Eric Holder… Psychic
The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is under fire again after making some ill-advised remarks about how the administration looks at the leadership of trans-national terrorist organizations. The crux of the idiocy seems to have occurred following a question by Republican member of the House.
“Let’s deal with reality,” Holder said. “You’re talking about a hypothetical that will never occur. The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom. That’s the reality. … He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so he’s not captured by us. We know that.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34525.html#ixzz0iUHSt6iD
Eric Holder seems to approach this hypothetical with the pompous arrogance of, well, his superior. Simple peons! We know better than to think we could possibly catch Osama alive. Apparently, the Attorney General is not an advocate for looking into serious tensions between the law and security, war-time and peace-time differences in application of law et cetera because he has everything figured out, including the future. His prescience reminds me of The Chili Song by Gary P. Nunn in which a part of the verse goes:
Some people think we’re strange, just a little bit crazy,
Cause we can see tomorrow, yesterday
Apparently, the Obama Administration is beyond having to thinkabout these matters, because they have justice completely figured out. Whereas, those in the Bush Administration who knew justice to be an ever elusive ideal worth striving for because it is the highest component of the soul, actually received the bad rap of being close-minded and Neanderthal-like in their group-think, despite that fact that the so-called “Torture Memos” were the rich pontifications of such matters as they pertain to law, war and peace. I like how an Administration like Obama’s, that so publicly lashed out at the previous administration for Water-Boarding, is content with just killing Osama bin Laden without a trial as long as it gets Eric Holder out of question and answer time with Congress.
What’s good is that my lady Liz Cheney and her Keep America Safeorganization is already holding Holder accountable for his testimony. Debra Burlingame was quoted in Politico:
“Putting Charlie Manson in a civilian court didn’t endanger any intelligence secrets,” Debra Burlingame, a member of the Keep America Safe Board of Directors, told Politico. “When he draws analogies like that, that’s when he loses people. It appears as if he doesn’t know we’re at war.”
Furthermore, General McChrystal had to come out and assure people that their intention was to capture Osama so that they can extrapolate intelligence (I guess by asking pretty please) and track down the other members in the network and prevent future plots.
What needs to be addressed, however, is the fact that Eric Holder should not be asked what he plans on doing with Osama bin Laden when he’s caught, because that is not Eric Holder’s place. The nation is at war, and if Osama were captured, I would expect him to receive a tribunal like any other enemy combatant.
-rj
Defending the Indefensible? Liz, McCarthy(s) and the GWOT
An old charge has been brought back from the grave and used against members of Keep America Safe, the political action committee dedicated to ensuring America’s benevolent hegemony abroad, as well as her safety at home. The PAC was started by William Kristol, son of the late (great) Irving Kristol; Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney); and Debra Burlingame, “sister of Charles F. ‘Chic’ Burlingame, III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.” It would behoove us to keep in mind the effort that critics of KAS take in singling out only Kristol and Cheney in their attacks. Let’s be clear however, that members of both the Right and Left are calling all three Founders “McCarthy-ites” when they levy these charges of “fear-mongering” and borderline Neo-Nazism.
What’s funny, is that being called a McCarthyite is extraordinarily mild compared to the perpetual reduction ad Hitlerum the left consistently employs against National Security Conservatives. While Washington Post editorial columnist Jonathan Capehart dares not tread past the label “fear-mongering” in his quaint and insipid blog post about the matter of “The Al-Qaeda 7,” one of the members of his amen corner dares tread where… well, most liberals dare to tread:
The Rabid Reichwingers like Lizzy Borden Cheney, and Dick Adolf Cheney, are liken to Vampires. Once they get a taste of BLOOD, they want more.
They know by attacking these Lawyers, that their Reichwing Minions will pressure any Lawyer who would dare defend the Terrorist.
They assume everyone’s as Ignorant as their Minions, and won’t remeber all the court cases doing the Bush Error, concerning Terrorist.
In reality the real Terrorist America should be concern with are people like Lizzy B. Cheney and the ever increasing “RABID REICH”.
(Spelling mistakes in the original, due in part to modern liberal education I assume)
Andrew Sullivan also falls into the old reduction ad Hitlerum a number of times, one instance being his 2007 rant against President Bush’s enhanced interrogations. How depressing, that an erudite student of Dr. Harvey Mansfield would resort to such empty hyperbole. But I digress.
So liberals like to associate Republicans with a political party responsible for the extermination of twelve million plus fellow human beings; all of a sudden being called a McCarthyite doesn’t sting as bad. One of these days, it is my hope that being called a Neo-Nazi, a Klansmen, a McCarthyist, et cetera will ring hollow, like the heads from whence they were spoken. I guess this makes me an idealist.
