The terrorist watch list has been beset with problems ever since it came into existence. Ted Kennedy showed up on the No Fly List, a cousin to the terrorist watch list, back in 2004. 8 year-olds can’t get themselves off it. Clearly, the smaller and more focused a watch list, the better for national security as well as civil liberties.

So of course, in reaction to the failure to track Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab last year, the federal government has gone in the opposite direction. Instead of double-checking the watch list and making sure resources were focused on legitimate threats, they made it comically easy to get placed on the watch list.

At FDL News, David Dayen covers an article on Elizabeth Warren in which she argues, correctly, that if the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been up and running years ago, much of the banking/mortgage fraud could/would have been prevented.

That’s fine as far as it goes. But there’s something missing from the polite Ms. Warren’s telling.

Dave Weigel reports that some Republicans, miffed by certain advances made by Democrats in the lame duck sessions, plan to reintroduce the “End the Lame Duck Act,” legislation that would ban future lame duck sessions after Congressional elections.

I don’t see how any person–much less a constitutional lawyer–can claim that US efforts to get other democracies to set aside rule of law in their countries to help the US avoid responsibility for its crimes is not an abuse of power. And yet somehow Floyd Abrams suggests just that — that revealing the US’ double standards about rule of law, all in the service of avoiding any accountability for torture, does not constitute a valuable revelation.

The President’s 2012 budget will be delayed a week, as new OMB Director Jack Lew struggles to put things together after being confirmed late. But the still-looming fight over the 2011 budget will begin right after the State of the Union address, with Republicans in the House likely to hold out for major spending cuts.

I’m not sure why Wired editor Evan Hansen thinks FDL transcribing interviews and logging articles qualifies as “discrediting Lamo.” Lamo’s own words and actions are responsible for any indictment being made in the press, and Wired’s decision to sit on the chat logs makes them an active participant in whatever claims Lamo makes about their contents.

And if Hansen doesn’t think the credibility of the key source for Wired’s reporting on this story can hold up when simply compared to his own words, I’d say they’ve got bigger problems than Glenn Greenwald.

CPAC, the venerable right-wing gathering, has a problem over its welcoming of the conservative gay group GOProud, fomenting into a full-fledged revolt by several right-wing fundie groups, who are now boycotting CPAC over GOProud’s participation.

Truly, a mini-masterpiece of wingnuttery.

As 2011 approaches, we’re delighted to announce a new chapter for FDL: the launch of the FDL Writers Foundation, a brand new 501(c)3 non-profit devoted to supporting the groundbreaking work of talented and innovative authors whose clarity of thought and inspiration we desperately need right now. As 2010 ends, this is the perfect time to help the young thinkers and journalists whose energy and imagination will help us overcome the challenges that face us and lead us to a better future with a tax-deductible contribution. Can you please make a tax-deductible contribution of $25 or more to support the FDL Writers Foundation?

Last week The Washington Post published an op-ed by forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, “What I really said about radical jihadism.” Dr. Welner achieved some notoriety for his testimony in the sentencing phase of the trial of fomer child soldier and Guantanamo prisoner, Omar Khadr. Welner’s op-ed merits a thorough analysis as it propels Obama administration arguments while defending Welner’s own testimony.