Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler today said the Justice Department has not made a decision about holding the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 co-conspirators in New York. He denied New York is out of consideration. He said DOJ remains committed to a trial in a federal criminal court.

"We haven't made a final decision and it's not off the table," Grindler said during a briefing Monday. Grindler said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was committed to the trial being conducted in federal court rather than before a military commission, as several lawmakers have argued.

"Our federal courts have a long history of safely and securely handling international terrorism cases and we are committed to bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged Sept. 11 conspirators to justice," Grindler said.

That's good news. Obama and Holder need to stick to their promises on this one and bring these cases in federal criminal courts, which are more than capable of safely conducting them.

Digby descibes Joe Biden answering Andrea Mitchell (a/k/a known as Mrs. Alan Greenspan - I think she should have to disclose this whenever she "reports" on economic and financial matters):

The Vice President actually came to the set to be grilled by Mrs Alan Greenspan. Here's her first question: ["]First of all the budget ... and these deficits.. Deficits, red ink as far as the eye can see! [. . .] Have we reached a point where our deficits have become a national security issue?" Joe Biden said no, but it could happen if we don't bring down spending.

(Emphasis supplied.) Here's a thought - Mr. Vice President - why not address the deficit by raising taxes on the rich and on corporations? As it is, if you are going to exempt 80% of the federal budget from cuts or freezes, then "cutting spending" as a way to reduce the deficit is all just empty rhetoric.

Speaking for me only

Via Glenn Greenwald, Joe Klein laments the Mirandizing of alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Klein writes:

[T]he bomber is an enemy combatant. He doesn't have Miranda rights. It is entirely possible that we lost valuable intelligence as a result of this stupidity. We don't torture anymore and that is good. The notion that we don't even properly interrogate those who attack us seems unbelievable.

I do not understand Klein's argument. Mirandizing Abdulmutallab did not mean that interrogation has to stop. It merely advises him of his rights with regard to criminal proceedings. Interrogation could have continued even if Abdulmutallab invoked his right to an attorney (remaining silent was always an option for him, Mirandized or not.) Moreover, I am not sure what Klein imagines can be done to an "enemy combatant." Of course Klein says, no torture, so then what? The Geneva Conventions speaks to this issue:

This Jason Linkins' post describes Evan Bayh's preposterous posing as a deficit hawk. But it leaves out the most important part of the story - Evan Bayh is a profoligate budget buster through other means - namely his obsession with cutting taxes for the wealthy. Ezra Klein described it back in April 2009:

What politicians say or think they want is less important than how they actually vote. [. . .] Sen. Evan Bayh cast a difficult vote against Obama's first budget, [saying] "Under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014."

[. . .] Sens. Jon Kyl and Blanche Lincoln [. . .] sought to reform the tax to exempt estates valued below $10 million and lower the rate on holdings above $10 million from 45 percent to 35 percent. This change would cost $440 billion over 10 years and accrue entirely to the wealthiest 0.28 percent. [. . .] The Kyl-Lincoln amendment, however, was quickly passed. Ten Democrats crossed the aisle to vote in its favor. Among them was Bayh. [. . .] Bayh [voted to] cut $300 billion of revenue-neutral money for health reform from the budget. He then promised to find $440 billion in the budget and, rather than directing it toward debt repayment, cut taxes on the top two-hundredths of the income distribution.

(Emphasis supplied.) Evan Bayh is no deficit hawk. He is first and foremost, the wealthy's best friend.

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn noted this morning that President Obama submits a proposed budget to the Congress tomorrow.

Here's my question - who the hell does Obama think he is submitting proposals to the Congress? Doesn't he know he is infringing the separation of powers? Everyone knows a President has no power over the Congress. Right?

This is an Open Thread.

Greg Sargent swallows some utter BS from Senate aides:

Senate leadership aides have identified what they see as a key roadblock to passing a fix to their bill via reconciliation — and parliamentarians in the Senate and House are hard at work trying to identify a solution, aides say. [. . .] “How do you fix a bill that hasn’t been passed yet?” one senior Senate aide asks me, stressing that reconciliation is different than the amendment process, which obviously does allow for bills to be fixed before passage. “That’s the fundamental problem.” “This is a whole bill that would amend another bill that hasn’t become law,” the aide adds. “How do we do reconciliation before the House passes the Senate bill?”

