« TPM founder quoted as source for Obama Chief of Staff pick scoop | Buckley's Blog | Russert, Journalism and even the Appearance of Real Reporting-R.I.P »
Why not James Comey for Attorney General?
Obama and Congress obviously have no inclinations toward putting the Bush Administration under anything more than a cursory examination of their behavior throughout eight years of destroying the Constitution.
Like the appointment of General Shinseki to head VA affairs, Obama can at least insure that history sees these men as the heroes that they were.
Shinseki refused to lie to Congress about troop levels needed in Iraq, and Comey refused to badger an ailing John Ashcroft into signing a suspect bill from his hospital bed.
Nothing could be more satisfying than seeing James Comey as Attorney General. The first AG in a long time with intelligence, integrity and respect for the law.
Advertisement
Seeing Patrick Fitzgerald would be more satisfying, at least to me.
December 8, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... Could it be because he's a hardcore, right-wing authoritarian just like Ashcroft? He may have had a problem with one particular thing (and we don't know what it was) but. Being "less extreme then Gonzales and Yoo" is hardly much of a qualification.
Also, have you been paying attention? Obama already announced his AG. It's Eric Holder, a pick Glenn Greenwald called "positive" -- although he criticized him for his involvement in the Marc Rich pardon. Are you saying Holder should go and be replaced with Comey?
December 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Holder isn't intelligent, has integrity, and has no respect for the law? I find that offensive and WRONG.
December 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That picture of Kenny Rogers in that web ad to the right for some Christmas show is frightening. His face has been pulled back more than the third Ghostbusters sequel.
December 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the land of the ethically blind, the man with one eye is king. His campaign tends to collapse, however, when the rest of the country regains its eyesight.
December 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is too bad that out of all possible choices, Pres.-elect Obama picked the hack, Holder, for A.G. But we all make mistakes, and this is one by Obama.
With all due respect for Glen Greenwald, this appointment of Holder will come back to bite us all in the butt. BAD choice.
Civil liberties? Not Holder's strong suit!
No reason to think Holder has a progressive principle in his quiver whatsoever, and when it comes to essential reforms like damping down the drug witch-hunt and de-insitutionalizing prohibition, Holder will be in the same ranks as Aschcroft and Gonzales---watch and see. Holder whooped up reefer madness when he was US attorney, pledging to "nip marijuana in the bud" in D.C.
By the way, medical use of marijuana--blocked by the Justice Department for forty years--received more votes in california than Bill Clinton in 1996; more votes in Montana than Junior Bush did in 2004; and (I believe) more votes in Michigan than Barack Obama did in 2008. But Clinton, Bush, and Obama don't think the will of the people should be recognized IN THIS CASE!
December 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
axololooo,,,
You will be pleasently surprised ,and have your waning faith in Obama 44 when AG Holder starts our return to the rule of law - he might even appoint David Inglesias as Special Prosecutor .
And if you have not read Ingleias 's book "In Justice " yet - why it would make a great stocking stuffer- Merry Christmas -
December 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Al, I am a little worried about this choice.
I'll give a reason. All along I have been arguing that the endgame for tortured prisoners after the departure of the Bush administration would be to seek relief using a variety of laws, no the least of which would be the Alien Tort Claims Act.
From OpinioJuris:
"Eric Holder represented Chiquita Intl in Doe v. Chiquita International in which plaintiffs sought to hold Chiquita liable for Colombian civilian deaths perpetuated by paramilitary groups that Chiquita had made payments to for the purposes of continuing operations." From his brief to the court:
"Even if plaintiffs could make the allegations necessary to sustain a claim of state action, the claim would be equivalent to an assertion that the Colombian government was complicit in the summary executions of its own citizens by terrorist organizations. Such a claim would present a nonjusticiable “political question” and should be dismissed because it “challenges the official acts of an existing government in a region where diplomacy is delicate and U.S. interests are great.” Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1032 (W.D. Wa. 2005), aff’d, No. 05-36210 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2007), pet. for reh’g pending (filed Oct. 9, 2007). . . . A finding of state action in this case would directly contradict the foreign policy position of the United States, which sees Colombia as a staunch ally in the fight against terrorism, and would thus constitute unwarranted judicial interference in the foreign relations of the United States. For years, the United States has consistently provided political, economic, and military support to the Colombian government, including support to Colombia’s efforts to disarm and prosecute paramilitaries, and to provide reparations to their victims. A judicial finding of “complicity” between Colombia and the AUC in this case would be at odds with this policy and create the potential for disparate pronouncements by the executive and the judiciary on Colombia’s terrorism policies. See Baker, 369 U.S. at 217."
for the whole article:
http://opiniojuris.org/2008/12/04/eric-holder-and-the-ats/#comments
The impression I get is of a lawyer wary of giving free rein to the intent of the ATCA...and the role of the courts therein.
