I didn't see any posts on Holder's interview with Couric that aired yesterday.
Here's the transcript:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/eveningnews/main4930388.shtmlThe first three pages are mostly boring answers that merely rephrase the question.
She wears him down by page 4 !!
I encourage reading the fourth page in full.
For those who were wondering (as was I)....
Couric asks about the State Secrets hot potato. here's the exchange:
During a recent case in San Francisco involving five people who were part of the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program, the Obama administration, as you know, used the same argument. Which came as a surprise, frankly, to the judge. Meanwhile, the head of the ACLU said, quote, "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets. But his Justice Department has disappointedly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.' Why?
Holder: Well, the - the premise is wrong. I have ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. All the cases in which - we have invoked that doctrine. I think there are a total of maybe 20 or so, just to make sure that it was properly invoked. And to see, in those cases, where it was properly invoked, if there's a way we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information. A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases.
Couric: .... (D)o you believe the state secrets doctrine was abused by the Bush administration?
Holder: .... On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We - we reversed - are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we're likely to reverse it.
On the Civil Rights Division:
Couric: How do you think this department became so politicized during the Bush administration? How did that happen and why?
Holder: I'm not sure. I think that people lost sight of the fact that the department of justice is a special place. It's different from all of the other departments in the executive branch. Although the attorney general is a part of the president's team, you're really separate and apart. You have a special responsibility as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. There has to be a distance that you keep - between this department and the White House. And I think people lost sight of that.
Isn't it great?
Now with this new interview, we can continue our erudite discussion of the Justice Department through the weekend at least.
(edit-formatting)