This situation, as reported by the Associated Press, is interesting:

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — A couple whose frozen embryo was accidentally destroyed at a fertility clinic has the right in Illinois to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, a judge has ruled in a case that some legal experts say could have implications in the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

In an opinion issued Friday, Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said “a pre-embryo is a ‘human being’ … whether or not it is implanted in its mother’s womb.”

He said the couple is as entitled to seek compensation as any parents whose child has been killed.

But what if it was intentionally destroyed?

Apparently some attention in the Oil for Food scandal is being focused on Kofi’s son Kojo Annan. Info here in this AP story for starters.

NEW YORK Investigators looking into corruption at the U-N’s oil-for-food program in Iraq are focusing some attention on the son of the U-N’s top official.

They want to find out if Secretary-General Kofi Annan played any role in winning a contract for a Swiss company that employed his son.

The investigators are looking at thousands of pages of Annan’s documents, including e-mail and phone records.

The man in charge of the independent investgation, Paul Volcker, tells The Associated Press that some new information has caused investigators to delay publishing their findings about Annan’s son, Kojo.

The oil-for-food program was designed to let the former Iraqi government sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for humanitarian goods, amid sanctions that had been in place since 1991.

WND has more.

Despite previous statements to the contrary, the son of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is now said to admit he did indeed play a role in the scandalized oil-for-food program with Iraq, and that’s prompting a call for his testimony before the U.S. Congress.

London’s Sunday Times reported Kojo Annan “admitted he was involved in negotiations to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil under the auspices of Saddam Hussein.”
…
According to the Times, it’s Kojo’s connections to Hani Yamani, the son of Sheikh Yamani, the wealthy former Saudi oil minister who set up OPEC, that are under scrutiny.

Yamani lined up a deal four years ago to sell some $60 million in Iraqi oil to a Moroccan company, and Kojo is alleged to have traveled to Morocco to help seal the deal.
…
“The only way to get to the truth is to compel Kofi and Kojo Annan to come clean about their oil-for-food dealings with U.S. investigators.”

From NewsDay:

Investigators also have interviewed Kojo Annan several times, but Volcker said there had been some frustrations.

“He is a little difficult to get a hold of, but he doesn’t refuse to be interviewed,” Volcker said. “How forthcoming he is for the interview is another question.”

Kojo Annan, 31, worked for Cotecna from 1996 to 1998, leaving at about the time the company received the U.N. contract. He has said that he only worked for the company in Africa and has denied any involvement in its oil-for-food dealings.

Kofi Annan has also denied that his son’s employment played a role in the contracting. But the U.N. chief expressed “disappointment and surprise” in November when it emerged that Kojo Annan had not disclosed that Cotecna continued to pay him $30,000 a year for five years after he left. The payments were compensation for an agreement not to work for competitors.

Volcker said investigators were following new leads that seemed to broaden the probe involving Kojo Annan beyond his Cotecna ties.

And the son of Cotecna’s founder responds in an Op-ed in the Washington Times:

What is the reality behind the questions being raised about Cotecna? A few basic questions and answers can help make that clear.

First, what was the role of Cotecna in the U.N. oil-for-food program? It was limited and technical, without any relation with the financial management of the program. Beginning in February1999,Cotecna worked under contract for the United Nations to authenticate shipments of freight arriving in Iraq under the oil-for-food program. Authentication consisted mainly of verifying paperworkaccompanying shipments voluntarily presented by transporters at points of entry on land borders and at ports in Iraq. The company tested foodstuffs to assure “fitness for human consumption,” and inspected other goods on a random basis.

Second, what was our connection with the managementoftheprogram? Cotecna was involved neither in selecting the goods to be imported, establishing their specifications, selecting suppliers, negotiating the prices to be paid nor designating any sales intermediaries or sales commissions. In addition, Cotecna was never involved in the handling of any funds for the payment for any goods.

Third, has Cotecna been providing all of its records? One of the most glaring examples of the frenzy surrounding the subject was the press coverage of an erroneous accusation made by a congressional subcommittee indicating that Cotecna had not provided it with the information that the company had in its files. The subcommittee publicly corrected its mistake. However, two days of dramatic and violent media reporting of those first false assertions tremendously damaged our company’s reputation. That is a price no person or company should pay, especially one that views its integrity as its most important asset and has voluntarily cooperated with all investigators from the outset.

Fourth, what was Cotecna’s relationship with Kojo Annan, the son of the secretary-general of the United Nations? Did that relationship help the company win and renew its contract? Cotecna historically trains numerous young nationals of countries in which it does business and has a policy of employing local talent instead of expatriates, a policy welcomed by both the countries and their young, talented people. In that context, Kojo Annan was a Cotecna employee and then consultant from the fall of 1995 to the end of 1998. During this period, he was focused on the company’s activities in Nigeria and Ghana. Indeed, there wasn’t any connection betweenKojoAnnanand Cotecna work in Iraq that started in February 1999.

Looks like this story may be finally starting to snowball, after several days of turbulence in the blog world.

If you’re new to the controversy of Eason Jordan allegedly accusing our troops of targeting journalists, see the original post here, which is loaded with background. LaShawn Barber also has a couple of great roundups (I and II).

The Washington Times has mentioned it.

Hugh Hewitt is going to be on with Chris Matthews Sunday evening and will bring this up, per Captain’s Quarters.

Captain Ed says it’s a race, and if CNN doesn’t address it by the time the blogworld gets the tape, “they’re toast.” The video is supposedly coming to blogger Sisyphus, who also has some more here.

Looks like the snowball may soon turn to an avalanche. Jack Kelly, columnist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has cracked the dam (HT: Ed yet again).

UPDATE: (Sunday, 4:30p) Michelle Malkin points us to Rebecca McKinnon who is doing some tracking of “Easongate” as well as a new easongate.com.

UPDATE 2: LaShawn is going nuts on this coverage… the snowball turned avalanche is soon to turn into whatever is next in the “bigger than an avalanche” progression as the legacy media continues to be pressured and starts to crack.

LaShawn also asks this:

Update VI (Monday, February 7): Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd were present at the World Economic Forum where Eason Jordan accused our military of targeting journalists for slaughter. What do these politicians have to say? Contact them and find out.

… which I have an answer to here, quoting from an original post by GayPatriot:

And then, this liberal Democrat pressed Mr. Jordan to be more specific, putting the CNN Executive on the spot. The newsman rambled on a bit and mumbled some sort of response about how “‘There are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out’ for journalists.” He could provide no evidence to buttress his claims, then “offered another anecdote: A reporter who’d been standing in a long line to get through a checkpoint at Baghdad’s Green Zone had been turned back by the GI on duty. Apparently the soldier had been displeased with the reporter’s dispatches, and sent him to the back of the line.”

Had Mr. Frank not challenged him, the global elites there might have taken Jordan’s words at face value, convinced that Americans were indiscriminately targeting journalists.

UPDATE 3: Looks like that’s a popular question today. Chester over at BillRoggio.com posts:

Supposedly, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut were present when Jordan made his comments at Davos. What do they have to say about his remarks?

See above for at least partial credit to Barney Frank where it is due.

UPDATE 4 (7:30 am 2/7): Hugh Hewitt says he would kick it around on Bill Bennet’s show this morning.

UPDATE 5: Looks like Michelle Malkin has weighed in (again) on this Eason Jordan thing with a phone call to Barney Frank.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. “Give me specifics,” Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.

And several others continue to ask “where are the bloggers from the left?”

Where are the liberals on this? Again, nobody’s obligated to blog about anything they don’t want to, but doesn’t anybody on the left have anything to say about this? Don’t folks on the left get irritated by somebody making charges against the U.S. military without evidence?