Legal Commentary

Rationalizing Incompetence

By Big Tent Democrat

TPM touts (as does Kevin Drum, more to follow I am sure) this Spencer Ackerman piece as explaining "the potential trade-offs involved if you want the government to (over)react to every potential threat." I am loathe to draw conclusions without really knowing the facts, but even accepting the facts Ackerman assumes as true, his post reads like rather lame excuse making to me. Ackerman writes:

[I]s it really fair to point the finger at the intelligence community here? Abdulmutallab’s father told embassy officials in Abuja that he didn’t know where his son was, but might be in Yemen.

Um, yes it seems fair to me. Is it a usual occurrence that a father comes to the U.S. government reporting that his son has been radicalized and he suspects that his son is now with Al Qaida elements in Yemen? This seems highly UNUSUAL to me and should have raised a red flag regarding Abdulmutallab. More . . .

This is a specific and to me, very credible warning of a danger that could have been met. I'm not talking about putting Abdulmutallab in jail or targetting him for military action. Simply taking some precaution regarding him and his contacts with the United States and Americans. Is Ackerman arguing that this type of warning did not merit action? If he is, then he is absolutely wrong. Something went wrong. It is silly for anyone to argue otherwise.

Do you think if Richard Reid's father had made a similar warning, TPM and Ackerman would be looking to rationalize the failure to take action against him? Me neither.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on December 31, 2009 (boomark / email).