The FBI interviews underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the same way as just about every other terrorism suspect in its custody, in line with its constitutional obligations, and what do the geniuses on Hardball have to say about it? “Both sides” of the manufactured partisan squabble over this issue “may have an argument” over whether the Obama administration is intolerably soft on terror. Well knock me over with a feather.

Witness the below exchange, coming after the most offhanded observation that Abdulmutallab was given Miranda warnings just like nearly every other terrorism suspect captured within the United States (and even later in the interrogation than shoe bomber Richard Reid under Bush). The critical point that Abdulmutallab had been interrogated in the same way as practically all others before him was treated as the most inconsequential tangent to Andrea Mitchell’s central contribution to the segment, that “the Republican argument is having a lot more resonance.” (She also adds, weirdly, that the government “didn’t brief the 9-11 families” – since when did this become required of every response to an attempted terrorist attack?)

What’s the motive for terrorist attacks? Helen Thomas asked that pivotal question, but the White House ducked and cover-storied. Ray McGovern has the obvious answer that few dare speak.

An army of political pundits is crying foul over the transfer of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the federal criminal court system.

Okay, so no one is explicitly calling for body cavity searches for all airline travelers — yet. But the logic of those pushing for body scanners for all airline passengers, and criticizing the ACLU for opposing that, leads to the inescapable conclusion that these critics would support such a policy.

Unanswered questions regarding al Qaeda’s attempted attack in Detroit

London’s Daily Telegraph blames University College London for failing to stop students from becoming radical. It has nothing to do with the government actions they see every day.