Here’s Radack’s take on how Lieberman is using the incident to scare the American populace into suspecting more Muslims are home-grown terrorists.

What struck me about the hearing yesterday was how often Lieberman and others kept calling Nidal Hassan a “lone wolf” terrorist, suggesting not so subtly that the controversial “lone wolf” provision of the USA Patriot Act ought to be re-authorized. A recent House markup of the bill removed that provision, which allows the FBI to eavesdrop and otherwise target so-called “lone wolves” who allegedly plan all on their own, without any help from known foreign terrorist organizations, to launch a terrorist attack on the United States. One reason the provision was removed is because it’s never actually been used, and the Justice Department has had a hard time making the case that it’s actually necessary and not prone to abuse.

Judging from the comments at the Lieberman-led hearing yesterday, you would have thought that the Hasan case now offers the perfect argument for why that piece of the law is needed. What none of the senators mentioned, however, was that the “lone wolf” provision of the Patriot Act wouldn’t actually apply to Hasan.

For one thing, the government’s already said that Hasan did have communications with a foreign al-Qaeda operative, and so it could have already been monitoring him under other legal authorities. The second point overlooked at the hearing is that Hasan is a U.S. citizen, and the “lone wolf” provision only applies to a “non-U.S. person.”

It will be interesting to see how the “lone wolf” idea fares at the next Senate markup session of the bill.

The operation was supposed to be part of an ICE program to deport dangerous illegal immigrants who had previously been ordered deported and had prior criminal records, reports The Arizona Republic. But of the 80 people arrested, only six had prior criminal histories, and only two of those were fugitives. According to the ACLU, “at least 23 of the 80 arrests were for people that ICE calls ‘incidentals’ — people who happened to be present at a residence or workplace when authorities showed up looking for someone else.”

This afternoon, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who’s known for encouraging local law enforcement to search out illegal immigrants and is under federal investigation for racial profiling as a result, tweeted that “the ACLU doesn’t want ICE arresting illegals either,” with a link to the Arizona Republic story.

The Graham amendment is expected to come to a vote today during consideration of the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill. The earlier Homeland Security and Defense Department spending bills already include restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

This restriction, which is reportedly backed by 150 family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks, would bar the trials of the alleged 9/11 plotters in civilian federal courts, effectively forcing them to be tried by military commissions.

The Obama administration has suggested that it wants to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court, and so far has fought to retain the power to decide where the terror suspects will be tried. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder warned Senate leaders that Graham’s amendment “would be unwise, and would set a dangerous precedent.”

The administration has said it will begin announcing where it wants to try the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay by November 16.

But on Wednesday, Mudd will speak for the first time since his Homeland Security confirmation debacle, on a subject well within his area of expertise. He’s scheduled to give a lunchtime speech, “Al Qaeda: The Domestic Threat,” at a panel assembled by the New America Foundation. Presumably Mudd will talk about the prospect of domestic infiltration or radicalization of American Muslims like Najibullah Zazi. Almost as if his intelligence experience could have come in handy at the Department of Homeland Security…

After the jump, Slaughter’s full remarks made this morning on the House floor about why FOIA should not be amended and the photos should not be concealed. 

There are few things that say more about our country and our trust in the public’s right to know than the Freedom of Information Act.

It’s one of the most powerful statements of openness and transparency we have. It affords ordinary people the ability to peer behind the curtains of power and see inside the many bureaucracies that define the federal, state and local governments in this country.

It’s a symbol for all that despite anything else that our government does in the name of the people, there should be no secrets.

Over the years, FOIA laws have been used for a wide range of purposes. FOIA helped us discover the ugly truth about the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the 1960’s. And FOIA was also used to uncover data showing that Ford Pintos were built with serious fuel

system defects that made them more prone to fire and explosions.

In some ways, FOIA is simply a reminder to the public that there is an avenue to pursue if they believe the government is keeping secrets. At the heart of FOIA is the concept that the people’s right to know is more important than the government’s desire to keep things secret.

The FOIA laws in this country have enabled reporters and citizens from all spectrums access to information that otherwise might never see the light of day.

Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, FOIA laws allow for the full or partial disclosure of information and documents with only a narrow list of exemptions.

So it was with some dismay when we learned recently that the House and Senate conferees on the Homeland Security appropriations bill had slipped in a provision that gives the government the option of making old photos of detainee abuse exempt from FOIA laws.

This case has already followed a lengthy path, beginning with a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Pentagon. Last spring, when it appeared that the lawsuit might go against the government, this Administration responded by asking some members of the House and Senate to insert language into legislation to make sure the photos stay secret.

Joining the ACLU against the Pentagon was the American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co., Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Military Reporters and Editors, the National Press Club, NBC Universal, Inc., the New York Times Company, the Newspaper Association of America, the Newspaper Guild-CWA, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and The Washington Post.

Never mind that the photos in question likely have very little value, given that a similar set of photos showing abuse were released under the Bush Administration. Despite some complaints that releasing the photos would put servicemen and women in danger, the fact is there was absolutely no increase in violence or attacks after the previous detainee photos were released. My guess is that if we were to release new photos the result would be the same.

