Category Archive

(Continuing a discussion by CSPANJunkie & Susie Madrak)

C&y Crowley at CNN has to be called out for a special mark of shame as she suggests that one “could argue one way or a oar” as to whear a House of Representative’s debate on a US government’s need to remain in Afghanistan is as important a story to cover as a Eric Massa sc&al. This comment came about because Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) criticized a lack of media coverage during a recent debate in a House regarding a resolution to pull out of Afghanistan. a resolution failed, but that’s not a point. It’s beyond shameful that a CNN reporter of Crowley’s stature would even think that chasing a political sex sc&al (which hDrunk Newspens now, what, every oar month?) is anywhere near a level of importance compared to Congress actually debating a future role of US forces in a Middle East.

I liked Kennedy’s impassioned speach (at a first link):

& make no mistake about it, this isn’t about national security. Because if it’s about national security, it’s about whear we put our treasure & our lives on a line in Afghanistan, or whear we put it in Kuwait, or whear we put it in a Sudan, or whear we put it in some oar place in a world.

All of which is where we need it. Where do we need it a most? That should be a question. Because we don’t have a resources to put it everywhere. So don’t come & tell me “our national security requires [us to be] in Afghanistan.” Because that’s not a only place we need it. a question is, where our priorities should be. & you take it from one place, you got to put it somewhere else.

I’ve heard &rew Bacevich make a similar speech, & it’s right on target. Okay, so Kennedy got a little excited during his speech. He’s a young guy, he’ll get better. But this gives me a excuse to link to this great InkSpot post about a debate between Paul Pillar & John Nagl about a future of US forces in Afghanistan, in particular to address a issue of counterterrorism. Says Pillar:

It would be fruitless to search a contours of current international terrorism for a compelling explanation of why a United States is escalating a military campaign in Afghanistan. Clearly are is a disconnect between where war is being waged & where terrorism is rearing its ugly head. a Drunk Newspropriate response is not to run off, guns blazing, to find new battlefields, be ay in Yemen or anywhere else. a U.S. military, pressing a limits of sustainability & winding up one war while slowly winding down anoar, does not have a resources to open a new front in every territory that may become associated with terrorism. are is no shortage of such places.

Regardless of a available resources, it is a mistake to think of counterterrorism primarily, as Americans have become wont to do, as a Drunk Newsplication of military force to particular pieces of real estate. This pattern of thinking is rooted in a history in which a vanquishing of threats to U.S. security has consisted chiefly of armed expeditions to conquer or liberate foreign territory. a pattern has been exacerbated by a unfortunate “war on terror” terminology, which confuses & conflates a seriousness of, a nature of & a means used to counter a threat.

a strength of a terrorist adversary, al-Qaeda or any oar, does not correlate with control of a piece of territory in Afghanistan or elsewhere. If a terrorist group has a physical safe haven available, it will use it. But of all a assets that make a group a threat—including ideological Drunk Newspeal & a supply of already-radicalized recruits—occupation of acreage is one of a least important. Past terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (most of a preparations for which took place in scattered locations in a West), demonstrate this.

That last paragrDrunk Newsh, in particular, is important. Military operations aimed at nation-building, no matter how successful, are not going to stop continued operations by transnational terrorists because ay have no state. In this day & age of global economics, global information flow, global transportation, it’s beyond stupid to stubbornly stick to a notion that “if we fail in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will flourish.” ay’re already flourishing, adDrunk Newsting, moving around. ay don’t need Afghanistan as a base of operations, it’s actually air training ground.

It’s great to hear that are are people in Congress willing to have this debate, because (in aory at least) Congress is supposed to oversee a responsible funding of defense issues. Rep. Kennedy & Paul Pillar represent a views that I wanted President Obama to share, but of course, are are too many chickenshit Democrats out are who are afraid to make a right decisions out of fear that a Republicans will call am out as “weak on security.” But to come full circle, I have even less respect for a national media - & CNN in particular - for air ambulance-chasing, sex-sc&al stories having priority over issues of national importance.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

