TalkLeft

Monday Night Open Thread

Jeralyn — 2012-02-13T21:48:42-05:00

President Obama is heading west for three days of fundraising. There will be 8 events in all. Musical headliner for the LA fundraiser: The Foo Fighters.

Is the Megaupload extradition on shaky ground? The issue was raised by the Judge at Kim DotCom's bail hearing. The prosecutor acknowledged the extradition treaty doesn't refer to copyright offenses, but said the U.S. could bootstrap through the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and New Zealand's Extradition Act. [More...]

[Under] section 101b of the Extradition Act any offence which was punishable by a prison sentence of more than four years was deemed to be extraditable, and under the New Zealand Copyright Act the distribution of an infringing work could be punished by up to five years in prison.

[Crown Prosecutor] Sinclair cited the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (TOC), which was passed by a UN general assembly resolution in 2000, as the basis of invoking the organised crime provisions of the Extradition Act.

More auditions on The Voice tonight, followed by the second episode of Smash.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

CNN Runs Live Feed of Whitney Houston Funeral Home Stakeout

Jeralyn — 2012-02-13T21:25:13-05:00

Could the media get any more intrusive? CNN is actually running a live feed outside the funeral home where Whitney Houston's body is expected to arrive "later tonight."

CNN Live sent out a tweet saying:

View stake-out camera at funeral home where #WhitneyHouston body is expected to arrive in New Jersey. Watch live: http://on.cnn.com/cnndcl4

#ShameOnCNN (no that's not a real hashtag, I just made it up -- but it should be.)

Monday Morning Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat — 2012-02-13T11:37:55-05:00

I'm out for the rest of the day.

Open Thread.

What "Religious Liberty" Used To Mean

Big Tent Democrat — 2012-02-13T09:24:14-05:00

Via CaseyOR, John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1960:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

[. . .] I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

[. . ..] And in fact,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom[. . . .]

More . . .

[. . .] Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

[. . .] I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against [. . .] unconstitutional aid to parochial schools [. . .] — [consider] the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

Today's Republicans and religious leaders have launched a culture war, and people like E.J. Dionne are applauding that war. Shame on them.

Speaking for me only

Disingenuous Dionne

Big Tent Democrat — 2012-02-13T07:44:54-05:00

E.J. Dionne writes:

Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough. I hope they reconsider, especially since the Catholic service providers most affected by the revised rule welcomed it. What bothers liberal Catholics about the arguments advanced by some of our conservative friends is that the Catholic right seems so eager to focus the church’s witness to the world on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and, now, perhaps, contraception that they would effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, relegate the church’s social justice work and teaching to second-class status.

That may be what bothers liberal Catholics, but what should bother progressives is the idea that religious doctrines are being used to attempt to limit women's rights and good public policy. Since the beginning of this controversy, Dionne has been willing to sacrifice women's rights and the progressive value of a government engaged in good policy in order to placate religious demands on a secular government.

If Dionne could find it in himself to say 'yes, accommodate religious concerns about public policy if you can, but if you can't, religion cannot dictate secular public policy,' then he can articulate a coherent progressive position. But he seems unable to say this. Dionne writes:

[W]e’d ask our non-Catholic liberal friends to think about this, too. Many of us agreed that broad contraception coverage was, as a general matter, a good thing, and we shared their concern for women’s rights. But we were troubled that some with whom we usually agree seemed to relish a fight with the church and defined any effort to accommodate its anxieties as “selling out.”

What a load of nonsense. I can not imagine anyone relishing a fight with anyone over rights for women that many believed settled by Griswold v. Connecticut. It is amazing that Dionne is so willing to sacrifice these principles, fundamental progressive principles, and to chastise those willing to stand up for them.

Dionne is willing to break faith with progressive principles when it comes to women's health issues and berates those unwilling to do the same. He writes:

As a young politician put it in 2006, “There are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.” Barack Obama, who spoke those words, finally figured out that a sensible compromise on contraception was far better than a running cultural and religious war. The administration would do well not to lose track of that guy again.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is amazing that in the face of the escalation of this battle by the Roman Catholic Church and Republicans in their championing of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which would:

Amend[] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan or the purchaser or beneficiary (in the case of individual coverage) without penalty. Declares that such plans are still considered to: (1) be providing the essential health benefits package or preventive health services, (2) be a qualified health plan, and (3) have fulfilled other requirements under PPACA.

Dionne saves his harshest criticism for progressives fighting to maintain progressive values that have been enshrined in our country for 50 years. Yes, the progressives are the bad guys here says Dionne - picking a culture war by insisting that women have rights, and good public policy requires contraceptive care.

Excuse me, but Dionne's words on this matter are truly ridiculous. One hopes Dionne sits out this culture war instigated by religious leaders. He's certainly not helping progressives.

Speaking for me only

Grammy Awards Live Blog

Jeralyn — 2012-02-12T20:42:35-05:00

The Grammys are live on the East Coast but don't begin here until 7:00 pm, 20 minutes to go. The West Coast doesn't air until an hour after that. I'd say no spoilers, except everything is broadcast all over the internet and Twitter, and being watched on live feeds, so spoilers are fine. If you don't want to know, don't read the comments.

Bruce Springsteen opens with "We Take Care of Our Own." Jennifer Hudson will do a tribute to Whitney Houston. Most of the awards were given out before the show, only 10 awards will be live during tonight's show. Here's the list of nominees with live up-dating of winners. Adele and Taylor Swift and the Foo Fighters were winners this afternoon.

As for the red carpet, the fashion is never as good as it is for the movie awards shows, and always a little bizarre. Here's some that stood out to me below (Photo links will come down at the end of the show, so look now): [More...]

Fergie in her Jean Paul Gaultier Couture neon orange dress with black "big girl" underwear showing

Katy Perry wears Elie Saab and has blue hair

Nicki Minaj comes as Little Red Riding Hood wearing Versace Couture

Kelly Osbourne's hair is still gray

Another odd photo: Cyndi Lauper.

Here's Steven Van Zandt and Bob Seger.

Now onto the show.

Update 7:10 pm: LL Cool J is the best host I've seen on one of these shows in ages. He had a tough job and he sailed right through it with just the right combination of respect and "the show must go on." Really good choice.

Springsteen was fun to watch. I missed Clarence, his absence really stood out to me. And by the way, check out Steven Van Zandt's new original series Lillyhammer, available on Netflix streaming. It's about a New York mobster who goes into the witness protection program after testifying against a Mafia bigwig, and chooses Lillyhammer, Norway as the place he wants to live. There are 8 one hour segments, and instead of making you wait a week to see the next one, you can watch them all at one time if you want. I've already seen 5, and it's really good.

Update 7:23pm: Lady Gaga skipped the red carpet but here she is sitting in the audience with a black netted veil covering her face.

Update 8:20 pm: Here's one of the better and faster red carpet photo galleries.

Is there a show Ryan Seacrest doesn't have a part in hosting? Do the Beach Boys look old or what? What a shocker. I didn't find anything happy in that performance. I just felt bad for them.

Interesting contrast with Paul McCartney, who has to be the same age as the Beach Boys, and while he looks his age, seems much younger. His voice was realy good tonight. He seemed filled with life.

Update 8:45 pm: Taylor Swift's face looks prettier than usual tonight. I think it's because it has some color. Great makeup artist. Her hair color looks more natural too. She also has a lot more self- confidence which is good. She used to be so fragile looking. But I wish all her songs didn't sound the same.

Update 9:00pm: Katy Perry mesmerized me. I can see why she earned $44 million last year. The pretend technical glitch was really convincing. But it was the angry lyrics to her new song "Part of Me" and the negative emotion with which she belted them out that had me transfixed. Russell Brand must be cringing. I know nothing about their marriage or split, and I've never seen his appeal, but this was like burning him at the stake without a trial.

The star of the night is definitely Adele. I'm not quite getting all the adulation. It's a good song, she sings it well and she's back after having surgery on her vocal cords which I'm glad for her went well. She just doesn't have personal magnetism or that "star quality" to me.

Update 9:21pm: Glenn Campbell, 75, singing Rhinestone Cowboy, simply amazing considering his Alzheimer's. What a trooper. Check out this Daily Mail article about his farewell tour. And this interview with CNN this week.

I could have done without the pitch for copyright protection from the Recording Academy official. At least there were no cheers. On another business note, the cost of a Grammy ad this year: $800,000.

Here's Jennifer Hudson's great performance of "I Will Always Love You" in her tribute to Whitney Houston:

Sunday Open Thread

Jeralyn — 2012-02-12T16:58:06-05:00

I'm still focused on the Grammy Awards show and Whitney Houston. The latest: Her daughter, 19 year old Bobbi Kristina, has been taken by ambulance from the Beverly Hilton to the hospital, for issues reportedly related to her emotional distraught over her mother's death.

