Eric Holder: Reading the Fine Print
Not much time to post, but there’s some discussion of where Eric Holder would be on restoring the reputation of the Department of Justice. There’s been much written on the Marc Rich pardon - poorly handled, but a pardon with terms draconian enough that Rich never accepted it.
But there’s more worrisome stuff. Holder was rather supportive of the Administration’s views in the days following 9/11, that detainees and American citizens could be held indefinitely without trial “as long as the war was on” - which of course means forever. Holder does not seem worried about the lack of due process in Guantanamo or that the prisoners have any rights at all. Obama has decided on leaving a couple of primary architects of extraordinary rendition in place as well as Gates (formerly “Iraq 4-evuh”) in place, while Holder seems rather wobbly on some of the biggest justice concerns of the last 8 years.
Where would he stand on politicization of Justice? We don’t need or want a continuation of the Bush policy just in Democratic skin. We need an independent, non-political justice department.
Anyway, skim through the OpenLeft article including the interesting comments section and click on through to Glen Greenwald as well. (For example:
Contrary to what several commenters have suggested, it seems clear that Holder — in the 2002 interview — was not merely arguing that Guantanamo detainees should be denied “prisoner of war” status. He was arguing, explicitly, that they were entitled to no Geneva protections of any kind (as he put it: “they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention”). See here and here for further elaboration.
I think Gonzales put to rest forever that hiring an ethnic minority as AG will bring some sensitivity to human rights. Let’s read the fine print on the new candidate.
Oh, please. People thought and said a lot of over-the-top stuff in the months after 9/11 that they later came to regret. Neil Young wrote a pro-war song, for God's sake.
November 21, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it's easy for everyone to be sensible in normal times. We need leaders for when there's catastrophe and chaos. Especially positions like President and Attorney General. When the shit hits the fan, it's certainly attractive to declare martial law, war on everyone, and lock everyone up.
And don't diss Neil - he's got better reasoning than most mortals.
November 21, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neil jung sucks. As his huge ego -- unsupported by talent and accomplishment, let alone reason -- is evidence against his "better reasoning".
November 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
People thought and said a lot of over-the-top stuff in the months after 9/11
_____
Which rationalizations helped JUSTIFY the actual DOING of those things.
When everyone around you is running around like chickens with their heads cut off, should you join them?
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to say nothing -- or to voice support for the evil.
November 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a truly bizarre statement. Why would you think that members of any given ethnic minority would hold a monolithic politic view or Constitutional interpretation?
November 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing at all bizaare about it:
It can reasonably be expected that those who have been subjected to oppressions should have a greater awareness of and sensitivity concerning oppressions -- especially when there are existing constitutional protections against the oppressions which, adhered to and enforced, would prevent the oppressions.
Go back and read Martin Luther King's statement about "the arc of justice".
And the several comments, from several sources, that diminution of YOUR [or Guantanamo detainees'] rights is a diminution of MY rights.
November 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
". . . . Holder — in the 2002 interview — . . . was arguing, explicitly, that they [detainees] were entitled to no Geneva protections of any kind . . . ."
_____
Are we still in the Bushit dark ages on this issue?
The FACT is that, despite the different categorizations by "status," the Geneva Conventions apply to E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E, including innocent bystanding civilians. NO ONE is "left out" of or excluded by/from the Geneva Conventions.
That includes BROWN people who are ALLEGED to be "terrorists," or subjected to whatever other LABEL is attributed to them, by such as the Bushit criminal enterprise.
The ultimate bottom line: NO ONE is exempt from the rule of law -- INCLUDING ITS PROTECTIONS, BEGINNING, ESPECIALLY with PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
What sort of lawyer -- even if not about enforcing the Constitution, as is the DOJ -- would NOT know those inalienable basics, thus would actually support, even if "only" rhetorically, an IGNORING of those inalienable basics?
When Bushit asserted that anti-Constitutionalism, he was rightly opposed for it. We should take no different an approach when the person expressing that view happens to be an apparent Democrat.
November 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agree with JNagarya. Senator Obama's election was a great relief but ONLY because the alternative was so hideous. Democrats including their peerless leader still lack anything resembling a spine. What remains to be seen is what President-elect Obama's self-conscious modeling of his administration after A. Lincoln's will lead to. It took some very bad twists and turns for Lincoln before he was radicalized enough to do what "destiny" decreed---begin the emancipation of the enslaved. It would be better for Obama to FORGET the Doris K. Goodwin book and just look at what's on his plate now. Having said that, I must admit that Obama's performance so far is capped with the luster of success---and he has unequivocally denounced torture and said he would close Guantanamo, in the 60 Minutes interview. I don't think he can backtrack too easily on that, though to do it will enrage powerful antagonists both in govt, military, and media.
November 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) on Democracy Now this past Monday.http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/as_obama_reiterates_call_to_close
"The negative part is really what we’ve seen come out, floated by ostensibly members of the transition team and others, which are two issues. I called it re-wrapping Guantanamo to make it more palatable, not at Gauntanamo, but maybe here. One is preventive detention, and the other is national security courts. And they work together. If you really look at what Guantanamo was, it’s essentially a preventive detention facility where the United States really tried to give people no legal rights to challenge that preventive detention."
We must be on watch for a bait and switch.
November 21, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gonzales put to rest forever that hiring an ethnic minority as AG will bring some sensitivity to human rights. Let’s read the fine print on the new candidate.
Please explain what Gonzales' ethnicity had to do with his job performance?
November 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing, and neither will Holder's. So watch the fine print.
November 21, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink