Mukasey’s Hunting for a “Lone Wolf,” Too

Earlier, I suggested that one reason Joe Lieberman may be anxious to have a hearing on the Fort Hood attack is to serve up Nidal Hasan as a “Lone Wolf” that would require further erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

Well, Lieberman’s not the only one rushing to label Hasan as a “Lone Wolf.” So is Michael Mukasey–at least, he’s describing Hasan as a member of a “leaderless jihad.” (h/t Main Justice)

Michael Mukasey, the U.S. attorney general from 2007 to 2009, criticized an FBI spokesman and a New York Times article that said the gunman, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is not connected to terrorist groups, saying that Osama Bin Laden has sought to create a “leaderless jihad” that promotes solo attacks.

“In that respect, there certainly are very close links to terrorism,” he said during the event’s main address.

“In that respect, this is, in fact, the worst terrorist act carried out on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001.

“And to tell us to believe that someone has to have a membership card in al-Qaida or any other organization in order for them to act as a terrorist, and in order for us to call what he does an act of terrorism, is to tell us to refuse to look facts in the face, and to refuse to believe what we see and hear with our own eyes and ears.”

And, as a side note, can I just say what a tribute it is to our criminal justice system that the former Attorney General is willing to get up and make these broad declarations without, presumably, any first hand evidence himself?

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

15 Responses to Mukasey’s Hunting for a “Lone Wolf,” Too

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola Even McCulloch would be better served if he was replaced, but understand why he doesn't voluntarily recuse
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola ie I'd at least think about letting him testify to GJ. But wouldn't let him chat w/prosecutor at this point
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola Not nearly enough info to have opinion on that. If he struck me as a really good witness, Id think about it
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola I have real issue wi appearance of bias/distrust of McCulloch, think he should be bounced but timing fine.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola Yep, pretty familiar w/Garrity statements; but that is one thing, forced chatting w/prosecutor quite anothr
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MasaccioFDL No, he made a full statement to investigators; cooperating w/prosecutor is not only not grounds for firing, it is fairly normal
22mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola Anybody but a cop, and defendant is indicted already; but given it is a cop, the time frame is not that off
33mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @mtracey @kgosztola Right. Wilson has a police union/PBA lawyer, there is a protocol for this. Even in Ferguson.
37mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @walterwkatz: @bmaz @mtracey @kgosztola they could have obtained med records with a search warrant but subpoena now is more likely. No i…
39mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MasaccioFDL Would depend on a lot of factors, but my inclination is I would not let him be chatted up by prosecutor.
42mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MasaccioFDL Wilson was interviewed for and participated in the departmental report; his job doesn't hinge on talking to prosecutor.
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carwinb And I was sure the Vulcan response was a winner....
1hreplyretweetfavorite
November 2009
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930