OnTheIssuesLogo

Eric Holder on Homeland Security

Attorney General-Designee

 


Snowden did us all a favor by leaking documents

Former Attorney General Eric Holder has made an extraordinary concession: that Edward Snowden did us all a favor by leaking classified surveillance documents: "We can certainly argue about the way in which Snowden did what he did, but I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made," Holder said.

Now, Holder did not do a 180 on Snowden. He said that the massive leak of NSA documents had compromised US security for a time. And he said that Snowden should return to the United States and face charges. Then he could argue that the public service he performed should mitigate his legal transgressions.

Legally speaking, this position isn't any different from where everybody-- including Snowden himself--has been for a while. They differ, of course, on the details. The Justice Department (and entire intelligence community) would like to see Snowden serve a long sentence under harsh conditions.

Source: Forbes Magazine, "Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets" , May 30, 2016

Constitution disallows drone strikes on US citizens in US

When Holder appeared before the Judiciary Committee, I asked him a simple question: "If a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?"

"I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force," he said. This was an evasive response. Something can be "inappropriate without being "unconstitutional." Purposefully, Holder had not answered my question--so I tried again.

"With all due respect, General Holder, "I interjected, "my question wasn't about appropriateness."

Holder briefly complained about the nature of hypotheticals before again saying that "in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate."

Another evasion, so I tried a 3rd time. "You are unable to give a simple, one-word, one-syllable answer: no."

Only then did he say, with a heavy dose of exasperation, "Translate my 'inappropriate' to 'no'. I thought I was saying 'no.'"

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.240-1 , Jun 30, 2015

Upheld Bush administration's "extraordinary rendition"

In September 2010, the Obama Justice Department cited the so-called "state secret doctrine" in successfully getting a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit on "extraordinary rendition" (a phrase that really means we send suspected terrorists to other countries to get held and tortured). In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder was hell-bent on upholding the Bush administration's claim in two major cases involving illegal detention and torture.
Source: 63 Documents, by Gov. Jesse Ventura, p. 4 , Apr 4, 2011

No Geneva Convention for terrorist interrogations

It was hoped that Obama would reverse some of the more flagrant abuses of the Bush administration in dismantling the legal system, Eric Holder had a good reputation in the legal profession. However, he had explained on CNN that we cannot adhere to the Geneva Conventions in interrogation of those accused of terrorism--which seems to mean that torture of suspects is legitimate, in gross violation of the foundations of international humanitarian law, by which the US is theoretically bound.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.225 , Jun 1, 2010

Try 9/11's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in NYC court

No longer will terrorism be treated as a war. It will henceforth be only a crime. Nothing better epitomizes this change in federal attitudes than Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, in a federal criminal court in New York City. While it now appears that Mohammed will not be tried in New York, the fact that Holder initially decided to have him tried there indicates how lightly he takes the need for security in the city most victimized on 9/11.

While the trial may not be in the Big Apple, it looks certain that it will be in a civilian civil court. That is clearly Obama's and Holder's preference. But how can federal prosecutors use much of the evidence they have against Mohammed? He was not read his rights. It's unlikely that confessions were obtained pursuant to the constraints imposed by the Fifth Amendment.

Source: Take Back America, by Dick Morris, p.137-138 , Apr 13, 2010

Other candidates on Homeland Security: Eric Holder on other issues:
2017 Trump Administration:
Pres.Trump
V.P.Pence
DOL:Acosta
USTR:Boustany
HUD:Carson
DOT:Chao
Edu.:DeVos
ODNI:Coats
DHS:Kelly
DOD:Mattis
SBA:McMahon
Treas.:Mnuchin
OMB:Mulvaney
DOE:Perry
CIA:Pompeo
HHS:Price
EPA:Pruitt
DOC:Ross
A.G.:Sessions
DVA:Shulkin
State:Tillerson
DOI:Zinke
Former Obama Administration:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
State:John Kerry
HUD:Julian Castro
State:Hillary Clinton
Staff:Rahm Emanuel

Former Bush Administration:
Pres.George W. Bush
V.P.Dick Cheney
State:Colin Powell
State:Condi Rice

Former Clinton Administration:
Pres.Bill Clinton
V.P.Al Gore
HUD:Andrew Cuomo
Labor:Robert Reich
A.G.:Janet Reno
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty
Search for...





Page last updated: Sep 28, 2018