Check out Big Tent Democrat's post at Daily Kos, E.J. Dionne Breaks Faith With Progressive Values.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Hutaree Militia Trial Opens Monday

Jeralyn — 2012-02-12T16:54:53-05:00

The Hutaree Militia members trial begins Monday. They've been picking the jury for weeks. 48 have been approved and Monday morning both sides will exercise their challenges to end up with a jury of 12 and 4 alternates. The defense says their clients were all talk and their speech is protected under the First Amendment. Most of the evidence comes from two informants who infiltrated the group and made secret recordings. The defense says:

"The recordings tendered thus far make it eminently clear that the group's objectives, even in their darkest light, included (1) exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech ... and (2) training to survive and defend themselves and their families in the event of chaos or an invasion by anti-American forces."

[More...]

One former terrorism prosecutor says:

“How often do American citizens get charged with sedition or inciting discontent and resistance against big government? Heck, most citizens are discontented with the government,” said Lloyd Meyer, a Chicago lawyer and former terrorism prosecutor. “In this case, no one pulled a trigger and no one got hurt. ... A jury could believe that the feds went after this group with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel.”

Among the prospective jurors who so far have made it through: A man who thinks undercover work is an invasion of privacy and unfair;

[A] former assistant manager for a logistics company who lost his job two years ago and now spends most of his time caring for a school-aged daughter recovering from a kidney transplant. He said he believes spying on people is an invasion of privacy.

“You’re basically paying someone to lie and deceive people. I don’t think that’s right,” said the potential juror.

He was allowed to stay over a prosecution challenge because he said he could be fair when viewing the evidence. For sure, the prosecutors will use a challenge on him.

Also making the cut: A woman who burned down her ex-husband's house after he allegedly tried to sell their daughter for $60,000. She told the court:

"I'm not a bad person. I was beaten all the time. I just overreacted," she said of the arson.

Also making the cut: two women who suffer from attention deficit disorder.

Among those dismissed: A former bedbug exterminator who uses medical marijuana. I wonder what the reason was for his cut.

Tony Bennett Urges Drug Legalization After Whitney Houston's Death

Jeralyn — 2012-02-12T14:09:39-05:00

In the wake of Whitney Houston's death, at Clive Davis'pre-grammy party last night, singer Tony Bennett urged the U.S. to legalize drugs.

"First it was Michael Jackson, then Amy Winehouse, now, the magnificent Whitney Houston," he began. "I'd like every person in this room to campaign to legalize drugs."

"Let's legalize drugs like they did in Amsterdam," he continued. "No one's hiding or sneaking around corners to get it. They go to a doctor to get it."

There's still no indication of cause of death. TMZ has reported she drowned in the bathtub. [More...]

From the position in which TMZ reports her security guard found her, it sounds like she fell asleep and slid under water. Two security guards, her stylist and her hairdresser were with Whitney to get her ready for Clive Davis' party. She went to take a bath, and when she hadn't come out almost an hour later, concerned that it was getting late, one of the security guards went to the bathroom, knocked on the door, and receiving no answer, entered and found her under water.

TMZ reports it was customary for Whitney to take Xanax before going to big public events to calm her nerves. The police say while prescription drugs were found in the room, they have no evidence drugs played a role in her death.

Whitney had recently finished filming the movie Sparkle with American Idol winner Jordin Sparks and Sony says the film will still be released in August.

Howard Rosenman... an executive producer on the new film....[said] "This would have been a big, big comeback, she is so brilliant in it." [He] had seen a rough cut of the film Friday night....

....Houston's final recordings will be heard in the film. She sings the gospel classic "Eyes on the Sparrow" and duets with Sparks on a new R. Kelly song, "Celebrate"....

Simon Cowell confirmed yesterday that Whitney was under consideration for an invitation to be a judge on the next season of X-Factor.

Here are some pictures of her as she sang ""Yes, Jesus Loves Me" with R&B singer Kelly Price at Price's pre-Grammy at at Tru, Thursday night. The video is here.

So far, it doesn't sound like Whitney Houston died from a drug overdose. While no alcohol was found in her room, she reportedly had a lot to drink the night before. Xanax, like alcohol, is a central nervous system depressant which can slow brain activity, the heart rate and breathing. It is often prescribed for panic and anxiety disorder.

Drinking alcohol while taking Xanax may increase your risk of certain Xanax side effects, such as: Drowsiness, Dizziness, Problems with coordination.... It may also slow both the heart rate and breathing, which can cause you to pass out or have difficulty breathing -- and may even lead to death.

Drugs were not involved in Amy Winehouse' death. She died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

Tony Bennett may be right about legalizing drugs, but I don't think Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse are the best examples. Unless his point is that had they been allowed to freely use drugs, they wouldn't have turned to alcohol. Even then, I think better arguments are the number of people who safely use recreational drugs without becoming addicts or alcoholics and that it should be the right of every adult to make their own choices as to what they put in their bodies, free from Government interference.

Whitney Houston Has Died

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T21:45:55-05:00

Whitney Houston has died at age 48. She was in Los Angeles for the Grammys, preparing a tribute to Clive Davis. Cause of death is not yet known. Medics tried CPR for 20 minutes this afternoon at the Beverly Hilton Hotel where she was staying, to no avail. The New York Times has more on her life and career.

The Beverly Hills Police gave this interview, saying she was a guest at the hotel, her friends and co-workers were also there and identified her, and there were no obvious signs of criminal intent or drugs but the death is being investigated.

R.I.P. Whitney.

Springsteen to Open Grammys: Bleak or Promising New Song?

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T20:49:23-05:00

Bruce Springsteen will open the Grammys tomorrow night with "We Take Care Of Our Own", a single from his new album "Wrecking Ball." People are wondering whether it is a patriotic sequel to Born in the USA or a critique of America for failing to live up to its ideals? The song's hook (catchy, repetitive refrain) is:

Wherever this flag's flown
We take care of our own

But the somber visages of the everyday working people in the video and the remainder of the lyrics give the opposite message:

There ain't no help, the Cavalry stayed home
There ain't no one hearing the bugle blowin'
...Where's the work that will set my hands, my soul free
Where's the promise from sea to shining sea
Where's the promise from sea to shining sea

So what gives? Is he being ironic or sarcastic? [More...]

Notwithstanding the shift from black and white to color towards the end of the video, I don't see any hope and change in people's faces in the video. And we all know things aren't getting any better, so I think Bruce is just contrasting the promise of America with the unfortunate reality. This also fits with his statement a few months ago that Wrecking Ball was the angriest album he'd ever done.

As for the lyrics printed in big type over the images in the video -- maybe he just wants to make sure no one mistakes it for a rah-rah song based on the refrain. Which, of course is what happened with Born in the USA.

When this song first came out in January, a writer at the LA Times called it "an affirmation of national glory" that was "about the country and hardship, but also about community and pride." Another writer somewhere calls it an "Obama campaign video." I don't see either, even though Obama put it on his latest Spotify list of 2012 campaign songs at Facebook. It's hardly an uplifting song.

Maybe it's also a contrast between what is versus what we were led to expect would be. The images feature a lot of people in groups, but they are all isolated and lost in their own thoughts. Whether crossing the street or leaving the factory, they don't connect with those around them. There's no community here, no joy. Even the pictures of parents with children are sad. The parents look worried, but the children too young to notice anything wrong.

Perhaps the change from black and white to color isn't meant to signify things are getting better, but to bring the magnitude of despair into clearer focus. It may be bright and sunny but people are still worried and alone. Because America is not taking care of its own. No matter how bright the sun shines.

Whether I'm right or wrong, who knows? Either way, it's a clever song and video, that seems simplistic at first listen, but then gets you wondering.

What do you think his message is?

Guatamala's President to Propose Legalizing Drugs

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T17:10:49-05:00

Guatemala's new President, Otto Perez Molina, said today he will propose that Central America legalize drugs at an upcoming meeting of leaders in the region.

"I want to bring this discussion to the table," he said. "It wouldn't be a crime to transport, to move drugs. It would all have to be regulated."

Does he mean it? Or is he only attempting to start a dialogue? A former military general who ran on a law and order platform promising an "iron fist" policy against organized crime, he authorized the army to join the fight against the drug cartels just one day after his inauguration..

NZ Police Address MegaUpload Raid

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T16:48:08-05:00

In its February newsletter, the New Zealand Police again attempt to justify the raid on the Kim DotCom mansion and takedown of MegaUpload for the FBI. They say the raid was the culmination of several months of planning.

An OFCANZ (Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand)team of five picked up the case last September and worked intently to meet their goal of a mid-January termination... Termination phases were simultaneously carried out in nine countries: New Zealand, Australia, Philippines, Hong Kong, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States.

...Detective Superintendent Mike Pannett, New Zealand Police Liaison Officer in Washington, monitored termination activities around the world from the FBI’s Multi Agency Command Centre.

[More...]

In related news, everyone's out at the mansion except the fish and their caretaker. But what will happen to the fish when the lease on the mansion ends Wednesday? The fish tank came with the rented house, says the fish caretaker, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars of fish which Kim DotCom bought and are considered pets. When the electricity is turned off, they will die.

Saturday Open Thread

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T16:07:49-05:00

Not much news today so far.

The southern border fence in Arizona doesn't seem to be working too well. Borderland Beat has a video of some guys using a lift jack to raise the fence off the ground and walk right under it with their duffle bags of (presumably) drugs. How much did we pay for that fence? $3 million per mile.

Federal estimates put the cost of building a mile of solid border fence at $3 million – meaning a border fence running the length of Arizona would cost about $1 billion. But Smith says the state will use inmate labor and donated supplies to cut expenses and meet his initial $50 million budget, though fundraising is expected to continue even after that point if it is reached.

President Obama is ready to send his 2013 budget plan to Congress. It proposes higher taxes on the wealthy, but what will be cut?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Prosecutors Seek Life for Underwear Bomber

Jeralyn — 2012-02-11T10:16:00-05:00

The Government filed its sentencing statement today in the case of Detroit Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Abudulmutallab is set for sentencing Feb. 16. Some of the counts he pleaded guilty to carry a mandatory life sentence. The Government says a life sentence is also warranted because he remains committed to martyrdom. It attached the report of Dr. Simon Perry, a criminologist and professor from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and former Israeli police officer/official (for 30 years) to support its position. Interestingly, Perry never interviewed Abdulmutallab. He's based his opinion on FBI debriefings he was not present at, Umar's statements to the court at sentencing, interviews with various people and his knowledge of terrorism and martyrs. [More...]

The pleading explains how Abdulmutallab got involved in the failed bomb attempt. He went to Yemen in hopes of meeting Anwar al-Awlaki. It took a while, but according to what he told agents during a debriefing, ultimately he was successful. He spent a few days with al-Awlaki and was then sent to a training camp and then hooked up with bomb maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri.UFA told them al-Awlaki told him the attack had to be on an airplane once it reached the U.S., but did not tell him which flight or when to do it.

Contrary to this AP report, Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri was not killed with al-Awlaki in the drone attack in September, 2011. American-born Samir Kahn, who was the editor of Inspire, al-Qaida's English magazine, was killed with him. Early reports that al-Asiri was killed were later disputed. Al-Asiri is believed to be very much alive in Yemen, with AQAP. Hopefully, the AP will fix that soon. [More...]

From the Government's pleading, available on PACER:

Defendant and Al Asiri discussed defendant’s desire to commit an act of jihad. Thereafter, Al Asiri discussed a plan for a martyrdom mission with Awlaki, who gave it final approval, and instructed Defendant Abdulmutallab on it. For the following two weeks, defendant trained in an AQAP camp, and received instruction in weapons and indoctrination in jihad. During his time in the training camp, defendant met many individuals, including Samir Khan.

...Awlaki told defendant that he would create a martyrdom video that would be used after the defendant’s attack. Awlaki arranged for a professional film crew to film the video. Awlaki assisted defendant in writing his martyrdom statement, and it was filmed over a period of two to three days. The full video was approximately five minutes in length.

Although Awlaki gave defendant operational flexibility, Awlaki instructed defendant that the only requirements were that the attack be on a U.S. airliner, and that the attack take place over U.S. soil. Beyond that, Awlaki gave defendant discretion to choose the flight and date. Awlaki instructed defendant not to fly directly from Yemen to Europe, as that could attract suspicion. As a result, defendant took a circuitous route, traveling from Yemen to Ethiopia to Ghana to Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detroit. Prior to defendant’s departure from Yemen, Awlaki’s last instructions to him were to wait until the airplane was over the United States and then to take the plane down.

The criminologist's report (Doc. No. 130 on PACER)is interesting, but I'm not sure I buy it. He says suicide bombers/martyrs are not driven by hate, a desire for revenge or any altruistic purpose. He says they do it for the reward, which comes in three forms: religious rewards, personality rewards, and social rewards. He says this is the conclusion of a study the Israelis did of 40 would be suicide bombers who were apprehended after a failed attack.

Perry lists the characteristics of those most likely to want the rewards:

Individuals who: do not stand out; exhibit submissive and dependent personalities; have childish behavior; suffer from low self-esteem and are socially isolated; exhibit external locus of control whereby they do not accept any responsibility for failures by placing responsibility on others or circumstances; are characterized by a gap between the need “to be someone” and the ability to achieve it.