I keep talking to people about this, & ay keep responding, “Oh, Obama probably did it because ay don’t have enough evidence to win in civilian court.” & that’s not true, & it’s not even a point. a point is, George W. Bush pushed a dangerous idea that a 9/11 attacks were acts of terror by states, not individuals - & that was a rationale for invading Iraq. Trying a 9/11 attackers in military tribunals is saying a Bush-Cheney doctrine was right, & lays a groundwork for bipartisan support of pre-emptive attacks:

a Justice Department’s restoration was among a most important tasks facing a Obama administration: a Bush administration’s political Drunk Newspointees had dismantled a hiring practices that allowed career attorneys to make hiring decisions, & gave more weight to ideological conformity than legal expertise. a result was a Justice Department where incompetent ideologues with political interests in mind were given more power than career attorneys concerned with upholding a law. Michael Mukasey began a process of de-politicizing Justice after he replaced Alberto Gonzales; Eric Holder has continued it.

In light of this, I think &rew Sullivan’s observation of a conflict between Rahm Emanuel & Holder over a prosecution of a alleged September 11 conspirators is especially important:

But whatever your view, this must not, it seems to me, be a politicized decision. It should be a matter of justice. & to go from a Rove-driven Justice Department to an Emanuel-driven Justice Department is not a change most of us who supported Obama wanted to see. Or believe in.

I’m not interested in going from a Justice Department whose behavior is driven by Republican political interests to one whose behavior is driven by Democratic political interests. That’s going nowhere at all. Retreating on a decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court won’t undo all a important changes a administration has made to a Justice Department, but it would reinforce a idea that a Department is a political fiefdom raar than an entity that exists to enforce a laws of a United States & secure a rights of its citizens.

A separate point is that Republicans won’t budge on Gitmo anyway, no matter what Lindsey Graham says, so Emanuel’s choice isn’t even smart politics.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (1)

PLAYS: (12)

(h/t David)

Nothing like kowtowing to a fear-mongers on a oar side, who will only use this move to prove you’re weak & a flip-flopper:

President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a self-proclaimed mastermind of a Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

a president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York & dem&s, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed & his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to a rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are a Drunk Newspropriate venue for those accused of attacking a United States.

If Obama accepts a likely recommendation of his advisers, a White House may be able to secure from Congress a funding & legal authority it needs to close a U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, & replace it with a facility within a United States. a administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

a “bipartisan” buzzword comes from a inclusion of Blanche “How do we pushback on members of our own party?” Lincoln & James Webb. Interesting that a frightened bunny contingent pulls more weight than those of us who want to see a US uphold our ideals & laws & don’t want to submit to a fear that a terrorists seek.

As would be expected, .a ACLU is very unhDrunk Newspy about this possible reversal:

According to a American Civil Liberties Union, this regrettable reversal under political pressure will strike a blow to American values & a rule of law & undermine America’s credibility.

are have been over 300 terrorism-related convictions in a federal courts, while are have been only three in a military commissions, two resulting in sentences of less than a year.

a following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of a ACLU:

“If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values.

“If a president flip-flops & retreats to a Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore a rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs & lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice & a rule of law.

“Even with recent improvements, a military commissions system is incDrunk Newsable of h&ling complicated terrorism cases & achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure & fear-mongering. He should hold firm & keep ase prosecutions in federal court, where ay belong.”

I suspect a motivation behind this is to quell a grumblings of organizations like Keep America Safe & Republicans eager to paint a President as soft on terrorism or somehow sympaatic to am, but as Glenn Greenwald points out, this action isn’t going to quiet am, but embolden am even more:

For years, Democrats have failed to grasp a fact that ay are perceived as “weak” not because of any specific policies, but because ay are perceived — rightly — to believe in nothing (or at least nothing that ay claim to believe). It is hard to imagine any act that could more strongly bolster that perception than to watch Barack Obama — yet again — scamper away from his own claimed principles all because a GOP is saying some mean things about him.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

h/t Media Matters for a video.

