Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Eric Holder is an Alarming Pick for AG

Posted by John Nichols, The Nation at 7:35 PM on November 18, 2008.


For starters, he called for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might dissent from the expansion of government powers after 9/11.
holder

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get John Nichols in your
mailbox!

 

Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law as the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, said that dissenters should not be tolerated?

Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?

John Ashcroft? No.

Alberto Gonzales? No.

It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.

Appearing on CNN in June, 2002, the former Clinton administration Justice Department aide sounded as if he had just stepped out of the Bush camp: "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do."

If that's unsettling, consider the fact that Holder was part of the legal team that in 2005 developed strategies for securing re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

Much will be made of Holder's role as a deputy attorney general in helping former President Clinton arrange for the last-minute pardon of fugitive/Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich. (Holder said he gave Clinton a "neutral, leaning towards favorable" opinion of the proposed pardon.) And it will also be noted that Holder, as a corporate lawyer in private practice after leaving the Clinton team, played a key role in negotiating an agreement with the Justice Department that got Chiquita Brands International executives off the hook for paying protection money to right-wing death squads in Colombia.

But the first questions for Holder should go to the issue of his attitude toward the role of the attorney general in defending the Constitution.

Several years ago, Holder said, "The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."

What we need to know is this: How close would Holder, as attorney general, get to obeying his oath to defend the Constitution?

 

Digg!

John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.


New York Elections: Are Tea Party Activists the New GOP?
Hard-line right-wingers like Richard Viguerie think so. And they might be right.
November 4, 2009.
Pelosi to Go With Not-So-Robust Public Option
"Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government."
October 28, 2009.
Obama to Karzai: Thanks for Admitting You're Crooked
Unfortunately for the president (and despite his words of praise), there's little evidence to suggest Hamid Karzai will stand up for democracy.
October 20, 2009.
Dept of Justice Eases Off Medical Pot
Holder: "It will not be a priority to prosecute patients with serious illnesses who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."
October 19, 2009.
The Beat G20 Schemes Threaten Democracy, Sustainability
A new international program, established by the G20, to pressure countries with regard to trade surpluses and deficits would further erode democracy at the national level.
September 23, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
WHAT THE HELL?!
Posted by: bryangalt on Nov 18, 2008 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CLOVIS, CA 7:43PM
18 NOV 2008

MEMO TO OBAMA TRANSITION TEAM
CC: CITIZENS OF AMERICA WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE WITH THIS TYPE OF "FUCK THE LAW" ATTITUDES

GENTLEMEN:
After careful review of the above article, I must express to you a profound sense of deep concern that an organization as sharp, efficient and prepared as yours did not think to consider the importance of the language used by a potential Attorneys General candidate when it comes to his views of the fundamental American rights to free speech, even and especially when the content of that speech disagrees with the Administration's point of view.

As a fellow American that believes fully in the power of the Constitution over the individual power of the President, or the petty power games of our Congress (when they show enough backbone to excercise their powers that is), I must wonder aloud and with alarm about how this person could be considered for the highest post in law enforcement.

Frankly, We the People have come to expect and probably demand a much higher standard from your decisions on such high level appointments. We realize that it is a type of retribution to not appoint someone to a post because of their misguided belief in the All Mighty Bush, but in this case, it is what it must be. This country has had enough of the bullshit and veiled threats from the law enforcement establishment when it comes to challenging the status quo.

Further, we strongly encourage and recommend that you do not offer or appoint any person to any position within the federal government who does not believe 100% in the FACT that their job is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. If any person has spoken out against that idea, then they have no business in Washington.

If your crew doesn't understand that, please help yourself to the Jimmy Carter syndrome (you'll be a one termer because why? We The People will not be given justice against Bush and Cheney-if Obama appoints more just like those two dark demons, then he is still providing them with credibility, and that is the one thing that those two must be stripped of lest the Obama Administration go down to history as a Black man that made it to the top only to give a courtsey to a White Plantation Boss on his way to the podium.

Anyone that did not follow US and International laws on the matter of the treatment of detainees (foreign or domestic) should be arrested, tried and sentenced to lengthy prison terms if they are found guilty of ANY HUMAN ABUSES.

In conclusion, the "Left Coast" will be watching and hoping that their support of your man doesn't turn into a more refined version of Bush political agendas. We need his legacy to vanish ASAP.

PLEASE MAKE IT HAPPEN.

INDEPENDANT ADVISORY BOARD

B. GALT, S. GALT, FAMILY OF

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meet the new boss...
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Nov 18, 2008 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to quote a frequent poster "change is D.O.A"

Well done Obama! I don't regret moving to Canada at all.

Meyrav

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Meet the new boss... Posted by: photon's feather
Quote fails to prove point
Posted by: EncinoM on Nov 18, 2008 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?"

Your comment does not match the quote. The quote was about bureaucrats defend their own private fiefdoms, not seperation of powers. Prior to 9/11 FBI and CIA and DOD had to be forced to work together and share information. Even with in the branches of the military bureaucrats waged paper wars against each other. Yes, petty bureaucrates who seek to advance their own careers anpower within their cubicles, do not aid in national security.

