"Descendants:" uproarious comedy about grief and loss (Reuters)

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) ? In the same way that "aloha" can be used for either hello or goodbye, the Hawaii-set "The Descendants" contains its own contradictions -- it's an uproarious comedy about grief and loss, and a reminder that hell can exist quite comfortably in paradise.

Attorney Matt King (George Clooney) has a full plate, and it's not because he's at a luau. A descendant of one of the islands' original colonists who married into Hawaii's royal family, he is overseeing the sale of a huge chunk of family property, the last undeveloped beach in the state.

But it's not just his money-hungry cousins and the voracious developers keeping him hopping; his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) was injured in a boating accident and now lies comatose in a hospital. Her absence forces Matt, who calls himself "the back-up parent, the understudy," to deal with their two daughters: troubled 10-year old Scottie (Amara Miller) and rebellious teen Alexandra (Shailene Woodley).

The last time Alexandra spoke with her mother, the two fought; when Matt brings her home for Elizabeth's impending death, his daughter informs him that Elizabeth was cheating on him with another man.

So even with his wife being taken off life-support and the property sale just around the corner, Matt takes his family to the island of Kauai to track down his wife's lover (Matthew Lillard) to let him know that she's dying. Or maybe to punch him in the face. It could go either way.

With just a handful of films -- shockingly, this is only his fifth feature -- Payne has proven himself a master of a uniquely American brand of comedy. His characters lead lives of quiet desperation, only to find themselves blurting out buried, uncomfortable truths at the least likely moments.

Adapting the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings with Groundlings vets Nat Faxon and Jim Rash (Payne's usual co-writer Jim Taylor is one of the film's producers), Payne gets into Matt's head and finds the humor in his suffering and his unexpected personal development with the same sure hand he brought to "Sideways" and "About Schmidt."

Many filmmakers might not have thought of Clooney as the right guy to bring this cuckolded, grief-stricken dad to life on the screen, but the actor once again proves adept at constantly finding new colors in his paintbox. You think you know exactly how this work-distracted father is going to reconnect with his daughters, and what obligatory moments the movie will provide, but both the script and the stars are too smart for that.

Clooney is simply extraordinary, juggling a panoply of emotions while completely inhabiting the persona of this hard-working and harried regular guy. (He has a dorky style of running that reminded me of Cary Grant's twitterpated body language in "Bringing Up Baby.") He's ably supported by youngsters Miller and Woodley, who offer deeply felt work that never gives off the "cute kid" stink.

Payne shoots Hawaii in a way that we've rarely seen on film -- it's one of the most beautiful places on earth, yes, but in this movie we believe that people actually live there -- and he provides many moments for his talented ensemble to shine, from Robert Forster as Elizabeth's embittered father to Mary Birdsong and Rob Huebel as friends who kept Elizabeth's secrets from Matt.

Deserving special attention is Judy Greer, one of this generation's great comedic character actresses, who takes a three-scene performance as the wife of Elizabeth's lover and plays it for both laughs and heartache. It's the sort of underappreciated, extraordinary turn that Thelma Ritter used to knock out of the park.

Neither the laughs nor the tears ever feel forced in "The Descendants," and Payne masterfully elicits both along the way. Like Sid (Nick Krause), Alexandra's goofy but stealth-smart boyfriend who accompanies the family on their adventures, the film's charms and its intelligence sneak up on you subtly, making you glad to be along for the ride.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/movies/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20111115/film_nm/us_reviews_film_thedescendants

apple news conference apple news conference apple news apple iphone apple iphone chris christie cnet

EU adopts guidelines on airport body scanners

BRUSSELS?? The European Union adopted new guidelines Monday on using body scanners at airports, hoping to address the privacy concerns that have delayed their implementation across the continent.

1. Don't miss these Travel stories

   1. Tastes and sounds of Montreal lure US tourists

      These days, Montreal is selling itself to U.S. tourists as more than just poutine and a port.

