Man fingers son-in-law as terrorist, surprised FBI believed him

Man angry with son-in-law fingers him as terrorist to FBI: "STOCKHOLM (AFP) - A man in Sweden who was angry with his daughter's husband has been charged with libel for telling the FBI that the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda, Swedish media reported on Friday.

The man, who admitted sending the email, said he did not think the US authorities would stupid enough to believe him."

I think we can all identify his first mistake.

Man fingers son-in-law as terrorist, surprised FBI believed him

Man angry with son-in-law fingers him as terrorist to FBI: "STOCKHOLM (AFP) - A man in Sweden who was angry with his daughter's husband has been charged with libel for telling the FBI that the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda, Swedish media reported on Friday.

The man, who admitted sending the email, said he did not think the US authorities would stupid enough to believe him."

I think we can all identify his first mistake.

Prostates and Prejudices - New York Times

Paul Krugman asks why the establishment media doesn't make more noise about the chronic mendacity of Rudolph Giuliani.

I think it's the "Drudge Trolling" problem. There is no one on the left who can aggregate the hits for a story about this like Drudge can for the right. So there is no incentive for establishment journalists to push the story any further. Why bother if it won't get them the kind of hits that a "Edwards haircut" or "Hillary laughs" story will get? Those stories will raise their profile within their news organizations because the bean-counters see the hits they generate and say, "Good job! Here's your check.

Stories about Republican foibles just don't get the kind of hits that a Drudge approved story gets. So Drudge truly rules their world.

The Rule Of Law Comes First

I generally agree with Sen. Schumer on this point:

"From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."

The problem is that Mukasey has already demonstrated that he won't put the rule of law first. He refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture in part because to do so would put members of the administration in legal jeopardy. That means he puts the legal welfare of Bushies before the legal welfare of the United States as a whole.

How often do we need to remind people that the Attorney General's client is the United States, not George W. Bush?

I generally think that Mukasey is probably the best we can hope for from Bush on the question of depoliticization (he doesn't strike me as a Rovian player). He's about the most sane nominee we can expect to come from Bush (certainly better than Ted Olson).

But on the question of putting the law first, the answer is already before us in Mukasey's own words. The law takes a back seat to protecting his benefactors.

Vote no Sen. Schumer. The choice is clear.

Is Murder Legal?

Sen. Kennedy turns against AG nominee - Yahoo! News: "Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. 'He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not,' the president told a group of reporters invited into the Oval Office."

Bush then went on to say that Mukasey can't say whether murder is illegal since he can't say for sure whether OJ did it.

It is now the official position of the Bush administration that questions of legality cannot be asked until you have proved that an illegal act has occurred. Therefore, it is logically impossible for the Bush administration to ever break the law.

A Character Moment

Chris Dodd Blog: "This is not about Mr. Mukasey's career path. Nor is it about spurious worries of prosecuting American CIA operatives in American courts. The debate about waterboarding is about who we are as a country, what values we stand by, and the necessity of the American government to stand by the rule of law. Waterboarding is torture and sadly, it's time for Mr. Mukasey and the Bush administration to talk honestly about the fact that this government has tortured prisoners."

Mukasey is facing a character defining moment. Which does he hold in higher regard: the law or the opinion of his benefactors? If he choose the law he could bring down the wrath of God on the Bushies. If he chooses the Bushies he will make a mockery of the law.

Which will it be Judge Mukasey?

Protecting The Paranoid

Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases - New York Times: "Jack L. Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department in 2003 and 2004, wrote in his recent memoir, “The Terror Presidency,” that the possibility of future prosecution for aggressive actions against terrorism was a constant worry inside the Bush administration.

“I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators, acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment, would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls,” Mr. Goldsmith wrote."

One problem: we're not talking about second guessing "heat-of-battle judgment calls". We're talking about approving torture that happened long after the initial heat of the post-9/11 battle faded, torture that is happening today and torture that may happen in the future.

