Judge orders early release of '63 Ala. bombing victim's dad

Updated 11:42 PM ET

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. A judge sided with the Obama administration Thursday and ordered the early release from prison of a former Alabama politician whose daughter died in a racist church bombing in 1963.

U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith approved the release of Chris McNair after the Justice Department sought McNair's freedom on grounds of compassion.

The judge said the 87-year-old should be freed because of his advanced age and deteriorating health.

Play Video

McNair, incarcerated at a federal prison medical center in Rochester, Minn., should be released as soon as his health allows and travel arrangements can be made, Smith wrote.

Peggy Sanford is a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney in Birmingham. She said that McNair was released from prison hours after Smith issued her ruling.

McNair was part of the scandal-plagued Jefferson County Commission that made deals resulting in a then-record municipal bankruptcy over more than $4 billion in debts.

The administration's request for leniency asked a judge to reduce McNair's five-year sentence to the time he has served since entering prison in 2011.

The request said McNair's "serious and declining health problems are extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting his release, but it did not mention his link to one of the most infamous crimes of the civil rights era.

McNair is the father of Denise McNair, one of the four black girls killed when Ku Klux Klansmen bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. A bell from the landmark church was rung at the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday during commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

Lisa McNair, Denise's younger sister and her father's main caregiver before his imprisonment, declined comment on the chances of his early release.

A lawyer for McNair, former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Jones prosecuted the last two Klansmen sent to prison for the bombing, then went on to represent McNair during his criminal trial.

Chris McNair became one of the Alabama Legislature's first black members since Reconstruction when he was elected as a state representative in 1973. He never mentioned his daughter's death during the campaign.

He later served 15 years on the Jefferson County Commission before resigning in 2001.

McNair was among 21 people convicted in corruption cases linked to a more than $3 billion sewer project in Alabama's most populous county.

Citing more than $4 billion debts in all, the county filed what was then the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2011. County leaders are still trying to emerge from bankruptcy.

McNair's commission duties included overseeing the sewer project, and prosecutors said evidence showed he collected bribes from contractors in return for government work.

McNair was convicted of bribery and conspiracy to solicit bribes in April 2006, and he later pleaded guilty to soliciting $140,000 in more bribes.

McNair entered prison after losing a bid to remain free because of his age and health.

View the original article here

Obama administration set to release Syria intel report

Updated 5:20 a.m. ET Aug. 30, 2013

WASHINGTON

The administration will release on Friday a declassified version of its intelligence report on last week's purported Syria chemical weapons attack, a senior administration official told CBS News late Thursday.

The official also said the administration would go public with its legal justification for taking military action against the Syrian regime if and when President Obama orders a strike.

Mr. Obama might do so even though it would have to come without the backing of Washington's closest ally, the White House has indicated to CBS News.

Hopes that Britain would join any U.S. military action were dashed late Thursday when Prime Minister David Cameron lost a non-binding vote in the House of Commons to endorse that policy -- a stunning rebuke.

The administration expects to have rhetorical support from many nations but no longer considers British military participation vital, feeling it is preferable, but not necessary. "We don't have to wait for them," a senior administration official told CBS News. "We want to be helpful, but we'll act on our own decision-making."

14 Photos

British reticence places the Obama White House in an awkward position, aides conceded. It must now decide whether to carry out a military strike to uphold an international norm against chemical weapons use that even America's staunchest ally is unwilling to support.

Top officials said Mr. Obama's intent to carry out a limited attack -- "a shot across the bow" in the president's words -- means broad international support and congressional authorization are preferred but not necessary. The U.S. will seek as many allies as it can and consult regularly with members of Congress but will act rapidly, aides said, to drive home the point that the mass use of chemical weapons will always be punished.

"The use of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to our interests because it makes a mockery of international rules of the road that matter," a senior official said. "This isn't Iraq where we were trying to prove the existence of weapons to launch an open-ended ground invasion. This is chemical weapons use on a mass scale that we are considering a limited, targeted response to."

There is also a signal intended in the limited scope of the military attack on Syria, the senior official said.