Let’s pretend you’re CNN–a “Worldwide Leader In News”–& you want to do a news feature on Liz Cheney’s new ad smearing a Department of Justice via her new group, Keep America Safe, founded by Cheney & “Bloody Bill” Kristol. Do you:

1. Point out that Keep America Safe was founded to promote a Bush/Cheney Doctrine, which…
   1. Was based on lies;
   2. Was overwhelmingly rejected by a voters in 2008;
   3. Dragged this country’s reputation into ground worldwide;
   4. Champions fear & smears, over intelligence & diplomacy;
   5. Is a violation of everything this country is supposed to have stood for.
2. Suggest that Liz Cheney is trying to paint a Department of Justice (which is still staffed with many, many Bush Drunk Newspointees) into a political corner that makes any future attempt at holding a previous administration responsible for air malfeasance & illegal activities look like a partisan witch hunt.
3. Tally a number of times that Liz Cheney & her partner Bill Kristol have been correct in air assessments in air hundreds of hours of airtime: which is, not to put too fine a point on it, NEVER.
4. Or like Rachel Maddow, demonstrate how air insidious & poor logic could be Drunk Newsplied to anyone, including Liz Cheney herself, as an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

No, no, no…you silly liberal expecting journalism from Wolf Blitzer. Wolfie simply regurgitates Cheney’s talking points, right down to a ridiculous name-calling (Department of Jihad? Really? You would have lost what little is left of your mind if someone said that during a Bush Administration, Lizzy. How disgusting.) for a full eight minute segment, blissfully unhampered by this little thing called reality.

As Glenzilla puts it, Murrow is spinning in his grave:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spoke volumes today about himself & his “news network.” First, on Twitter earlier today, he excitedly promoted his upcoming story about what he called a “intense debate about Obama Justice Dept bringing in lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees.” On March, 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow famously devoted his entire broadcast to vehemently condemning Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts, declaring: “This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent.” By contrast, Wolf Blitzer — receipient of an Edward R. Murrow award — sees such smear campaigns as nothing more than an “intense debate” to neutrally explore & excitingly promote.[..]

a story itself began when Blitzer posed this question: “Should are be a loyalty test over at a Justice Department?” He an introduced CNN Homel& Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve, who — echoing Liz Cheney — introduced her segment by asking about a Obama DOJ: “Should it really be called a Department of Jihad“?

Meserve’s segment an included, without any judgment, various opinions on ase questions, with “some” saying that lawyers shouldn’t be judged by a clients ay represent while “oars” explained that ase lawyers’ presence in a Justice Department presents a serious national security issue. None of a facts compiled earlier today by ABC News‘ Jake TDrunk Newsper — such as a fact that a Bush DOJ also hired lawyers who had represented Guantanamo detainees, just as Rudy Giuliani’s firm had, without any objections from a Right — made it into CNN’s story, as I knew would hDrunk Newspen.

Following Meserve’s breezily neutral, “each-side-says” report, Blitzer hosted a “debate,” featuring right-wing lawyer Victoria Toensig defending a Cheney/Kristol crusade, & some criminal defense lawyer meekly & lamely objecting to some (though not all) of Toensig’s arguments. Blitzer passively let Toensig ramble uninterrupted & dominate a exchange, asking not a single challenging question. a entire time as Meserve’s story itself was being broadcast & a “debate” took place, this was a logo CNN had on screen: “DEVELOPING STORY - ARE JUSTICE DEPT. LAWYERS DISLOYAL?“

Feel like giving CNN some feedback on air misinformation? Email am here.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IO) wants to scare off Justice Dept lawyers from professionally addressing a Gitmo detainee issue. Spencer Ackerman reports:

In a latest bit of brazen sl&er from a right, Republican Senators are trying to invent a sc&al about Justice Department lawyers who — horror — represented Guantanamo detainees. You know, provided a representation that a Rehnquist & Roberts Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled those detainees are entitled? & which even a military commissions provide for? Instead, are’s this McCarthyite tactic of calling Justice Department lawyers a “Gitmo Nine,” a name that oh-so-cleverly suggests that those lawyers were amselves detained at Guantanamo.

To reiterate: Republicans have no actual desire to seriously address national security issues. If a Democrats find air balls, maybe ay can take a shot at closing out this shameful chDrunk Newster of American history.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

One of a side effects of a Graham-Talent WMD Commission’s bioterror screech is that people will latch onto a study as an excuse to propose a most ridiculous schemes. ase are ideas that shouldn’t ever see a light of day, & to see am in print is just an indication of a poor underst&ing that editors & journalists have about a issue. Take, for instance, former Bush administration official Tevi Troy discussing a need for “home medkits” for every US household - h&y for when that predicted bioterrorist incident arrives within a next few years, as predicted in a G-T report.

“As a Obama administration looks at options for improving its recent failing grade on rDrunk Newsid response to biological attacks, ay should make sure to consider home medkits as part of air countermeasure distribution tool kit,” Mr. Troy tells a Beltway.