Like the question of telecom immunity in the FISA battle, people continue to obscure the issue by making it sound like we are still living in the world of Oct-Dec 2001. We aren't talking about giving immunity for people who may have done something wrong for the right reason at a time when they thought we were facing imminent danger (the ticking time bomb). We are talking about giving blanket permission to torture and wiretap at all times, both past, present and future, by leaving the question of threat assessment entirely in the hands of people who believe paranoia is a good foreign policy.

Mukasey won't give a straight answer on the question of waterboarding because to do so would put in legal jeopardy people who have advocated torture last year, this year and next year. He isn't protecting Jack Bauer. He's protecting George Bush. And George Bush is no Jack Bauer.

Mukasey can't say its illegal without hurting the Bushies

Shorter New York Times: Mukasey may think water-boarding is illegal, but he can't say so without putting members of the Bush administration in legal jeopardy ("How can you say what you did was okay if your own Attorney General says it is not?"). Therefore he is punting on the issue in order to avoid embarrassing his benefactors.

In other words, he is putting the well-being of the Bushies ahead of defending the law.

Yeah, he sounds "qualified" under the rules of this administration.

Clinton beats Giuliani...or maybe not

This news is positive for Democrats. But I have to wonder if the results were weighed for enthusiasm (both positive and negative).

Ok, Hillary polls evenly with Giuliani amongst voters who attend church at least once a week. But were the respondents asked to judge who they would actually make the effort to vote for or who would they prefer? Saying you would prefer Clinton over Giuliani does not mean you will actually make the effort to go out and vote for her over Giuliani. You may be so dispirited with both choices that you may just not vote at all (or vote for a protest candidate). In which case the candidate who can (1) inspire their own positive voters and (2) not inspire the other guys negative voters, will have the advantage.

I think 2008 may turn out to be the most unpredictable election in recent memory. The variables involved are just to numerous to account for.

Giuliani Squawks

Biden-Giuliani Smackdown Enlivens Campaign Trail - New York Times: "It was a rare case of a candidate who is leading in national opinion polls firing back at a candidate who is trailing far behind. Many campaigns are reluctant to do such a thing, for fear that it would simply serve to elevate the lesser-known candidate. But Mr. Biden may have touched a nerve by questioning the crime-fighting credentials of Mr. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor."

I should have mentioned this in the previous post. It is almost a cardinal rule that you don't hit hard against an opponent that is way behind you. It only elevates the person you hit.

I think this quote has it right. The rapidity and vociferousness of this response indicates that Giuliani is extremely sensitive to criticism of his performance on 9/11. If he (through his mouthpiece) snipes back this strongly against a minor opponent then just think how he will respond when he faces a general campaign that calls into question his biggest selling point.

Karl Rove may have been a bastard, but he had one thing right: attack your opponent on their perceived strengths. Rudy is all about 9/11, so the Dems shouldn't hesitate to call him on it.

Hit The Republicans Harder

Now this is more of the kind of thing we need to see. There are two strategies I think the contenders for the Dem nomination need to follow. (1) Compare and contrast themselves with their rivals without using Republican talking points (because doing so just makes the GOP's job easier in the general election), and (2) for every hit they make against a Dem rival, hit the Republicans ten times harder.

I don't usually applaud Sen. Biden, but he played this exactly right. When asked a question designed to get him to attack Hillary, he refused to take the bait and quickly pivoted into a strong assault against the leading Republican (Giuliani).

Hitting each other is fine. Politics is a contact sport. But always hit the Republicans even harder.

Piling On

I agree. Playing the victim rarely works in politics.

Besides which, Hillary is the front-runner. So of course everyone is going to pile on her. Crying foul on this is ridiculous and just plays into a stereotype of Democrats (and, unfortunately, women) that they can't take the heat.

If your not sure waterboarding is torture...

... would you be willing to try it out?