The Dish

Greenwald calls the administration's decision to give AbdulMutallab a civilian trial hypocritical:

[A]s demonstrated by the progressive praise of Obama for "upholding the rule of law," the most significant consequence of his first year in office, in the area of civil liberties, is that — with a few exceptions (most notably torture) – he has transformed what were once highly controversial Republican "assaults on the Constitution" into bipartisan consensus which both parties now embrace, thus ensuring — as Baker put it — "that much of the Bush security architecture is almost certain to remain part of the national fabric for some time to come, thanks to Obama."  Thus, a President who imprisons people with military commissions or even no charges at all — and constantly invokes secrecy claims to shield the Executive Branch from judicial review over allegations of lawbreaking — is now hailed — by progressives — as a stalwart defender of "the rule of law."

A reader writes:

Your reader's hypothesis seems too convoluted to me. Would a terrorist group really decide that while they couldn't get a detonator on a plane they could still sneak on some kind of a quasi-bomb?  The detail in the story that sticks out in my mind is that the would-be bomber waited until the plane was approaching the airport.  By doing this, he may have been hoping for maximum damage on the ground as well as in the air.  Of course at this point in the flight the bathrooms would be vacated, as per normal landing protocol — which explains why he was in his seat at the time.

Another writes:

Mutallab sat in Seat 19A.  His choice of seat was not by accident—it is right in the middle of the wing.  This area is one of the more structurally vulnerable areas of the plane.  The lavatory areas are not located in such a structurally vulnerable area—blowing a hole in the fuselage in these areas would be less likely to bring the plane down—see Aloha Airlines Flight 243 or United Flight 811. 

Another:

My understanding is that his seat– 19A– was located directly over the one of the plane's primary fuel tanks.

If you want to increase your chances of taking the whole plane down, detonating near the fuel tanks (which at that point in the flight would have been near empty, and thus filled with more combustible fumes) is the most logical course of action. This guy, moron though he indeed may be, went to Yemen specifically to get training for such his mission– my sense is that his choice of seats, and the decision to attempt to detonate there, was not left to chance.

Another:

Slate had an article last week on the possible effects of an actual explosion.

Another:

A very interesting observation indeed. Al Qaeda is certainly aware that its campaign against civilians has won no supporters and has, in fact, reduced its standing in the Muslim world. Another 9/11-type mass murder would almost certainly galvanize the world against it again, much like in the aftermath of 9/11 itself. It is much better served by simply taking its cues from Wasp and provoking the U.S. into harming itself. And I am sure the leaders of Al Qaeda have figured that out as well.

Another:

The reader is making an assumption that is something like the "Efficient Market Hypothesis." Call it the Efficient Terrorist Hypothesis: terrorists get caught when they want to get caught because even a foiled attack causes terror. But here's the thing: it is a rare person who is both (a) willing to kill civilians (and possibly himself), and (b) competent enough to execute the plan. Most people would only carry out the attack if they went nuts. That's why there are so few terrorists. It's also why this guy got caught: he was willing to do the crime, but was kind of a dumbass and got caught.

Not another wisdom tooth post. Megan dreams up alternatives to the government's floundering mortgage modification program:

[W]e might start by trying to make it easier to get out of houses, as well as stay in them.  Instead of encouraging people to throw their savings into hopeless modifications, maybe the government should be trying to streamline the process of arranging for a short sale so that people can walk away with a little savings in the bank (and on their credit report) to help them get a fresh start.

A definition:

The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.

Not the Onion:

Rivers wasn’t allowed on her Newark-bound flight in Costa Rica this past weekend by a “jittery Continental Airlines gate agent” who thought the two names on her passport, which reads “Joan Rosenberg AKA Joan Rivers,” seemed “fishy.”

But a dude who paid cash for a one-way ticket, checked no bags, and whose father had begged the CIA to keep an eye on him … well the system worked, didn't it? And no one – no one – will be fired.

Julian Sanchez interrupts the torture and pacifism debate playing out at the Corner:

[If] it seems as though torture ever yields important and actionable intelligence more quickly than alternative methods, we’re supposed to take it for granted that this completes the necessary utilitarian analysis.  And this is just absurd. How does torture affect the willingness of enemy combatants to surrender? How much does it complicate our relations with allies? How many people does it help to radicalize against the United States? How many non-radicals does it leave sufficiently disgusted that they’re less motivated to assist the U.S. in fighting radicalism in their communities?  You’ll notice that torture-fans never really attempt to deal remotely seriously with any of these questions; they just babble inanities about how Fanatics Will Hate Us No Matter What. Which, of course, some will—but that’s hardly to the point, is it?

The whole post is worth reading. So few on the right have really grappled with these questions because they needed to be in denial about the realities under Bush and Cheney. So the pathetically shallow arguments they are now having read like some sophomore class in moral theory.

Ricky Gervais lends his singing skills to Sesame Street:

Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the CIA suicide bomber, was a blogger.

"To think that we can save the Constitution without God's help when the government of the United States is corrupt is absurdity. We are in America's second Revolutionary War to save our freedom, which we paid for with blood. We need God's help and I'm not ashamed to ask for it," – Rex Rammel, Idaho gubernatorial candidate.