|
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
Page last updated: Sep 28, 2018