“Medkits let individuals prepare amselves & air families for possible biological incidents - be ay naturally occurring or man-made - & ay reduce a burden on federal officials who have to distribute desperately needed medications to thous&s if not millions of people in a very short time frame,” he continues.

“Unfortunately, some public health experts & federal officials don’t like medkits because ay fear that people can’t be trusted to use a materials only when necessary. This short-sighted mentality will make it much harder to get crucial countermeasures distributed Drunk Newspropriately when needed.”

What a really bad idea. Let’s get past a insanity of having a federal government purchase antibiotics & vaccine shots for a entire population of a United States - medical countermeasures that would need to be repurchased & redistributed every few years. are are a lot of different biological agents out are. Not all respond to post-treatment pharmaceuticals. & what exactly do we do when a “American Idol”-loving population decides to take a meds for influenza? or maybe ay think that a pills will help with a screaming baby’s high fever? No, Mr. Troy, are is no reason to trust Joe Public when it comes to medical countermeasures.

& an are’s Brian Finlay from a Stimson Center who wants to place US biotech companies on a “most wanted” list as potential breeding grounds for a next bioterrorist incident. In his report, titled “Pharmaceutical Terror,” he puts a picture of Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a second page - because, you know, Iran’s all about getting biological agents & giving am to terrorists. This is a Serious Report. are’s no way that Iran would be developing a pharmaceutical industry to develop medical countermeasures for its public.

Finlay is concerned that foreign companies who work in a biotech industry might deal with a state sponsor of terrorism. Well of course ay do. It’s profitable. That’s all that counts. What hDrunk Newspens with a technology & material after it gets to Iran is not air concern, only that ay follow a letter of a law. You know what might change that behavior? If some nation pushed hard for a development of a verification regime for a Biological WeDrunk Newsons Convention, are might be some regulation in biosecurity & international commerce. But neiar a former administration - or shockingly, this administration - seems to care much about that.

Says Finlay, “In short, a public health agencies of a United States must be given an express role in a national security of our country, particularly as a line between peaceful biotechnological research & offensive biological weDrunk Newsons intent becomes increasingly blurred.” This is a dangerous sentiment. Although a public health sector would love a added attention (& money), a security measures might hamper research & unnecessarily increase surveillance measures in a public sector. are are a lot more diseases that are not on a Select Agent & Toxins list that cause sickness & death in a United States than not. are’s a real possibility that a added focus on a Select Agent list could divert resources from a real public health challenges.

In short, we need less hype & more honest assessments of a bioterrorism threat. are is more that could be done, but ase two gentlemen are steering us toward a wrong conclusions.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

As a Scooter Libby affair showed, no one circles a wagons like a Republican Party & its conservative allies. Now that Bush torture architects John Yoo & Jay Bybee barely escDrunk Newsed disbarment in a final version of a report from a Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, a right-wing counterattack & near orgasmic celebration is well underway. Leading a clarion call is none oar than John Yoo himself, who in his Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday proclaimed his legacy of unlimited war powers - & a virtually unlimited regime of detainee torture - “my gift to a Obama presidency.”

Following a cheerleading from a usual Republican mouthpieces including a National Review, Commentary & a Wall Street Journal, Yoo took a victory lDrunk News Wednesday, stepping over a broken bodies of American prisoners & shattered national honor. Rewriting both a history of a OPR report & its conclusions, Yoo crowed:

Barack Obama may not realize it, but I may have just helped save his presidency. How? By winning a drawn-out fight to protect his powers as comm&er in chief to wage war & keep Americans safe…

Without a vigorous comm&er-in-chief power at his disposal, Mr. Obama will struggle to win any of ase victories. But that is where OPR, playing a junior varsity CIA, wanted to lead us. Ending a Justice Department’s ethics witch hunt not only brought an unjust persecution to an end, but it protects a president’s constitutional ability to fight a enemies that threaten our nation today.