"It's a statement of U.S. policy that frankly sends a message to the international community that we're not going whole hog here," the senior official said. "Even limited U.S. action has a big impact. We're not going to take Assad out. But anything we do is going to degrade him in a way that nothing the opposition does."

Earlier, the White House pushed back on skepticism about potential U.S. military action in Syria, saying the evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians is "very convincing" - and that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of a "critically important international norm" that must carry with it serious consequences.

Still, White House spokesman Josh Earnest emphasized that Mr. Obama is "not contemplating an open-ended military action," describing the responses under consideration as "very discrete and limited" in their scope.

Play Video

Play Video

Play Video

"We want to make sure that a response sends an unambiguous signal to [Syrian President Bashar Assad's] regime and to dictators around the world that living up to these international norms is the firm expectation of the international community, and that failure to do so has serious consequences," Earnest explained.

On Thursday evening, the administration held a conference call for members of Congress to lay out the unclassified intelligence report about chemical weapons use in Syria.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement: "On the call, I agreed with Speaker Boehner and other Members who stated that there needs to be more consultation with all Members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing, and that the case needs to be made to the American people.

"It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime."

"Tonight the Administration informed us that they have a 'broad range of options' for Syria but failed to layout a single option," said Oklahoma GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe in a statement. "They also did not provide a timeline, a strategy for Syria and the Middle East, or a plan for the funds to execute such an option. Several members agreed with me that whatever is decided upon, it's going to take military resources that are at decreased readiness levels due to a lack of funding."

The administration expects to have rhetorical support from many nations because it no longer considers British military participation vital. It is preferable, but not necessary. "We don't have to wait for them," a senior administration official told CBS News. "We want to be helpful, but we'll act on our own decision-making."

British reticence places the Obama White House in an awkward position, aides conceded. It must now decide whether to carry out a military strike to uphold an international norm against chemical weapons use that even America's staunchest ally, Great Britain, is unwilling to support.

Top officials said Mr. Obama's intent to carry out a limited attack - "a shot across the bow" in the president's words - means broad international support and congressional authorization are preferred but not necessary. The U.S. will seek as many allies as it can and consult regularly with members of Congress but will act rapidly, aides said, to drive home the point that the mass use of chemical weapons will always be punished.

"The use of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to our interests because it makes a mockery of international rules of the road that matter," a senior official said. "This isn't Iraq where we were trying to prove the existence of weapons to launch an open-ended ground invasion. This is chemical weapons use on a mass scale that we are considering a limited, targeted response to."

There is also a signal intended in the limited scope of the military attack on Syria, the senior official said.

"It's a statement of U.S. policy that frankly sends a message to the international community that we're not going whole hog here," the senior official said. "Even limited U.S. action has a big impact. We're not going to take Assad out. But anything we do is going to degrade him in a way that nothing the opposition does."

Meanwhile, Earnest emphasized, as Mr. Obama did during an interview on Wednesday with PBS, that the administration has reached no final conclusion on the question of military action in Syria.

"I have not made a decision" on Syria, the president explained on Wednesday, but he said his administration has "concluded" that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

Earnest also rejected comparisons between the debate over intervention in Syria and an earlier debate about intervention in Iraq, which was attended by claims of chemical weapons possession on the part of the Iraqi regime that were proven untrue only after the U.S. had dissolved the rule of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "We're not talking about regime change here," he said. "We're talking about enforcing a critically important international norm."

"There is not a military solution to the broader conflict that is taking place in Syria," Earnest said.

Pressed on reports that suggest some level of uncertainty about who deployed the chemical weapons, Earnest brandished on-the-record statements from the president, Secretary of State John Kerry, and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that betrayed no doubt that the regime is culpable for the August 21 use of chemical weapons that left thousands of civilians dead.

"We already know from a previous intelligence assessment that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. We know that the Assad regime maintains stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria," he said. "We also know that it is the regime alone that has the capability to use the chemical weapons that were used...in the attacks that we saw on August 21st. We also know that the Assad regime was engaged in a military campaign targeting the specific regions where this chemical attack occurred."

View the original article here