Your point is not made by the quote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» EncinoMan fails to prove point Posted by: schiffer
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 19, 2008 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes we can repeal the USA PATRIOT ACT!

Yes we can repeal the FISA ACT!

Yes we can repeal THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT!

Yes we can restore habeas corpus!

Yes we can restore our civil rights!

I think it more likely that this gang will pass S.1959 and start enforcing it.

Come on, brothers and sisters, its still our country, right?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah and How many Americans still think 'they hate US for Our Freedoms'
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 19, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About as many as voted for McCain.
How many still think we went into Iraq to liberate them...Or that they still have WMD's hiding in the desert?
How many still think Repub's stand fo rsmall Gov't,and Fiscal Responsiblity.Shit just listen to Rightwing Wind bags who are still deluded.
There was a 'Shock' after 9/11, many people's normal attitudes were markedly changed. However, as proven by this election, have come back to their senses.
Frankly I am a Recovered 'clintonian' and so I must give anyone the Opportunity to redeem themselves when reality proves their perceptions inaccurate.
Is this going to be the 'Theme' now at Alternet, Jump on ever appointment. I would hate for my entire history or persona to be determined by one or two phrases or actions within the 45 yrs of my life.
I am NOT happy about Hillary being offered Sec of State, but it is not merely because of her Vote on Iraq, or her vote on the Patriotic Act, It is repeated, consistent Neo con actions and Attitudes which have shaped my current LOW opinion of her.
So what in 2002 this guy was still in Freak out mode....99% of the Country was. so he's a human who gets scared and angry.What will be far more indictive of his current mind set are things he has said and done RECENTLY!
Honestly I think it unfair and irrelevant to use quotes from anyone with in a year or tow of 9/11- they were working off gutteral responses.
Example- I lived in outside SF in '89 when the 7.0 Quake hit. I went back to MI for a vacation about 6 months later. A door rattled and I nearly jumped out of my skin. I was REACTING- Quakes don't often happen in MI, I knew this.It was not my Logic working it was my ' Flight' auto response.
the entire country was amidst a Post traumatic Stress fog...How do you think Bush was able to walk through soooo many Illegal legislations in Congress.
Note to Fellow 'Lefties' Let's not start acting like Neo Cons...paranoid and Hyper Judgemental. Let's act like adults instead and look at things in their REAL context, and give people a chance to not be Judged on One or two things they said in the 'heat of the moment'. Personally I have no interest in becoming something I have spent decades Loathing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again
Posted by: Shey on Nov 19, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article reeks of misleading statements and out of context quotes, none more recent than three years ago (people do change and learn from experience).
It seems obvious to me that john Nichols has a personal axe to grind. He states that Holder's position was that "dissenters should not be tolerated" but that is not a direct quote nor does it claim to be, although the way the article is written, makes it seem to be.
The actual offending quote, about "petty bureaucrats defending their turf", is not exactly the stuff of encroaching fascism, especially as it dates back to June 2002, when the entire country was still extremely paranoid.

Here is a recent Holder quote, from earlier this year, in context and easily verifiable, from remarks made to an American Constitutional Society for Law and Policy audience, from the WashingtonPost.com:

"Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the 'war on terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more safe. For the sake of our safety and security and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights."

I'm beginning to think that AlterNet should be renamed TheSkyIsFallingNet. This WashingtonPost.com article was posted on the Huffington Post and is actually linked on this page. Yet AlterNet choose the sensationalized article above as it's first word on the issue.

Next will come the anti-Obama trolls, crawling out of the woodwork and inundating the comments with their venom.
What's going on, AlterNet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again Posted by: lil ole me
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: pelican beak
I have to wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 19, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was there ever really anyone up for any position in this administration who was NOT a horrible choice for one reason or another????

And if so.. what does that say about the people leading our nation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have to wonder... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Call your senator
Posted by: solitarysherlockian on Nov 19, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And politely request full vetting of all Obama nominees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For those of us us who hoped for a legitimate 9/11 investigation . . .
Posted by: dustdevil on Nov 19, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Holder is confirmed as AG, it is a message to the Truth Movement that there will not be an investigation. It is also another sign that Obama is not the agent of change he claims he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes . . . Posted by: dustdevil
Constitutional law is Obama's area of expertise
Posted by: dhoa1 on Nov 19, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure that, say, Patrick Leahy was taken into consideration by the transition team. But leave them alone. I'm sure they know what they are doing, and are doing it thoroughly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judge, Jury and Pardons for All War Criminals and their War Crimes
Posted by: channing on Nov 19, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pattern Obama's setting so far is a Blanket Pardon of All the President's War Criminals through the DC-Clinton machinery, "Blue Dogs" as they're called by the progressive-left.

Since the Clintons were unable to democratically win a 3rd and 4th term in the White House, and have demonstrated exactly ZERO disdain for the War Criminals who've managed so far to Rape our Constitution and our Treasury by Committing Mass Murder and Wars of Aggression, what better way for the future Obama-Beltway to reward them for their Service to Fascism then putting them in charge of Justice?

