"I can tell you that the president has confidence in him," said Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino. President Bush "believes the attorney general can overcome the challenges that are before him," she said.

On Thursday, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson told a Senate hearing that rather than merely signing off on the firings, as Gonzales has repeatedly stated, Gonzales was in the middle of things from the beginning.

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Sampson told a Judiciary Committee inquiry into whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

"I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign," Sampson said.

Sampson also told the panel that the White House had a large role in the firings, with one-time presidential counsel Harriet Miers joining Gonzales in approving them. And under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said that looking back, he should not have advocated the firing of one prosecutor in particular, New Mexico's David Iglesias.

Congress began its spring break Friday, but there were intense activities taking place behind the scenes.

Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and three other Justice Department officials arrived on Capitol Hill Friday morning for what aides said would be a five-hour closed meeting with House and Senate Judiciary Committee officials.

McNulty in early February testified before Congress that seven of the U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons, and that one, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., was being moved out so that he could be replaced by a former aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Gonzales was upset with McNulty's testimony afterwards and would have preferred that he said all eight were fired for performance reasons, according to Justice Department e-mails forwarded to the two committees. Bush has since criticized the department for not giving Congress an accurate account of the firings.

DAVID Hicks's sentence will be "substantially less" than 20 years in jail, the US military's chief prosecutor said today.

Hicks's sentencing will begin late tonight (Australian time) and both the defence and prosecution have been tight-lipped since Hicks's guilty plea on Monday about what sentence they will recommend.

Chief prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis declined to say today whether a plea deal had been reached with Hicks' defence lawyers, but he gave insight into what Hicks may receive.

John Walker Lindh, dubbed "The American Taliban", was sentenced to 20 years' jail in 2002 and for months Col Davis had used Lindh as a benchmark for Hicks' sentence.

However, Hicks's guilty plea would reduce the sentence prosecutors asked for, Col Davis said.

Asked today about Hicks' potential sentence, Col Davis said the sentence prosecutors will ask for would be much lower than Lindh's 20 years.

"I think you'll find when we get to argument we will argue for something substantially less than John Walker Lindh," Col Davis said at Guantanamo Bay military base.

Hicks's sentencing proceedings are due to begin tomorrow at 8am local time (10pm Friday AEDT).

Hicks, 31, on Monday pleaded guilty to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.

The case comes on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held in January that the shareholder's complaint had enough detail to establish "a strong inference that knew had exaggerated its revenues." This case is one of several cases being considered by the Supreme Court where companies hope to limit class actions suits against them. On Monday, the Court agreed to consider whether shareholders of companies that commit securities fraud should be able to sue investment banks, lawyers, and auditors that allegedly also participated in the fraud. The Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving shareholders seeking damages from banks that allegedly violated antitrust laws.

Texas Governor Rick Perry Tuesday signed into law a new so-called "shoot first" law, which allows state residents to use deadly force to respond to threats in their homes, cars, and at jobs. The bill, also known as a "stand your ground" law, was approved by large majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature. In his statement, Perry said "The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature." The legislation, which requires that the person defending themselves be unprovoked, also provides civil immunity for any justified action under the law. The Texas law takes effect September 1, 2007.

Georgia enacted a similar law last July, and Florida adopted a "shoot first" law in 2005. Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota all have enacted similar legislation as well. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has continually called such legislation "phenomenally dangerous," but the National Rifle Association maintains that these laws are necessary to protect innocent citizens.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted Tuesday to reject proposed legislation which would have effectively ended the death penalty in the state. Had it passed, the proposed law would have set the maximum penalty for capital crimes at life in prison without parole.

he debate was emotionally charged by the recent shooting of a police officer for which his assailant now faces execution. Opponents of the bill said overturning capital punishment so soon after the death of Officer Michael Briggs would be an insult to the state's police officers.

The New Hampshire legislature attempted to repeal the state's death penalty in 2000 and again in 2001, but the first attempt was vetoed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen and the second try failed to pass the legislature. Current governor John Lynch has threatened to veto any legislation which would end executions in the state. Eleven US states have recently suspended the death penalty for reconsideration. Most recently, the Montana Senate voted to repeal the practice.

"The criminal actions of this corporation had threatened to turn on the lights on the modern battlefield for our enemies and expose American soldiers to great harm," Brownlee said.

ITT defense-related technical data was given to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom in order to cut costs, government investigators said.

"Placing profits ahead of the security of our nation is simply not acceptable for any corporation," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie Myers said in a statement.

ITT, which Brownlee said is the U.S. military's 12th largest systems supplier, is the first major defense contractor convicted of a criminal violation under the Arms Export Control Act that a Brownlee spokesman said was passed in 1976.

According to the prosecutor, ITT agreed to pay a $2 million criminal fine, forfeit $28 million in illegal proceeds to the U.S. government and pay $20 million to the State Department.

"ITT will pay $50 million in restitution to the victims of their crimes _ the American soldier," Brownlee said.

The fine will be suspended for five years and the White Plains, N.Y.-based company can reduce it dollar-for-dollar by investing in the development and production of more advanced night-vision technology so the U.S. military maintains battlefield advantage.

The government will maintain the rights to any technologies ITT develops and can share them with rival defense firms bidding on future contracts, Brownlee said.

Not so, said Washington attorney Theodore Olson, representing a manufacturer of women's accessories.

The idea that such agreements are automatically illegal is "outdated, misguided" and the restriction itself is anti-competitive, Olson argued.

The case stands at the intersection of discount chains and such niche retailers as Kay's Kloset in Texas, which lowered its prices below an agreed-upon minimum with manufacturer Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. Leegin cut off its shipments to the family owned business when Phil and Kay Smith refused to raise their prices.

Leegin said that by maintaining price consistency among its retailers, stores can offer improved customer service. The extra service, said the manufacturer, enables smaller stores to compete against rival brands sold by bigger cut-rate competitors.

If the old standard is abandoned, what about the argument that every American will pay far more, asked Justice Stephen Breyer.

Representing the Bush administration, Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hungar said that there is a consensus among economists that such agreements are not necessarily anti-competitive.

Consumers "want other things besides cheap," said Justice Antonin Scalia. Some consumers prefer more service at a higher price, said Scalia, and the fact that such price-floor agreements might raise prices "does not prove anything."

The Smiths successfully sued Leegin, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding that Leegin and its retailers agreed to fix retail pric-es on the manufacturer's Bright-on brand.

If Leegin can get the 1911 Supreme Court ruling overturned, it would be much more difficult for the Smiths to prevail because they would have to show that the Leegin agreement is anti-competitive.