The fury is over a recent KAS add which addresses the hiring of nine attorneys in the Department of Justice, who also happened to have represented suspected terrorists in the past. This matter is a bit unnerving for some as I am sure the ACLU would not be so inclined as to hire, say, Robert Bork; or how about the Southern Poverty law Center giving jobs to a handful of lawyers who represented Aryan Nations, the Klan, or real Neo-Nazis. Does that mean that those people should not be hired? Of course not, and by now anyone who has been keeping up with the news has heard all of the historical anecdotes where good Americans represented clients who went against America’s principles in the name of justice in the rule of law. The most famous example being reiterated is that of John Adams’ representation of the English soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of Colonialists in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770.
The main point, however, is not that the Department of Justice hired people who used to represent suspected terrorists. Perhaps this entire issue would have been avoided if Eric Holder, the Attorney general, had just given the names to the Senate back in November 2009 when they requested further information on the matter, as Marc Thiessen points out in the Washington Post:
In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.
Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the “al-Qaeda seven,” and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities — but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.
Andrew McCarthy also addresses the issue:
Only our terrorist enemies get the red carpet treatment. “Enemies” in this context is not hyperbole. We are at war under a congressional authorization. Nearly 200,000 young Americans are in harm’s way. But enemy operatives are returning to their jihad against our troops and our citizens thanks to the help of American law firms. Only lawyers demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship in a nation at war. And they further demand to be above criticism for donating their skills to al Qaeda operatives (though American prisoners must represent themselves in habeas corpus actions). The profession would reinterpret “patriotism” in total relativism: some risk their lives to fight the enemy for us, while others litigate so the enemy may be freed to return to the fight. Americans are not buying – that’s why Liz Cheney’s common sense resonates.
As for Jonathan Capehart and the sycophantic left, I look forward to their confrontations with their peers about the way they treated Bush Administration lawyers who meticulously explored the issue of torture, enhanced interrogations, the War on Terror, and the law. That was exactly what lawyers like John Yoo, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and other lawyers did when they wrote what are considered the ‘nefarious torture memos’ now. Writing in-depth analysis into the heart and soul of security and the law warranted harassment by the fringe left at their private residences and even possible criminal indictments from Congress.
In the end, Senator Grassley, Liz Cheney, Keep America Safe, and FoxNews were asking their government a question regarding the most important issue facing our Federal government. This should be an issue that Conservatives and some libertarian-leaning friends can unite around, considering both consider the Federal government’s central role to be protecting citizens. We have a right to ask questions regarding our safety; and the Obama Administration has a right to not answer us. But don’t get your panties in a bunch when you get called out for promising transparency, and again fail to deliver on your campaign promise. It’s politics. Grow up.
-rj
Insane Conservative Posse (ICP)
Thomas Eddlemm reported in the NewAmerican on Monday that President Bush admitted to weighing his options on whether or not to use military personnel on American soil to apprehend what were believed to be terror suspects while they were in New York.? Mr. Eddlemm utilizes a number of talking points raised in the initial article written by New York Times’ reporters Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston.? Posse Comitatus is described thusly:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Mr. Eddlemm seems to be insinuating that the Bush Administration violated law by merely entertaining the notion.? Which, obviously, is not so.? I can only imagine the amount of time I myself would be serving, or anyonefor that matter, if we were guilty merely because we thought about committing a crime.? Furthermore, who is to say that the President would have even been committing a crime had he done this, or who is to say that using operators inside the United States has not already been done period (read Eric Haney’s interviews).?
There are two troubling aspects with this article.? Number one, there are self-described Conservatives who seem to be tirelessly pursuing an agenda that parallels that of our liberal friends on the left.? Secondly, someone at New America is using The New York Timesas a foundation for their thought.? How far before some conservatives are quoting Sy Hersh as a respectable citizen-journalist??
-rj
Personal Democracy Forum: The Future of the Conservative Movement
I?m sitting in a bar.
These things must be qualified though, right?
So I?m sitting in a sports bar.? Sports bars are particular entities of the bar world in that they have televisions with sports playing on them while they serve the spirits of the normal bar.? This isn?t to say that normal bars don?t show sports on their televisions.? It just means that they are normally called something that starts with ?Mc? and they have fewer televisions.
This particular sports bar has a sponsor.? It?s a Fox Sports Bar.? Not to be confused as Fox, sports bar.? But rather it is a Fox Sports, bar.
Like I said, these things must be qualified.? Also not to be confused with quantified, which would be to essentially count something.? And I?m pretty sure there is only one of me here and there is only one Fox Sports, bar present at this time.? But that could change depending on the terminal.
Ah, yes.? I?m in a terminal.? Not conditionally, but in the transitional sense.? In this case transferring myself to a plan, which has now been delayed two hours.? If you thought to yourself, ?Bummer,? it was an understatement because I was already two hours early to the original flight.