   2. Burglar targets traveling Facebook friends
   3. Power your gadgets with your own bag
   4. 8 most complicated countries to visit
   5. Be prepared for worst-case travel scenarios

Siim Kallas, the EU commissioner responsible for transport, said under the rules the technology will only be used with strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights.

"Security scanners are not a panacea but they do offer a real possibility to reinforce passenger security," he said.

The scanners, some of which produce nude-like images of passengers, are already used in the United States and elsewhere as a more effective screening of passengers than metal detectors.

Scanner technology is developing rapidly and has the potential to significantly reduce invasive pat-downs. The latest machines are equipped with software that displays a generic outline of a human body, with a red box around the area where a passenger may be concealing an object.

Small airports getting full-body scanners

EU member states and airports do not have an obligation to deploy security scanners, but if they decide to use them, they will have to comply with the EU-wide operational standards.

Under the new EU law, security scanners must not store or copy any of the images, and the security staff analyzing the images will be in a room separate from where the actual screening is conducted. In addition, passengers must be informed and be given the right to choose an alternative method of screening.

And in order not to risk citizens' health and safety, only security scanners that do not use X-ray technology can be used at EU airports.

Scientists question cancer risks of full-body scanners

"The most important provision is that every passenger has the right to opt out and ask for the use of an alternative method," said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the transport commission.

EU states have been mulling the use of security scanners ever since Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 24-year-old Nigerian, attempted in 2009 to blow up a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit with plastic explosives he had hidden in his underwear.

Until now, security scanners were used in a limited way under a patchwork of different national operational procedures. The scanners have tested in France, Italy, Finland and other countries, and been used at airports in Britain and the Netherlands.

But the whole body imaging machines have sparked outrage among some passengers and privacy advocates because the explicit images they display. Germany has already said it won't introduce them.

Authorities tested the scanners at Hamburg airport for 10 months on passengers who volunteered. Among the findings, they said the machines' software proved too sensitive to things such as creases in suits.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45286987/ns/travel-news/

torrey smith packers bears boeing 787 johnny appleseed hank baskett scrimshaw jacoby ellsbury

A decade on, terrorism tribunals are bogged down (Reuters)

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) ? The beige-carpeted room where an al Qaeda chief appeared last week charged with blowing a hole in the side of an American warship looks like any modern court, with pop-up computer screens at lawyers' tables and a judge in black robes presiding from the bench.

But it sits in a warehouse-like building on an abandoned airfield at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base in southeast Cuba, ringed by barbed wire and nestled among rows of khaki tents and trailers in an "expeditionary" compound that was never meant to be permanent.

A decade after President George W. Bush authorized military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the Obama administration is plodding forward with new tribunals at a glacial pace, hampered by persistent political and legal arguments over the procedures and principles involved.

"I think we've botched this so bad that we're past the point of redemption," said retired Air Force Colonel Moe Davis, a former chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals and now one of their strongest critics. He quit because of what he called political meddling and pressure to use evidence obtained through methods he considered torture.

The tribunals authorized by Bush in an executive order on November 13, 2001, were set up to try non-U.S. citizens on terrorism charges outside the regular U.S. federal and military courts.

Those who plotted the hijacked plane attacks of September 11, 2001, were neither civilians nor warriors and did not deserve the legal protections granted to either, Bush argued.

Ten years and three major revisions later, the tribunals remain largely untested.

Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, arraigned last week in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, would be only the second prisoner to get a fully contested trial at Guantanamo. His case is not expected to be ready for trial for at least another year and his lawyers are questioning what legal precedents apply.

"One might say there are certain gaps that are not present in other more developed systems ...." the chief judge in the Guantanamo tribunals, Army Colonel James Pohl, said during the arraignment. "I think we all know the uniqueness of the system," replied Richard Kammen, Nashiri's lawyer.

NOT MEANT TO BE PERMANENT

The Supreme Court struck down the original version of the tribunals in 2006, ruling that the president had no power to create a court system. It said that authority rested with Congress, which created a new version of the tribunals in 2006 and then revised them at the behest of the Obama administration in 2009 to grant the defendants more rights.

