Update: The Yemen Observer retracts: it confused Saeed with his brother Yousef, who was captured. But Yousef was killed in October, this makes no sense. Another version of Yousef's death here.

The Yemen Observer reports AQAP deputy leader al Shehri has been captured:

A car carrying members of al-Qaeda was turned over when attempted to bypass a newly established sudden checkpoint by the Yemeni security units today and resulted in the capture of Saeed al-Shehri, the second person in command of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, security source told the Yemen Observer. The car was going in a high speed and was carrying al-Shehri and other al-Qaeda militants and flipped over in the district of Sylan in Shabwah near the borders of Marib province. All the militants were captured.

Saeed al Shehri is the former Guantanamo detainee who went through the Saudi rehabilitation program and emerged as the group's Deputy Leader in the video announcement of AQAP. (Leader #1 is Nasir al-Wuhayshi. More on the top leaders here.))

Is the news report valid? AQAP is now saying Yemen did not kill Qassim al Raymi this week as previously claimed: [More...]

Say hello to the new incancation of the narco-terror war, which I've been predicting for many years, ever since the aborted attempt to introduce the Victory Act.

The United States attorney in Manhattan is merging the two units in his office that prosecute terrorism and international narcotics cases, saying that he wants to focus more on extremist Islamic groups whose members he believes are increasingly turning to the drug trade to finance their activities.

The new unit, he said, would be better able to bring drug charges to bear against some terrorists, as well as use a new law that gives federal drug agents the authority to pursue narcotics and terrorism crimes committed anywhere in the world if they can establish a link between a drug offense and a terrorist act or group.

This seems like a step down the slippery slope. [More...]

There's so much TV to watch tonight. Continued news coverage of Haiti, the Golden Globes, the premiere of "24 Season 8," a new Next Iron Chef, Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters.

Whether you are watching or just online, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: Looks like the House is gearing up to accept the Senate bill if they lose in MA Tuesday. [More...]

Update: Golden Globe show thoughts:

9:01 pm: The full winners list is here. (I switched to "24" at 8, so didn't catch the past hour.

7:55 pm: So glad Christopher Walz won best actor in Inglourious Basterds. He was great as the SS officer -- there were so many facets to the character's personality, it was like five characters in one.

7:05 pm: I always love when Merly Streep wins and she deserves it for Julia and Julia. Really emotional and moving acceptance speech, you could hear a pin drop.

6:45 pm; Julia Roberts sitting next to Paul McCartney. Cher looks great. This is such a much better show than the Oscars. Avatar first nomination: Best original score. Will it win? No, "Up" wins this one.

6:35 pm: Glenn Close looks very pretty. Juliana Margolies wins for The Good Wife. I didn't like the show the first few episodes, but it grew on me, as did her acting. I'm glad she won. Damages wasn't that good this season. Great slam at NBC, she thanks her network "for believing in the 10:00 drama." [More...]

If Martha Coakley loses the U.S. Senate race in Massacussetts, can she delay the certification of the results and Scott Brown's taking office by asking for a recount? If Scott Brown loses, can he do the same to her?

If that happens, wouldn't the election's result on the health care vote be nil? As far as I can tell (and I am not an elections attorney) the Massachussetts statute provides (ALM GL ch. 54, § 116):[More...]

New York Magazine reports that within days a decision will be made by the New York Times whether to charge for online access to its articles.

After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.

...The appeal of the metered model is that it charges high-volume readers while allowing casual browsers to sample articles for free, thus preserving some of the Times' online reach.

Their attempt at paid access to opinion columns was a disaster. Why repeat it? Will you pay for NY Times access? And if the Times goes this way, are other papers likely to follow? I think the paid bloggers at the Times and other MSM publications will see a huge decline in readership numbers if readers have to pay to access them. Who is going to pay for access when they can read non-MSM bloggers for free? Not a smart move by the Times.

Despite the world-wide effort to get supplies, food, medical care and security forces to the people of Haiti, it's not happening fast enough. Violence is growing and spreading.

Apparently, the Haitian police are on the scene and they are shooting and killing looters, or leaving them to vigilante justice. Here's a dismal report from The Telegraph:

Police opened fire on a group of looters, killing at least one of them, as hundreds of rioters ransacked a supermarket. One, a man in his 30s, was killed outright by bullets to the head as the crowd grabbed produce in the Marche Hyppolite.

Another quickly snatched the rucksack off the dead man's back as clashes continued and police reinforcements descended on the area armed with pump-action shotguns and assault rifles.

[More..]

I went 3-0 (Saints (-7), Over (57) in the Saints game, Colts (-6.5)) yesterday and am now 6-1 in the NFL playoffs. In less than an hour, the Cowboys and Vikings kick off in the Metrodome. I like the Vikes (-3) and the Over (44.5). In the late game, I like the Jets (+7) and the Under (42.5).

At SportsLeft, Tim Tebow, Anti-Choice Republican, is the new topic of discussion.

This is an Open Thread.

Personally, I do not see Massachusetts delaying the seating of its new Senator if Tuesday night's result is not disputed, but this GOP argument is ridiculous:

Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys. [. . .] {I]n the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s. Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” [. . .] [B]ased on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. [. . .] “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

Of course qualification depends on certification of being the winner of the election. Brown would not be the winner of the election until he is certified as the winner of the election. As I said, I do not expect that there will be a delay in certifying and seating Brown if he is a clear winner Tuesday night, but he does not officially win until the election is certified.

Speaking for me only

Via Greenwald, the NYTimes Ombudsman:

Jonathan Gruber, a prominent M.I.T. health economist, wrote an Op-Ed column in July supporting an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. Not long before, he had signed a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to analyze the economic impact of various health care proposals in Congress. He did not tell Op-Ed editors, nor was the contract mentioned on at least 12 other occasions when he was quoted in The Times after he was consulting for the administration. [. . .] He said he has long supported the tax and that the administration opposed it when he wrote his column, so he was hardly bending his views to a government paymaster.

(Emphasis supplied.) Did the Obama Administration oppose an excise tax in July 2009? This is news to me. My recollection is that Peter Orzag, Obama's head of OMB, has always been a proponent of the excise tax. I know of no statements by the Obama Administration opposing the excise tax. If Gruber is right, who opposed the excise tax and what changed their minds?

Speaking for me only

This just seemed appropriate tonight as the reports from Haiti get worse and worse. (I'm not crazy about the photo montage, but the audio is terrific and you can hear the lyrics clearly.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome, see you all tomorrow.

Ezra Klein:

I'm fairly optimistic that health-care reform will pass, even if Martha Coakley loses to Scott Brown in Massachusetts. It certainly can pass, as the House could simply approve the Senate bill unchanged and then make modifications through the reconciliation process.

This news article in the Wall St. Journal makes the same points. Jonathan Chait at TNR has three options for the health care bill if Coakley loses.

Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl at ABC agree. Either the House passes the Senate version so this election won't matter, or they use reconciliation.

The sky is not falling, despite the suggestion to the contrary by the influential Dems runnng to MA this weekend to stump for Coakely. [More...]