And many observers argue that releasing the photos was actually a clear break from the abuses of the past – and a signal to our allies and everyone else that the days of this type of detainee mistreatment were over and that the United States is willing to come to terms with its past practices.

In June, I and other House leaders prevailed and the FOIA exemption was dropped from legislation.

However, the conferees – apparently under direct orders from the Administration – quietly put it back into the bill this month.

It’s hard for me to express how disappointed I am with that decision. I am sorry because I believe that we had turned a page from the cloud of suspicion and secrecy that marked the previous Administration. It runs so counter to our principals and stated desire to reject the abuses of the past. The FOIA laws in this country form a pillar of our First Amendment principals.

It’s unfortunate given that this Administration promised that openness and transparency would be the norm. We should never do anything to circumvent FOIA and I believe that our country would gain more by coming to terms with the past than we would by covering it up. I hope that the President will follow judicial rulings and consider voluntarily releasing these photos so we can put this chapter in history behind us.

Update: C-SPAN has video of Slaughter’s remarks, which begin shortly after the 50-minute mark here.

2nd Update: Here’s the video.

The ACLU has been trying to get its hands on those photos, as well as other records, since 2003 through the Freedom of Information Act, which is supposed to make them public. But the Bush administration objected, and the ACLU’s been litigating the issue ever since. Although President Obama at first promised to turn over the photos, he later changed his mind, and despite two court orders to turn them over, the administration has still so far refused. It’s appealed the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is supposed to decide whether to hear the case on October 9.

Some members of Congress, however, are not prepared to leave it to the courts to decide. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill that would allow the defense department to exempt the photos of abuse from the scope of the Freedom of Information law.

Here’s part of the response from Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, from a statement released on Wednesday:

Congress should not give the government the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct, and if it does grant that authority, the Secretary of Defense should not invoke it. If this shameful provision passes, Secretary Gates should take into account the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners, and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos will ultimately be far more damaging to our national security than their disclosure would be.

Maybe DHS only wanted limited comments, because it originally planned to stop accepting them on Sunday, according to Wendy Sefsaf at Immigration Impact, the blog of the Immigration Policy Center. The agency has extended that deadline to Wednesday.

Sefsaf also reports that the DHS Website’s comments last week were “being filled up by the same template xenophobia that plagues so many of the comments section of online newspapers and blogs all over the web. At best, the comments are tinged with racism and anti-immigrant sentiment. At worst, the comments are totally irrelevant to DHS’s goals for which they are seeking comment.”

Immigration Impact is encouraging people with different perspectives to get involved. You too can participate by clicking here.

It’s part of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s tough-on-illegal immigrants strategy, and it wins President Obama points from conservatives who fear he’ll go soft on “illegals”. But the abuse of immigrants by local sheriffs like Joe Arpaio in Arizona have outraged immigrant advocacy groups, while even major law enforcement organizations oppose saddling local cops with federal law enforcement responsibilities that often undermine police forces’ ability to do their jobs.

Stepping up the pressure, on Tuesday, 521 different civil rights and advocacy organizations sent a letter to President Obama urging him to immediately terminate the program, known as 287(g) after the section of the immigration law that authorizes it.

Capitalizing on the President’s recent remarks acknowledging a history of racial profiling in the United States in connection with the arrest of his friend, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., the letter reads in part:

We applaud your recent remarks acknowledging, that “there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” However, DHS’s continued use of the 287(g) program exacerbates exactly this type of racial profiling. In light of well-documented evidence that local law enforcement agencies are using 287(g) powers to justify and intensify racial profiling, Secretary Napolitano’s July 10, 2009 announcement that DHS has expanded the 287(g) program to include 11 new jurisdictions is deeply alarming.

The letter comes on the heels of a recent admission by President Obama that he’s not likely to get an immigration reform bill passed this year, though he’d promised Latino groups he’d make that a priority when he was running for office.

Immigration experts say the continued crackdown on enforcement without providing an opportunity for legalization of otherwise law-abiding immigrants could dampen Latino voters’ initial enthusiasm for Obama, as well as for other Democrats in the next round of elections.

[He] was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

That’s a charge Ridge avoided every time it came up. On Aug. 3, 2004, he denied any such political pressure or politicization with a quote DHS recycled for every question on this.

We don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security.

If Ridge really quit DHS because it became so politically rotten, good for him; his successor Michael Chertoff, however, somehow managed to hold the job for four years without issuing a conveniently timed alert. And it’s worth remembering that the idea that Ridge might do this was seen, in 2004, as political conspiracy-mongering. In a Sept. 4, 2004 Washington Post piece, Richard Morin cited the “politicized color code” worry to make fun of skeptical Democrats.

Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, it has been an article of faith that the terrorism issue works to the huge political benefit of President Bush and to the disadvantage of the Democrats. As a consequence, some Democratic stalwarts privately wonder whether administration officials might spring a late October surprise in the form of an orange alert in order to help President Bush win reelection.  Such cynicism!

This post has been updated for clarity.