This is dishonest BS. How do you do it? Ask yourself how you would do it if the House passed the bill. That's how you do it. You pass a bill that amends the Stand Alone Senate bill, present it to the House, which then passes both bills. Then the President signs the original bill and immediately after signs the reconciliation fix. This is not rocket science. None of the bills are law UNTIL the President signs them. Hard to understand why Sargent is swallowing this nonsense. Kagro, more nicely than me, has a similar reaction. In other words, maybe there is something in the reconciliation rules that are troubling, but the nonsense Sargent is allowing the Senate to sell ain't it.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein writes:

Candidate Obama’s pledge to change Washington, echoing reform-minded predecessors like Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, won applause from affluent Democrats and independents in the primaries," writes John Harwood in today's New York Times. But, uh, huh? I know the initial line on Obama's candidacy was that he appealed to "wine-track" voters rather than "beer-track" voters, but that didn't show up in his results. Look at Iowa or Indiana or South Carolina or Arkansas.

Um, Ezra, you gotta be kidding me. Take Arkansas for instance:

Mohammed Wali Zazi, father of Najibullah Zazi, has been charged in an Indictment in the Eastern District of New York with conspiracy to obstruct justice. The basis of the charge is an alleged conspiracy in September, 2009 to hide or destroy objects such as liquid chemicals and containers to prevent them from being available to the grand jury or other official proceeding.

Here's the Indictment. The elder Zazi, who has been on bond in Denver while awaiting trial on charges he made false statements to federal agents investigating his son last summer, was expected to appear in federal court in Denver today. The Denver Post reports prosecutors moved to dismiss the Denver case against him today. According to the court docket, the judge has granted the Government's motion. So no more Denver case, and he's no longer on bond. The New York Times says Zazi has been taken into custody and will have a removal hearing in Denver later today.

It's also being reported that Zazi's uncle, Naqib Jaji, was recently charged in the case. [More...]

Discussing Mitch McConnell's hypocritical (he was a strong advocate for it not long ago) vote against the Conrad-Gregg deficit commission (a terrible idea BTW), Ezra Klein writes:

McConnell's actions cannot be explained by beliefs, which is something that makes people very uncomfortable. But they can be explained by party incentives, which is something that makes people even more uncomfortable. We're very familiar with a model of Congress in which legislators disagree over policy and that causes them to vote against one another. We're much more concerned by the idea that they don't disagree at all, but are simply trying to win the next election. But the latter does a much better job explaining how congresspeople actually vote.

No kidding? Who'da thunk it? At some point these sob stories have to stop. McConnell, like all of them, is a pol. They do what they do. The most important thing in their lives ALWAYS is the next election. The key for citizens and activists is to pressure them to pander towards you. Enough with the Pollyanna acts. Ezra's post is a good one, but my gawd, where was he for the past year? Sobbing about pols being pols.

Speaking for me only

Many months ago, I was discussing the Florida Republican Senate primary with Markos and I told him I thought there was no way Florida governor Charlie Crist would lose that race. According to Ras, I could not have been more wrong:

Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio has now jumped to a 12-point lead over Governor Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided.

Incredible. The bad thing for Dems is I do not think Kendall Meek can take advantage of this (RCP says Ras' GE polling has Meek down 17 to Rubio.) An interesting question is if Crist wanted to switch parties, would that even work for him and would Dems clear the field for him?

[T]he Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. - President Obama on the Citizens United decision.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

[I]t has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse: namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. [. . .] That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim -- as Susan Collins and so many others have -- is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest

Justice Alito and many conservatives have taken issue with President Obama's statement about Citizens United. Perhaps their views are rooted in the false myth Greenwald alludes to. In his dissent in Citizens United, Justice Stevens wrote:

The results of the ABA 2009 top 100 legal blog awards are in. Thanks to everyone who voted for us, we are the winner in the criminal justice category.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.