He says contrary to what one might expect, the would-be bombers have low levels of aggression. He asserts:

In summary, analyzing the study interviews as well as the literature and documentation about the phenomenon, I conclude that - counter to preconceptions - the act that we call “suicide bombing” is in fact a result of rational situational choice, based on an evaluation of the cost and the anticipated benefits.

Perry then says Abdulmutallab had a primary motivations besides a devotion to Jihadism. He points to Umar's contradictory statements to the FBI and the Court at his guilty plea hearing. I'm not sure why he credits either, or one over the other.

UFAM might believe at least some of the Jihadist propaganda, yet it is clear that it is not his main motivation for martyrdom. For example, in his statement to the court he claims that his attack was an outcome of the fact that the "American people are guilty of the sin, and Obama should pay for the crime". In contradiction to this statement made in court, UFAM previously, in his FBI debriefing, claims that he did not specifically target the U.S. for his mission. He said that he was prepared to pursue whatever Jihad path he was directed (by others) to pursue, regardless of the country or the target.

UFAM was entirely motivated by his realization of his religious obligation to conduct Jihad. In fact, UFAM believes it would be acceptable to conduct attacks against a Muslim country that did not practice and support the fundamentalist beliefs about Islam.

I think Dr. Perry contradicts himself as much as Abdulmutallab. This report makes no sense. He even says:

Interestingly, UFAM never mentions these rewards and does not raise these reinforcements as reasons for his decision to become a martyr. This phenomenon is characteristic also with other martyrs who believe that revealing the expected rewards lessens the importance of their act.

The Muslim Affairs Council says suicide bombers have varied motives, including "religious beliefs, nationalistic ideologies, obedience to charismatic and authoritarian leaders, or desire for political change." The Council makes no reference to personal rewards.

Dr. Perry discusses repeatedly in his report that Abdulmutallab's decision to engage in martyrdom was the result of his rational choice. He points to his education (as does the Government in its statement.) But, how is this rational thought?

UFAM focuses on and gave lectures about black magic - its origins, preventions and cures. From this one can deduce that he is preoccupied (to say the least) with the unknown and the mystical.

He speaks about "jinns" (which are frequently mentioned in the Koran and the Haddith). "Jinns" are creatures made from fire which have the properties of light. UFAM believes that Jinns frequently possess people and that they use their possessed to do their work by proxy.

Nonetheless, without having met Abdulmutallab, and based only on reports of his debriefings at which he wasn't present and statements in court, and a study in Israel of 40 terrorists involved in a single plot, he concludes Abdulmutallab's actions were motivated by a desire to advance his own personal interests rather than by a sincere, if misguided belief that he was sacrificing himself for his cause.

He doesn't address the contention in the Government's sentencing statement that:

The record is replete with defendant’s statements that he acted “to retaliate against government conduct.” See October 12, 2011, Tr. Vol. 5, page 26 (defendant stating he acted “in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond ”); id. (defendant committed an “act of jihad against the United States for the U.S. killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters around the world”); id. at 27 (defendant acted “to avenge”);id. (defendant acted “in retaliation”); id. at 28-29 (defendant acted “for the U.S. oppression of Muslims,” “for U.S. interference in Muslim countries,” “for U.S. use of weapons of mass destruction on Muslim populations” in various countries, and “for the U.S. wreckage of Muslim lands and property”.)

If the Government wanted to know about what motivates suicide bombers, why didn't it ask some of the terrorist defendants in other cases who pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate for a reduced sentence? The Government is always ready to vouch for the truth its cooperators when they are testifying against someone else the Government wants to put away. I wonder if Najibullah Zazi might not provide more insight than Dr. Perry.

Dr. Perry lists his sources for the report as the documents he consulted (debriefings of Abdulmutallab, his statements in court and a text message he sent his mother three months before the flight to Detroit), witness interviews, photographs in his possession when arrested and of his injuries and the 34 second excerpt of his 5 minute martyrdom video released by al- Qaida after his capture. Could he not even be bothered to read the defense pleadings in the case, such as the Motion to Suppress Statements, which contain his version of his mental state when making some of his statements?

Of course, with a mandatory life sentence, it hardly matters in the end. Which makes one wonder, why does the Government feel its necessary to play a simulation of the potential effect of Abdulmutallab's explosive device at sentencing? It filed a motion seeking permission to do so today.