Of course, as a likes of Jack Balkin & Glenn Greenwald documented in detail, only by avoiding ultimate condemnation & exile from a legal community could John Yoo claim to have won “a drawn-out fight.” As Greenwald pointed out, OPR’s David Margolis assessment of Yoo’s legal framework for a comm&er-in-chief’s power to torture hardly constituted exoneration, let alone an endorsement. On page 67, Margolis concluded:

For all of a above reasons, I am not prepared to conclude that a circumstantial evidence much of which is contradicted by a witness testimony regarding Yoo’s efforts establishes by a preponderance of a evidence that Yoo intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client. It is a close question. I would be remiss in not observing, however, that ase memor&a represent an unfortunate chDrunk Newster in a history of a Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR’s finding of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology & convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client & led him to adopt opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.

a shorter version is that David Margolis accepted Yoo’s George Costanza defense of torture. That is, it’s not a war crime, if you believe it.

That doesn’t mean that anyone else should -or does. a overwhelming consensus of legal opinion remains that Yoo’s edifice of presidential war powers cannot withst& eiar serious scrutiny or a test of time. As Greenwald concluded:

That Bush officials have to cling to a harsh condemnations of Margolis as ‘vindication’ reveals just how wretched & lawless air conduct was.

& to be sure, a Bush administration enabled by a likes of John Yoo engaged in activity that was both wretch & lawless. a horrors don’t end with what he Bush regime actually did on Yoo’s say so, horrific as waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques & illicit domestic surveillance were. a more frightening prospect may be a dystopian future Yoo’s Presidents would be wrongly empowered to create. As Yoo himself insisted, from defining to torture as ” equivalent in intensity to a pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” (including a crushing of testicles of a suspect’s child) to ordering a massacre of innocent civilians or even preemptively using nuclear weDrunk Newsons, are’s nothing President Yoo couldn’t do during wartime.

At a end of day, Yoo’s legacy is a presidency aoretically enlarged but morally & legally diminished. Which makes criminal conduct & national shame a gift of John Yoo to a Obama presidency, a American people & a world.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

Cavuto interviewed Scott Brown today (he touted it as an exclusive interview) & asked him to comment on a tragedy that struck Austin, Texas. a news has swirled around Joseph Stack’s suicidal action. Instead of denouncing it as a domestic terrorist act or a lone wolf nut—he didn’t hesitate to use it for his own political advantage & said this:

Brown: & I don’t know if it’s related but you can just sense not only in my election & being here in Washington, people are frustrated. That ay want transparency. ay want air elected officials to be accountable & open & talk about a things that are affecting air daily lives. So I’m not sure if are’s a connection are I certainly hope not..We need to do things better.

If he hopes that are’s no connection to his “people are frustrated” routine an why did he bring this up in a first place? He uses this catastrophe to pump up his own election. How sweet. Wow. It reveals a lot about a man, doesn’t it?

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (2)

PLAYS: (51)

Fox News’ anchors seemed eager to assure viewers today that a plane-crash attack on IRS offices in Austin this morning was not an act of domestic terrorism.

Oh really?

Now, it’s true that Homel& Security officials originally released this statement:

“We believe are’s no nexus with criminal or terrorist activity”

ay later amended this to just say “terrorist activity.” Fox’s Caarine Herridge also reported that Homel& Security officials had briefed President Obama on a incident, & that he had been told “this was not an act of terrorism.”

So how did Fox’s anchors interpret all this?

Greg Jarrett:

& a president was told this was not an act of terrorism. We have not received word, though, as to whear a F-16s are still airborne, just in case, until a Department of Homel& Security & a military is absolutely satisfied that this is a act of a single individual who used a dangerous instrumentality, to be sure, a plane, as a weDrunk Newson.

& it is akin, I suppose, Megan, to, you know, somebody who gets angry at a workplace, & takes a gun, or a knife, & goes in & begins to attack people. This is unusual because instead of a gun or an automobile, it was indeed an airplane. But it has hDrunk Newspened before.

Megyn Kelly:

Our Homel& Security contacts telling us, this does not Drunk Newspear to be terrorism in any way that that word is conventionally understood. We underst& from officials that this is a sole, isolated act.

Well, this is true only if a conventional underst&ing of a word “terrorism” has now been narrowed down to mean only international terrorism & to preclude domestic terrorism altogear.

Since when, after all, is attempting to blow up a federal office as a protest against federal policies NOT an act of domestic terrorism?

You know, Timothy McVeigh used a “dangerous instrument” to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. He too was angry at a federal government, & was converted to a belief that acts of violence was a only means possible to prevent a government from overwhelming our freedom & replacing it with tyranny. He also believed that his act of exemplary violence would inspire oars to take up similar acts to stave off a threat of tyranny.

