buildup has all been about Lance Armstrong as he prepares to enter the church of Oprah and seek absolution for his sins.

updated 7:47 PM EST, Fri January 11, 2013

Photographer Ronen Goldman recreates his dreams through photos.

updated 3:21 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

India doesn't do things small, religious festivals included. Over 55 days, an estimated 100 million Hindu devotees will go to the Kumbh Mela.

updated 6:45 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

VIDEO: Six thousand throwers participated. Organizers trucked in 162,000 pounds of snow in 34 truckloads for the throwdown.

updated 12:33 PM EST, Fri January 11, 2013

The fate of the Sri Lankan maid beheaded in Saudi Arabia, should spotlight the precarious existence of domestic workers, Jo Becker says.

updated 6:15 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

International leaders are responding to an uprising of Islamist militants in northern Mali.

updated 3:29 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

VIDEO: CNN's Nima Elbagir reports on wildlife rangers who risk their lives to guard Kenya's elephant population from poachers.

updated 6:22 AM EST, Mon January 14, 2013

VIDEO: CNN's Elizabeth Cohen has the latest on the flu epidemic and what health officials mean when they call it an "epidemic".

Read More..

Hillary Clinton to testify on Benghazi Jan. 23

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify Jan. 23 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Libya.

That's the word from Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the panel. He said in a statement late Monday that Clinton will answer questions about the raid that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi.

Clinton had been scheduled to testify last month but she suffered a concussion when she fell during an illness. She was later hospitalized with a blood clot in her head.

She's also expected to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee around the same time as her House testimony. That date has not been announced by the committee.

She has planned to step down and President Barack Obama has nominated Sen. John Kerry to replace her.

Read More..

Armstrong Admits Doping in Tour, Sources Say

Lance Armstrong today admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, sources told ABC News.

A goverment source tells ABC News that Armstrong is now talking with authorities about paying back some of the US Postal Service money from sponsoring his team. He is also talking to authorities about confessing and naming names, giving up others involved in illegal doping. This could result in a reduction of his lifetime ban, according to the source, if Armstrong provides substantial and meaningful information.

Armstrong made the admission in what sources describe as an emotional interview with Winfrey to air on "Oprah's Next Chapter" on Jan. 17.

The 90-minute interview at his home in Austin, Texas, was Armstrong's first since officials stripped him of his world cycling titles in response to doping allegations.

Word of Armstrong's admission comes after a Livestrong official said that Armstrong apologized today to the foundation's staff ahead of his interview.

The disgraced cyclist gathered with about 100 Livestrong Foundation staffers at their Austin headquarters for a meeting that included social workers who deal directly with patients as part of the group's mission to support cancer victims.

Armstrong's "sincere and heartfelt apology" generated lots of tears, spokeswoman Katherine McLane said, adding that he "took responsibility" for the trouble he has caused the foundation.

Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images|Ray Tamarra/Getty Images

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles Watch Video

Lance Armstrong Doping Charges: Secret Tapes Watch Video

McLane declined to say whether Armstrong's comments included an admission of doping, just that the cyclist wanted the staff to hear from him in person rather than rely on second-hand accounts.

Armstrong then took questions from the staff.

Armstrong's story has never changed. In front of cameras, microphones, fans, sponsors, cancer survivors -- even under oath -- Lance Armstrong hasn't just denied ever using performance enhancing drugs, he has done so in an indignant, even threatening way.

Armstrong, 41, was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from the sport for life by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in October 2012, after allegations that he benefited from years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, said at a news conference in Switzerland announcing the decision. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a 200-page report Oct. 10 after a wide-scale investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing substances.

Armstrong won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005.

According to a source, speaking to ABC News, a representative of Armstrong's once offered to make a donation estimated around $250,000 to the agency, as "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime first reported.

Lance Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman denied it. "No truth to that story," Herman said. "First Lance heard of it was today. He never made any such contribution or suggestion."

Armstrong, who himself recovered from testicular cancer, created the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now known as the LIVESTRONG Foundation) to help people with cancer cope, as well as foster a community for cancer awareness. Armstrong resigned late last year as chairman of the LIVESTRONG Foundation, which raised millions of dollars in the fight against cancer.

Read More..