Bummer.
So I?m sitting in a Fox Sports, bar, that resides in a terminal that is a part of an airport for which I am awaiting a plane to board which will take me to Atlanta four hours from now.
I?m involved in all of this because I have recently, at the point of this writing, left the Personal Democracy Forum Conference of the year 2009.? Following day one of the event I was certainly frustrated.? There were a number of reasons for this.? For one, which I?ve already mentioned, I was beleaguered by the progressive presence.? Yes, we are all tech people at this conference and we all want to talk about the influence of tech on politics.? But there are certain things that, while all of that is true, tech people on the left and right just don?t see eye to eye.
For instance, I do not want network neutrality regulated. Period.? Tech proponents of such a step are short sighted.? Talk to someone who manages a large infrastructure.? They will tell you that network management of packet transfer must take place.? Good luck with the regulated network neutrality Internet when your whole neighborhood is trying to get time sensitive streaming 1080p video across your network at the same time and we have locked in regulation that will take ages to alter.? In the spirit of Monty Python, ?I laugh in your general direction.?? Is network neutrality important?? Absolutely.? I will not argue that point.? But regulated neutrality is an entirely different beast.
But I digress.
Panelists were over heard making the following comments:
?This is what we need to do to see ?progressive? health care reform.?
?We need to pray to god for a hot summer to make people believe that global warming is real.?
?The ?Bush? recession.?
Additionally all our problems were blamed on the Bush Administration.? Obviously our current problems are entirely his fault, along with Batman, Darth Vader, and probably God.
My point in bringing this up is that if the objective of PDF is to study the convergence of politics and technology, then let?s do that.? It doesn?t necessitate bringing ideology into the mix.
I honestly believe that is what Andrew Rasiej and co-Founder Micah Sifry are trying to do.
I in no way believe there is an underlying motivation of promoting the ideals of the left.? And with that being said, heaps of praise must be bestowed on these two gentlemen for their fine work in putting together this conference since 2004.? It is interesting to consider the timing of this conference and the swelling online that began in Summer last year for Obama.? One must consider if more conservative presence (as in the attendees) was existent at last years event, how that may have altered the online dominance of the left during the election.? I don’t want to be ignorant enough to give PDF complete credit for what occurred.? But if 1000 people left the conference, and each one told 10 people, and those 10 people told 10 people…? You could see how easily the ball gets rolling.
The conference, all things considered, was a wonderful treat.? One that I would not have experienced without the Google Fellowship and PDF?s recognition of the work my fellow authors and I have done on this site, which I am of eternal gratitude.
The conference provided tremendous insight into developing web presence, establishing a bond and communication with your audience, and tools that can over night transform a site from drab to dapper.? The information of connecting with constituency and remodeling government websites to better connect and be more transparent with the citizenry is vital to the success of government in general and additionally vital to the revitalization of the GOP and conservatism in general.
This is a conversation that I hope more conservatives take more seriously and can join in on in the future.? It is no secret that the left ignored talk radio early on and allowed the center-right to take a dominating lead.? One that is irrecoverable for the left, as multiple failed attempts with Air America make astoundingly clear.? It should be very becoming very apparent to the right that if they ignore the convergence of technology and politics in the same arrogant manner that the left did to talk radio that at some point the strangle hold in the areas of internet technology and constituency connectivity will equally be unrecoverable.
Show stoppers:
Best Moment: Finally hearing Tara Hunt explain live and in her own words what ?Whuffie? is.? Equally great was getting to finally meet Tara after spending months Twitting with her.
Worst Moment: As mentioned in a previous column, the final panel of day one with Josh Silver, Executive Director of FreePress, was unbearably one sided.? Conservatives question the positions of telecoms as well.? But with no one there to present the center-right view on the future of telecommunications with regard to Internet regulation and expansion, the debate was completely one sided and a slaughter fest for Silver.? My memory may not be entirely accurate, but at one point I believe he rolled them over and actually stuck a fork in the gentlemen from Comcast & AT&T.
My Jaw Dropped To The Floor And The Girl Next To Me With The Mac Had To Pick It Up For Me Award: Easily goes to Apture.? If you are running any sort of online content machine or blog and do not have this application installed you will without a doubt be left in the dust!? This app allows you to finally start linking to outside content without sending your readership away from your site, keeping them right where you want them to be; reading your material and clicking your ads.? If you haven’t noticed, it has already been seamlessly integrated into our site.
Most Fun Presentation: Michael Wesch, The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture and the Politics of Authenticity.
Most Thought Provoking Presentation: Danah Boyd, The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online.
I want to encourage more conservatives to take this intersection more seriously, and see them next year at PDF 2010.
Thanks for a great conference.? I was very happy to be a part of the conversation!
-nick