As Leftwright and Dustdevil point out, these critical Obama appointments spell continued DC maximum-corruption in honor of the massive consolidation achieved by the PNAC Bushites, whose only intention was to create a modern Master-Slave Class out of the cloth of American Stupidity.

As Patrick Leahy just said in Vermont a couple days ago in answer to the interviewer's question about the next congress investigating War Crimes, "No way... Not in the US"

Get ready for a Record DoD expansion, the Passing of HR1959, High Court Appointments that Protect War Criminals above the Constitution, expanded Police-State powers and latitudes, expanded Beltway Concentration owned lock, stock, and barrel by borderless billionaires and their loyalties. They will be pretending to "restore the moral authority" of the US while ignoring the millions of casualties of its own War Crimes.

There's only one thing going for those of us who seek Justice: There is no statute of limitations.

The Fight for Justice against a Ruling Class is On!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same Here
Posted by: rafey on Nov 19, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am already wondering if I made the correct choice. Clinton for SOS when the likes of Richardson is available ??? And now this ? I also think that a bail out for GM is a really bad idea. I was upset over the Lieberman issue but Connecticutt will take care of him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same Here Posted by: Dboy
Another view on Holder
Posted by: Pop on Nov 19, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://thinkprogess.org/2008/11/19/holder-justice-issues/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holder's speeches, Holder's legal actions and Holder the man
Posted by: socrates2 on Nov 20, 2008 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shey and EncinoM make their points. This quote is taken out of context. Holder merely meant to say that there was no room for turf battles among bureaucrats, that there should be no duplication of duties among the different government security agencies. Holder essentially argued for consolidation of similar duties and those bureaucrats who dissented should be shown the door.
This move in no way offends the Separation of Powers which serves to create a legal barrier and a healthy tension between the different BRANCHES of government, not between bureaucracies (unless these are creations of the different Branches).
What I find troublesome is that "The Nation" (of which I have been a suscriber for decades) published this sensationalist and provocative piece without further documentation.
As for the allegation that in 2005 Holder was "part of the legal team that developed strategies for securing re-authorization of the Patriot Act."
What exactly was Holder's role in that "legal team?"
What "strategies" are we talking about?
Did those strategies include modifications that excised the Constitutionally offensive parts to make the PA acceptable?
There is way too much innuendo in this piece and falls below "The Nation" standards. I am offended.
That attorney Holder _defended_ the Execs who paid off extortionist right-wing death squads may raise eyebrows. But everyone accused of a crime has right to legal counsel last I checked.
Holder himself did not pay off anyone in Colombia and that distinction must be made...
Please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Upholding the Constitution
Posted by: CJC on Nov 21, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The President swears to uphold the Constitution. There should be no conflict between the AG and the president on that.
If the AG is not upholding the Constitution the President should replace him/her. Likewise, if the AG believes the President is violating the Constitution (s)he should advise him and then resign.

The problem with the Bush administration is that the AG's, especially Gonzales, were in cahoots with the President in ignoring or trashing the Constitution. Ashcroft, in the end, had some spine and that's probably why he was replaced with Gonzales.

Read Jack Goldsmith's "The Terror Presidency" for an insider's view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opposition to the Appointment of Mr. Eric Holder as Attorney General
Posted by: IsidoroRDL on Nov 25, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
November 21, 2008

Greetings President-Elect Barack H. Obama:

At this critical time it is imperative to restore integrity and public confidence in DOJ by compelling the next AG comply with the words proclaimed on the RFK Justice Department Building, “No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom”

But, the investigation of the evidence of malfeasance confirm that Mr. Eric Holder does not meet this for two reasons:

First, Mr. Eric Holder’s record in DOJ confirm that he subscribes to the collusion of DOJ with the Judicial Branch in violation of the rights of citizens under both Civil Rights and Watergate legislation, and the mandate of separation of power http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml, so to make the government less accountable. Query--Who can now afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if one could find a lawyer willing and able to do so? This is no accident. I content that the Bush Administration’s disregard for the Rule of Law was no anomaly, but in fact consistent with past DOJ policies of Mr. Eric Holder (to understand the magnitude of the problem of the violation of separation of power by collusion with the Courts I suggest reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.

Second, Mr. Eric Hoder is a defendant in a civil RICO action for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1513, based on being linchpin in a criminal conspiracy by government employees to deprive my Son of his civil rights as a U.S. citizen, obstruct my rights as a parent, and injure, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right in retaliation for my for petitioning Congress, litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent to compel DOJ to comply with their duty [See http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror], and for my past 30-year federal civil litigation against the unauthorized polices and practices of DOJ and the Federal Courts in violation of resident and nonresident Hispanics.

Very truly yours,


Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
Web: http://www.4jobs.com/1114836
Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror

1Upon arguing and winning a Federal Tort Claim Act action, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only know active U.S. license federal litigation sole practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, i.e. I have: (i) represented 360 nonresident Hispanic women in Class action Breast Implant Cases; (ii) litigated to stop the seizing of all nonresident Hispanic surname accounts in the United States as violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and, (iii) litigated against the issuance of the Constitutional prohibited bill of attainders against nonresident Hispanics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]