I laughed aloud at this paragraph:

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.

Sure, who needs the Constitution, federal laws, international laws, and executive orders... we've got a Secret Memo here! Nicely written, NYTimes. People often bring up the "if Bush did this..." argument. I think it would apply here better than any other place I've seen.

Anwar al-Awlaki has been taken out in Yemen. I'm not crying about it, that's for sure, but most of his "terror ties" seem pretty lame. The NYTimes lays them out:

1. Mr. Awlaki is suspected of helping plan the plot...
2. ...she stabbed a member of Parliament after listening to more than 100 hours of Mr. Awlaki's speeches...
3. ...told investigators that he was inspired by Mr. Awlaki...
4. Mr. Awlaki said that he taught and corresponded with Umar Farouk Abdul mutallab,...
5. ...Fort Hood in Texas, had been investigated by the F.B.I. before the attack in connection with e-mails he exchanged with Mr. Awlaki...
6. ... said they were inspired by Mr. Awlaki's lectures...

I can't be alone in thinking this is pretty weak stuff. Is this really enough justification for the President to order an assassination of a US citizen? I don't think listening to his recordings on the net or reading his writings on the net is much of a terror connection. The correspondence with the Fort Hood shooter must not have been incriminating, or more action would have been taken with regard to Maj Hasan. What does "taught and corresponded" mean? Taught what? Corresponded about what?

The claim that he helped plan a bomb plot is more serious. I would like to see more information about this. For the first time I know of, I think that Glenn Greenwald has a point, writing more than a year ago.

Note also Gary Johnson's position. I wish Mr Johnson were getting more traction.

A former aid of Hillary Clinton was on The Factor today, and reminded me of something that Hillary said about Pakistan back in November of 2009. Here is something I posted about it, from November of 2009:

Hillary Clinton, during her recent trip to Pakistan:

"Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she finally asserted when challenged about Washington’s tough prescriptions for Islamabad. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to."

The US Secretary of State also took a swipe at the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies, telling the senior journalists, "If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together" then "there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment." She said she was "more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States'' but the relationship had to be a "two-way street."

At one point during the exchanges, when a journalist spoke about all the services rendered by Pakistan for the US, Mrs Clinton snapped, "We have also given you billions."

Well done Mrs. Clinton! How refreshing to hear an American diplomat dishing it out rather than just standing there and taking it. Finally, someone in power has the nerve to tell the truth.

Strange now that she is going out of her way now to tell us how useful Pakistan was in the capture of Bin Laden. It doesn't seem to me to ring true.

Sincere congratulations and thanks to President Obama, our SEALS, and everyone else involved!



Awesome pic from the White House. Watching the attack unfold.

Anyone surprised?

A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.

The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

One of my classmates at college was on the plane.

Indian diplomats have gotten their saris in a bunch over having been frisked by the TSA.

"On December 4, Indian ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar was selected by security officials at a Mississippi airport for a pat-down search, despite reportedly notifying officials of her diplomatic status."

...

"We have taken it up with the U.S. authorities and the matter is at that stage," External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said on Monday, referring to Puri, a Sikh.

Sikh men keep their hair covered at all times with a turban, which is not allowed to be touched in public.

Boo freakin' hoo.

You think that because you are a diplomat, or a US Senator, or a member of some other self-proclaimed elite, that you should not have to go through the TSA process the rest of us have to? I call bullsh*t. If I have to go through it, then everyone else should have to as well. It's called "equality under the law."

Ann says: But diplomatic immunity is as helpful to us overseas as it is to visitors here. Do we want to do away with it, knowing that if we do, we will lose it for ourselves in other countries? What percentage of our necessary spying takes place under the cover of diplomatic immunity? The world is a safer place when we know what is going on in other countries. I'm not ready to throw all that away, just so that everyone has to go through the same foolish security-theater at airports.

Steve: Yes, I think diplomatic immunity should be abandoned. I would bet our gains from it overseas are greatly exceeded by our losses due to it at home.

Drudge is a master of perception, subtlety, and placement. From today:



Why so much security in India, Mr. President? Hmmm? Yes, there are some violent Hindu nationalists, but is that really why the Secret Service is going so crazy? Is that why you need 6,000 people to guard you? Or...might it be a different ethnic, political, or religious group that is the problem?

Recently, Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs said:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," said President Barack Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs. "He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of."

As with anything anyone says, this can be analyzed two ways: 1) he was thoughtful and deliberate in his choice of words or, 2) he was talking without thinking and unloading a lot of b.s.

The second option makes what he said meaningless, but brings into question his further employment as the press secretary and main spokesman for president. If he is so thoughtless in speaking, he's not the right guy to be the president's mouthpiece.

The first option is more intriguing. Why would the president's spokesman--and I assume whatever political apparatus sent him out to blather on Sunday--choose to defend itself in this manner?

Usually politicians think through problems in this way: 1) Take some action. 2) Catch flak from opponents who think your action was something really stupid. 3) Figure out whether you really are being stupid or if the flak shooters are being stupid. 4) If the former, either stop being stupid or pretend real hard that you aren't being stupid. 5) If the latter, pretend the stupid flak shooters are smart while ignoring them and going about your business.

It's a fair bet that the current White House isn't going to decide that they were being stupid and reverse their policy. It's also pretty obvious that they aren't pretending that they aren't stupid...that is to say, what Gibbs said was so stupid, that they can't be pretending that they're really smart.

That leaves step #5, the pander--pretend your opponents are smart, agree with them publicly, while actually doing the opposite.

This option, however, relies on you having some understanding of your opponents. Does what Gibbs said show a belief that their opponents are worried about tainting the jury pool? Does it show that they understand their opponents objection that having the president's spokesmen come out and tell everyone the verdict and sentence before a venue has even been chosen might display a preordained verdict more like what you'd find in a thugocracy than in a justice-loving democracy? Does it show an understanding that their opponents are worried that what KSM could gain in intelligence from the discovery phase of the trial would destroy anti-terrorism actions around the world--as actually happened in earlier terror trials? Does it show that they too are concerned that putting prisoners of war captured on the battlefield into civilian courts means that our armed forces have to give Miranda warnings and act like CSI cops, carefully gathering evidence, possibly in the middle of a firefight and while catching the real kind of flak, not the pretend kind?

Nope, what Gibbs said is obviously a pander to their perception of the ignorant "bitter clingers," who in the White House's eyes are blood thirsty, hang-'em-high hicks.

That's their opinion of any American without a liberal worldview and an ivy league degree. Don't worry, you stupid Hillbillies, will kill the bastard for ya!

Hillary Clinton, during her recent trip to Pakistan:

"Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she finally asserted when challenged about Washington’s tough prescriptions for Islamabad. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to."

The US Secretary of State also took a swipe at the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies, telling the senior journalists, "If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together" then "there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment." She said she was "more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States'' but the relationship had to be a "two-way street."

At one point during the exchanges, when a journalist spoke about all the services rendered by Pakistan for the US, Mrs Clinton snapped, "We have also given you billions."

Well done Mrs. Clinton! How refreshing to hear an American diplomat dishing it out rather than just standing there and taking it. Finally, someone in power has the nerve to tell the truth.