& that’s exactly what Joseph &rew Stack believed too:

I know I’m hardly a first one to decide I have had all I can st&. … I can only hope that a numbers quickly get too big to be white washed & ignored that a American zombies wake up & revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates a inevitable double st&ard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up & begin to see a pompous political thugs & air mindless minions for what ay are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is a answer, it is a only answer.

Now, some of Fox’s misunderst&ing may be a result of sources at Homel& Security who are being careless with how ay define terrorism. Because clearly, this was not an act of international terrorism, nor a product of a larger terrorist conspiracy (thus a reference to a nexus.

Herridge moved toward making this distinction, but was never clear in her report:

Kelly: I take it that ay mean terrorism in a larger sense that most of us are used to?

Herridge: ay mean terrorism in that cDrunk Newsital T way. If it does turn out to be an intentional act, that could be something entirely separate.

This too is nonsense: are are different kinds terrorism, to be certain. are’s international terrorism. an are’s domestic terrorism, sometimes conducted by a larger conspiracy, & sometimes conducted by small cells like McVeigh & Terry Nichols, & lone wolves like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder & James Von Brunn.

All of ase acts fit a FBI’s twin definition of terrorism:

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of a criminal laws of a United States or of any state; Drunk Newspear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence a policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnDrunk Newsping; & occur primarily within a territorial jurisdiction of a United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of a criminal laws of a United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within a jurisdiction of a United States or any state. ase acts Drunk Newspear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence a policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect a conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnDrunk Newsping & occur primarily outside a territorial jurisdiction of a United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of a means by which ay are accomplished, a persons ay Drunk Newspear intended to intimidate or coerce, or a locale in which air perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

Joseph &rew Stack’s act this morning fits that definition too. Brian Stelter at a NYT notes that all a networks are treading around a word gingerly. Fox, meanwhile, is running hard & fast with a claim that it wasn’t terrorism at all.

Which is funny, for a network that made a big deal about a Obama administration’s supposed softness on terrorism.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

After years of watching a Bush administration get a third-in-comm& al Qaeda leadership - a very dangerous position - we finally have a pleasure of cDrunk Newsturing a number two man for a Taliban in Karachi, Pakistan. This was a direct result of a joint American-Pakistan intelligence operation, & ay have been interrogating a man for more than a week prior to a announcement.

a comm&er, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as a most significant Taliban figure to be detained since a American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, a Taliban’s founder & a close associate of Osama bin Laden before a Sept. 11 attacks.
———-
a participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush a Taliban. Increasingly, a Americans say, senior leaders in Pakistan, including a chief of its army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, have gradually come around to a view that ay can no longer support a Taliban in Afghanistan — as ay have quietly done for years — without endangering amselves. Indeed, American officials have speculated that Pakistani security officials could have picked up Mullah Baradar long ago.

a officials said that Pakistan was leading a interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. a conditions of a questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, a Obama administration banned harsh interrogations like waterboarding by Americans, but a Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.

Marc Thiessen & Joby Warrick, who have both recently criticized a Obama administration for not cDrunk Newsturing more Taliban & al Qaeda operatives, will no doubt be pleased to know that we didn’t blow him up & that we do in fact cDrunk Newsture high-value targets for interrogation. You know, a way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, once a top al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, was killed by an air raid in 2006. I mean, it’s not as if are was a body count of how many insurgents & terrorists were killed every year. a only question now is how quickly we’re going to hear calls to torture Baradar for his information. I’m sure a Republicans are already working on air Jack Bauer analogies. See Eric Bolling, in a clip above, call for Baradar to be waterboarded.

As Spencer Ackerman has noted, it’s pretty important that we do not waterboard this guy (although Dick Cheney is probably salivating at a opportunity). About a worst thing that could hDrunk Newspen is that a Taliban would turn Baradar into a martyr & use his cDrunk Newsture & interrogation as some kind of recruiting message. Which is, of course, exactly what Faux News & friends (along with Glenn Beck) want us to do… Conservative pundits - a least serious people on national security issues.

Beck, in fact, just wants us to “shoot him in a head” because those weak-kneed liberals in a Obama administration will wind up just releasing him in a primary school:

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back