December 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lux,
Holder has been "vetted' by those on our side whom I greatly respect -and if I was more savvy on how to use the "internet tubes " maybe I could provide a link - but go google Scott Horton & Eric Holder -you will find that Mr Horton believes that AG nominee Holder will seek justice regarding the torture committed . Also reading the 'tea leaves ' now that the Blackwater indictments have gone forward it could be the responsible members ie career prosecutors are starting to feel that they will be supported in our return to the Rule of Law.
That is not to say that representing union busters and death squads in Columbia is ok -it is not .
Also on a personal note - I own a one Toyota Van charter service here in Austin , and ran Mr Holder and five of his colleagues up to our Supreme Court for a hearing last year . As we waited in the hotel parking lot for everyone to join us -me and Mr Holder did have a brief conversation -and we both agreed that we never thought we would see torture condoned and practice in these United States . It appeared to me that Mr Holder was visibly angered by our government's torture - I believe we will be pleasently surprised by AG Holder's action against Cambone and the rest of the "enhanced interrogators " perpetrators.
And to you cheesehead absolutley do not believe anyone in Obama 44 DOJ would support medical use of marijuana - to bad too -wish it was up to the individual States to decide that issue-Patients with glaucoma really do benefit from THC treatment .
Of course some of us had a misspent youth chasing 'recreational marijuana use " up in Humboldt County and elsewhere - but all it really ever did for us was make us very stupid -in the words of Dr Hook " I was stoned so I misssed it "
December 9, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANKS AL! great reassurance. I want Holder to work out as much as anyone, but I hang out at OJ alot and was worried about that article I read... Your testimony is pretty solid on the man's private views (as opposed as his professional obligation to put the best argument forward for his client)
December 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lux ,
Its important - I believe not to make the perfect the enemy of the good - in this instance we should give Obama 44 our good faith support on his nominees until we have reason not extend that support .
December 9, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind being proved wrong by events . . . and in this case I would be EAGER to be proved wrong. But I won't hold my breath. He sounds like a hack to me . . . and the recognition of states' rights on medical cannabis, or reversal of the federal obstruction on that point, is an even more telling litmus test than the matter of torture, corruption, and other lawlessness by the Bush-Cheney crime family. There is certainly plenty of demonstrable support for medical cannabis, in plebiscite after plebiscite, across the political landscape . . . whereas prosecuting our big-shot war criminals and CIA-leakers is less well charted territory. And it won't happen. Too much else to deal with right from the start. Also, see Lux' comment, below.
December 9, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outside of officially sanctioned torture and putting out troops in Iraq, many would agree that there are few places where our policy is so at odds with our national interest as marijuana prohibition.
But the financial interests created by the war on drugs are almost as strong as the financial interest created by our current private medical insurance bureaucracy.
That said, my reading on Holder (based the sparse evidence I've read of his clients and his arguments in places like TPMCafe) is that he is an attorney in the purest sense, devoid of moral or ideological impediments when representing his "clients interest".
Not the biggest endorsement of any man, but . . . I'm content to wait and see on this one.
December 9, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to be replying to Al in Austex, but pushed wrong keys. So I am referring to Lux' comment, "above."
December 9, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still, I'd rather have Fitzgerald. Anytime, anyway. Dogged, determined, honorable to a fault.
December 9, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brantlamb ,
Fitzgerald is a career prosecutor -probably the best one we have ever had -as such he might not be the best choice to run one of the largest depts in our federal government .
What Fitzgerald might be stellar choice for is the General Counsel for the hybrid /commission -congressional investigation looking into the war crimes committed by gwb 43. No less an expert on war crimes as attorney Scott Horton has called for this independent body to be stood up expressly for a thorough airing of all RICO activity as pertains to gwb 43 breach of international law - re the illegal occupation of iRAQ . Please recall that Fitzgerald said that a lot of what was turned up in the conviction of VEEP Chief of Staff Libby led back to Cheney and his office .
I for one would sleep better knowing that Fitzgerald was going after Cheney , Addington ,Haynes , & Cambone et al for the prevarication thats also called Operation Iraqi Liberation. We must have full airing of all the war crimes - If the commission was truly independent with Fitzgerald guiding the investigation then we might actually achieve justice & accountabilty .
December 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink