Under Eric Holder, 'War on Terror' Would Still Define the Department of Justice

[Orwellian_Ghost]

In his confirmation hearing, Holder called waterboarding "torture," but his support for preventive detention and warrantless spying is bad news.

As Obama's attorney general nominee Eric Holder sails toward confirmation, one thing is clear: United States law and justice will continue to be seen through the Bush-era lens of the so-called "War on Terror," long after Bush vacates the Oval Office.

In fact, according to Holder, not only are we at war now, we were at war before September 2001 (as evidenced by the attacks on the USS Cole and on American embassies abroad) -- we just "did not realize we were at war." Although the phrase "war on terror" was conspicuously absent from the all-day hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, this fact alone bears tremendous weight on the change Obama's Department of Justice will -- or will not -- bring.

Much of the coverage from yesterday's hearing zeroed in on torture, and indeed, Holder's headline-generating answer on the question of waterboarding -- which he bluntly labeled torture -- deserved a certain amount of praise, especially given recent memories of the preposterous testimony by Alberto Gonzales a few years back. (As Illinois Senator Dick Durbin recalled, "we could never ever get a straight declarative sentence.") Holder also deserves credit for refusing to fall for the trap laid by Texas Senator John Cornyn, who asked whether he would authorize waterboarding a suspect under the bogus "ticking time bomb scenario" of the sort popularized by the FOX series 24. "People will say almsot anything to avoid torture," Holder responded, rejecting the notion that torturing a suspect would necessarily provide life-saving information.

But Holder also made it clear that he believes we are living in dangerous times, and thus his first goal will be to "strengthen the activities of the federal government and protect the American people from terrorism." "Nothing I do is more important," he said. "I will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and I will do so within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution."


<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/rights/120221/under_eric_holder%2C_%27war_on_terror%27_would_still_define_the_doj/

[babylonsister]

1. These are dangerous times. What's not to understand about that?

Are we just supposed to sweep all the nasty stuff under the rug? What's the alternative?

I think more than one thing can be accomplished at the same time. And no, I don't agree with warrantless wiretapping but will wait to see what happens under an Obama admin.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. Prettty simple

Stop blowing people up and you reduce your enemies. Danger greatly reduced.

The "war on terror" is a total lie but believe it if you must. Same lie as war on the commies, or war on the Injuns' or war on the...

[babylonsister]

7. Jump the gun much? I believe that's their mission. End

the occupation of Iraq and hopefully talk some sense into the powers-that-be in Afghanistan/Pakistan/everywhere else. If you don't think we're about to get a change from *, I don't know what to tell you.
But you go ahead and keep pointing those fingers at people who haven't even been sworn in yet.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. No you are wrong

Consistently you do not do your homework on these matters. You will then come to false assumptions which perpetuate these injustices.

There is absolutely no word from the Obama camp that they will end the occupation of Iraq. Why do you believe such a fallacy?

They are only calling for a draw down of combat brigades, and have even backpedaled on that recently, which account for only half of the US troop presence. The occupation will grind on only it will be dressed differently.

You should challenge your assumptions on this matter so that you can see more clearly.

[babylonsister]

23. And you challenge anything at all. I don't see you over there on the

ground, so your opinion is no more valid than mine. An article from op-ed news doesn't make it so.

As for Afghanistan, I don't think we belong there either and have said as much, but will wait to hear what the plan might be.

Your condescension is stellar though. You've honed that well. Please go find another target.



From Wednesday, this doesn't sound like backpedaling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/us/politics/15policy.html

Military Planners, in Nod to Obama, Are Preparing for a Faster Iraq Withdrawal

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — Military commanders are drawing up plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in anticipation that President-elect Barack Obama will reject current proposals as too slow, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

The new plans would provide alternatives to a timetable drawn up by the top American commanders for Iraq to bring troops home more slowly than Mr. Obama promised during his presidential campaign. Those plans were described to Mr. Obama last month.

The officials said that Mr. Obama had not requested the new plans, but that they were being prepared in response to public statements from the president-elect and on the basis of conversations between military officials and members of Mr. Obama’s transition team.

Mr. Obama met last week in Washington with his national security team, including Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

more...

[cali]

9. Actually, it's not at all that simple

as the attacks on the Cole, the first WTC attack and the attack on the Kenyan Embassy demonstrates. I'm sure you'l find an excuse for those acts being justified by evil acts by the U.S.

The war on terror is terrible phrasing. But whatever you want to call it is not so easily solved as you seem to think. It'a a complex brew of causation, not some little pie in the sky best of all possible worlds simple solution.

And Holder is a damn good choice. Tough you don't like it, but then you wouldn't like any choice short of a Dennis Kucinich at justice and every other cabinet seat.

[arcadian]

15. Yeah, it's far too complex for us simple cititzens to understand and grasp...

:eyes:

Let's just put it in the hands of politicians and policy wonks who I'm sure only have the interests of the people at heart. Back to Idle with thee!!!

:sarcasm:

[cali]

17. who said that? Any citizen who cares to can learn

why it's such a complex issue. duh.

[Maven]

11. It's not about sweeping anything under the rug.

It's about rejecting the shape-shifting "war on terror" frame invented by the Bush Administration to keep people in a constant state of fear and to justify whatever empire-building military conflict in the M.E. they felt like.

Holder saying that we were "already at war" before 9/11 does not bode well.

[babylonsister]

18. So what would you call it? I'm not opposed to changing the name.

Doesn't change the facts.

And if you'd like, I can go find a list of threatening activities that happened prior to 9/11 that perhaps should have been addressed, but you know that.

[arcadian]

13. Dangerous times...

Tell me a period of time in the history of humankind that wasn't "dangerous"... :eyes: It's all bullshit.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. These times are dangerous,

but all times are dangerous. Name for me the non dangerous time. One month will do.

[babylonsister]

24. Sure they are, but look at the article in the OP. Holder said that, and

the author sounds like Holder's just making it up.

[cali]

2. I'm looking forward to Holder's tenure at Justice

I think he'll do a damned good job protecting the rights of citizens.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. Quite a stretch

A guy who is for warrantless wiretapping protecting our rights. We've entered Wonderland here.

[pleah]

10. I have to agree with you, OG.

It is looking more and more like they are not going to prosecute the bushit and co. criminals.
I may be wrong, but that is the way I'm seeing it right now.

[cali]

12. As far as I know, he supports the FISA courts.

[arcadian]

20. The same FISA courts who just said...

Hey, we're cool with being left in the dark, essentially relegating themselves to being a non-entity.

[arcadian]

16. Do you have his bubble gum card too?

:rofl:

[cali]

19. I've actually bothered to research Holder

as well as tuning in to the confirmation hearings. i doubt you no jackshit. Just another reflexive knee jerker is what you appear to be, dear. I don't like everything Holder's done in the past. I don't agree with him on several issues, but by and large, he's a solid choice.

[arcadian]

22. You know, I could call you names too, deary.

But I won't. You seem to be quite fine with the status quo. Which is a smooth transition of Bush policies into Obama's policies. All for the sake of "not busting things up" or "not to appear partisan". I've never met anybody who cheer leads the federal bureaucracy for not addressing real issues on a real human level, but you certainly seem to be that person.

[Irishonly]

5. His justice department will not be like the Bush justice department

From the article

"Nothing I do is more important," he said. "I will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and I will do so within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution."


The Constitution has been ignored for eight years. He also said he will be the people's lawyer not the president's. No one will agree with all of his decisions all of the time but IMHO, the one thing we can be sure of is that his decisions will be based on the law and not policies.

[chill_wind]

6. K & R. Especially this paragraph:

"There is nothing wrong a top-level official asserting his intention to keep Americans safe. But the attorney general is not a defense official, nor is the Department of Justice the Pentagon. Holder's job, particularly critical now, is to ensure that the country fulfills its Constitutional principles and to uphold the rule of law, which was so dramatically turned on its head under Bush. It might have been wishful thinking to expect that Holder would repudiate the framework of the "war on terror" -- particularly given Obama's own devotion to it. But by continuing to use it as the guiding narrative for American justice, he gives credance to the operative logic that led to so much abuse and lawlessness in the first place."

[merh]

8. It would be foolish for Obama and his administration to take office

and say "there is no war on terror". They must first take office and determine what the intelligence does show and pick up where the other "guys" left off. They cannot do like GWB's admin did, ignore all that Clinton's admin did and knew and warned against. (Remember, Clinton's admin warned that AQ was a grave threat and GWB's admin ignored it or utilized their danger to pursue its own agenda.)

And once in office, if the "war on terror" is the myth that many believe it to be or if it is the exaggerated effort to control us by fear, let Obama and his administration be the ones that resolve the conflicts, that win the war.

[chill_wind]

25. Prosecutions v. "Information-sharing". Wtf?!!

"(...)

Prosecutions v. 'Information-sharing'

It is also pretty clear that no prosections will come from the Department of Justice over the issue of torture, despite Holder's acknowledgement that waterboarding is torture, that it is illegal, and that the president does not have the authority to authorize violations of the law. "No one is above the law," Holder told Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. But, he said, " ... we don't want to criminalize policy differences that exist." But what if the policies themselves are illegal? And what, then, did he mean when he told the American Constitution Society last June that "we owe the American people a reckoning"? When asked that question specifically by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Holder said, "that's gotten a lot more attention than I think it deserves." He did not mean to suggest that Bush officials should be prosecuted, he said, but rather he was talking about "information-sharing."