Congress in recent months added a new wrinkle, with proposals that the military courts be expanded to try U.S. citizens, a prospect that horrifies civil rights advocates.

"Don't make our armed forces judge, jury and jailer for terrorism suspects," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the nonprofit National Security Network. "The military is completely unequipped for it."

The Guantanamo tribunals are not strictly military.

Justice Department lawyers are included in the prosecution teams -- an assistant attorney from Kansas is leading the case against Nashiri -- while civilian lawyers from many top U.S. firms bolster the defense.

Kammen, a civilian attorney from Indianapolis, was brought in on the Nashiri case because he has experience handling death penalty cases, something most military lawyers lack. Nashiri, a round-faced 46-year-old Saudi merchant and alleged al Qaeda chieftain, could be executed if convicted of masterminding the bombing that killed 17 sailors.

The prosecution of five Guantanamo prisoners accused of plotting the September 11 attacks is currently on hold while the government conducts extensive security reviews of civilian lawyers chosen to join their defense teams as "learned counsel" with death penalty experience.

Prosecutors have asked to try those five, including self-described mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on capital charges. President Barack Obama planned to send them to New York for trial in federal courts but Congress has blocked the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to U.S. soil for any reason.

FROZEN AND THAWED

Shifting political winds have complicated the trials.

Obama froze the tribunals upon taking office in 2009 and ordered the Guantanamo detention operation shut down by January 2010. But Congress blocked his efforts to make civilian courts the preferred venue for terrorism trials, so Obama thawed the Guantanamo courts and allowed new cases to proceed this year.

Nashiri's lawyers questioned whether he could be held forever even if acquitted. The Bush and Obama administrations have both said the law of war allows them to hold Guantanamo prisoners indefinitely, until the end of hostilities in the war against terrorism.

Six cases have been completed in the Guantanamo court. But four defendants pleaded guilty in exchange for leniency and one was convicted in a trial in which no defense was presented because the defendant said the tribunal lacked legitimacy.

Of the 171 prisoners remaining at Guantanamo, the United States wants to try about three dozen but Nashiri is the only one currently facing charges.

"These are extremely complicated cases," a lawyer involved in the prosecution said.

Critics of the Guantanamo tribunals point out that the U.S. federal courts have tried more than 400 people on terrorism charges in the last decade. The post-World War Two Nuremberg tribunals managed to try more than 200 Nazi leaders and other accused war criminals in four years.

The Guantanamo tribunals have proceeded so slowly largely because of legal challenges to the system.

NEW RULES

The tribunal rules are still being tweaked. Two days before Nashiri's arraignment, the Pentagon released 202 pages of new rules, bolstering criticism that it's an ad hoc system with rules made up on the fly.

Army Brigadier General Mark Martins, the sixth Guantanamo chief prosecutor in seven years, said the changes were largely administrative and dealt with procedures such as travel reimbursement and how the lawyers would be paid.

"None of these is unfair to the accused," Martins said.

The Guantanamo tribunals have many fans in Congress, where Senate Republicans inserted provisions into a 2012 defense authorization bill that would require military detention and military tribunals for anyone accused of terrorist acts, including U.S. citizens.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would block consideration of the defense bill until those provisions were changed. Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson said they would "overmilitarize" U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

In an editorial published last month in the Chicago Tribune, three former federal judges said the "deeply disturbing" provisions could limit trial options and strip the FBI and local and state law enforcement agencies of the ability to gather intelligence from terrorism suspects.

"Not only would such an effort ignore 200 years of legal precedent, it would fly in the face of common sense," they said. "Such an effort to restrict counterterrorism efforts by traditional law enforcement agencies would sadly demonstrate that many members of Congress have very little faith in America's criminal justice system."

(Editing by David Storey)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/terrorism/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20111113/ts_nm/us_guantanamo

texas judge texas judge tom brokaw maria shriver andy irons ethan zohn jeremy mayfield