Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2012

Eric Holder in 2004: No Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens; Eric Holder in 2012: Kill Them Instead

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:09 pm



At Verum Serum, Morgen quotes Eric Holder from a 2004 speech. See if you can Spot the Irony:

And yet a disturbing pattern has emerged. Lawyers for this administration have attempted to sanction the wholesale roundup and extended detention of Middle Eastern men on routine immigration violations, and the indefinite detention of American citizens with minimal judicial supervision, and without access to legal counsel.

We must be aggressive in the conduct of the war, and in the interrogation of prisoners taken in that war. But this Administration’s view, that the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief can almost always overcome what it views as burdensome laws, restrictive International treaties, and tired old customs is extremely dangerous.

Now let me be clear. This is not to equate American al-Qaeda sympathizers with law abiding Japanese-American citizens. But citizenship must mean something. The guarantees that come with it must be respected.

Well, of course, citizenship means something, Mr. Holder. Under your leadership, and that of Barack Obama, it means that we won’t tolerate the indefinite detention of our citizens with minimal judicial supervision.

We’ll just kill them.

President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.

That, regrettably, was the most lasting impression from a major address on national security delivered last week by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.

When will someone in Big Media ask Eric Holder why he opposes indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, but is OK with killing them?

P.S. From the above-linked editorial:

[T]he administration has refused to acknowledge that the killing took place or that there is in fact a policy about “targeted killings” of Americans.

It has even refused to acknowledge the existence of a Justice Department memo providing legal justification for killing American citizens, even though that memo has been reported by The Times and others. It is beyond credibility that Mr. Obama ordered the Awlaki killing without getting an opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Even President George W. Bush took the trouble to have lawyers in that office cook up a memo justifying torture.

Will Big Media continue to demand the production of the memo justifying killing Americans?

33 Responses to “Eric Holder in 2004: No Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens; Eric Holder in 2012: Kill Them Instead”

  1. We have reached the point in the Obama Administration that we should be grateful Eric Holder hasn’t gunwalked Predator Drones to Mexican Drug Cartels.

    Yet.

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  2. Along this same line, one of my favorite editorials in recent memory was Bill McGurn in the WSJ comparing Holder’s fellow traveler Harold Koh during Bush and after Bush:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637140268299356.html

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  3. This makes perfect sense. Killing leaves no legal mess. Indefinite detention is a huge legal mess.

    Politically, this is a no-brainer.

    Of course, if you’re more interested in intel value and actual justice issues, then you have to deal with these issues in a way that often leads to legal messes that Bush often waded into. But this is not anything like the Bush administration.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  4. It sickens me how many republicans were okay with NDAA and even cheering Obama for killing alwhatever. Especially with who this administration considers “the enemy.”

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  5. Bush may have been wrong with the patriot act, but at least we knew his intentions. This administration is all over the map.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  6. But this is not anything like the Bush administration.

    No, it isn’t, not by a long shot. However, the NYT manages to take a swipe.

    It is beyond credibility that Mr. Obama ordered the Awlaki killing without getting an opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Even President George W. Bush took the trouble to have lawyers in that office cook up a memo justifying torture.

    BTW, did I miss the left’s demand for impeachment??

    Dana (4eca6e)

  7. tell me what does the
    bad guy choose, waterboard or
    grease spot in desert?

    Colonel Haiku (1f8994)

  8. It’s very interesting to contrast the NYT editorial regarding Obama (linked in Patterico’s post) with the NYT editorial tagged The Torture Sessions regarding Bush in 2008….

    Dana (4eca6e)

  9. Glenn Greenwald hardest hit.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. Somewhere John Yoo is laughing

    But the truth is that when Obama took office, he was shown unequivocally that his ideology was wrongheaded and would get American’s killed and along with it his chances of reelection.

    So he chameleoned

    SteveG (e27d71)

  11. If by “Big Media” you mean the NYT/Wapo/alphabet networks cabal, the answer is:
    NO!

    Any issue that is an embarrassment to Teh Won, is a non-issue to them.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e2c82b)

  12. So he chameleoned

    Comment by SteveG

    Steve Hayes has a great article on the reasons Obama spoke out against the War early on. It was purely about… wait for this shocker… himself.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/politician-chief_633412.html

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  13. Well the attorneys who would be filing accusations
    against the latter, are with few exceptions now in the Justice Department, irony, has a tang to it.

    narciso (87e966)

  14. None of the other Democrats attacks on the Bush admin war policies were in good faith. Not a single one, at any time.

    SPQR (7d5a85)

  15. He supported the war, from 2004-2006, but that was for unprincipled reasons;

    http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/02/rezko-auchi-and-obama.html

    narciso (87e966)

  16. Which in turn leads in this direction;

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25282

    It’s curious, Fitz investigations never followed these leads.

    narciso (87e966)

  17. liberals ask us
    just give 0bama some time
    twenty five to life?

    Colonel Haiku (1f8994)

  18. I can’t believe National Soros Radio hasn’t told me about this… remember how they hounded that mexican attorney general guy mercilessly until the poor little bitch had to resign?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  19. Holder has made it illegal for AMERICAN GUNS to be SOLD to MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS and to KILL AMERICAN law enforcement officers. Then he has made it legal to lie about that to Congress.

    Any admin in our HISTORY would have had CRIMINAL CHARGES brought against it’s A.G.
    They don’t care what the law is. They make it up as they go.

    Gus (694db4)

  20. “When will someone in Big Media ask Eric Holder why he opposes indefinite detention of U.S. citizens…”

    Are you kidding me? This is the party that brought you executive order 9066 and made a hero out of the guy who issued it. They don’t oppose doing that on principle, even when they know the people they’re doing it to are loyal American citizens.

    What the Dems object to is being out of power, and they’ll do whatever they have to do, up to and including engaging in systematic treason and espionage, to cripple any POTUS who isn’t part of their vile party.

    Killing guys like al Awalki is perfectly fine per se. Having a bunch of traitors running the country is not o.k., and, that’s what the Dems always have been, and still are. They’ll betray America at the drop of a hat to get power. They did it in the Civil War, they did it in Vietnam, and they did it to Bush II. And, they’re going to do it again, the minute it looks to them like it will pay off.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  21. President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.

    I guess Lincoln didn’t order the killing of all those confederate soldiers. They just kind of collided with stray bullets, or something.

    Andrew (453190)

  22. 15. I think the Weekly Standard article is more about why e opposed the Iraq war and that he opposed it for unprincipled reasons. The article asks did Obama have intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

    But Syria now has weapons of mass destruction, or so Obama believes, and Obama is not planning to invade Syria, but only to seize them, in conjunction with Jordan, in the event Assad falls, and only under some kind of international auspices, if not the United Nations, then the Arab League, and only in circumstances where they wouldn’t have to fight their way into the country.

    So he’s consistent. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a foolish consistency or that he didn’t adopt this point of view in the first place for political reason

    Sammy Finkelman (63b67e)

  23. WAR!: In “Dangerous Liaisons”, the Glenn Close character is being bullied into sexual submission by the one played by John Malkovitch. She DOES NOT roll over and take it. She DOES NOT compromise. A three-prong battle strategy to counter the elite media and Obama’s minions is provided at the link. We are in TOTAL WAR.

    Mutnodjmet (c4995d)

  24. Is there any evidence that Alaki actually killed anyone? Did he plan, finance or facilitate any killing? If all he did was state an opinion that a muslim would be justified in the eyes of islam killing in adversary in a Jihad, would that opinion be a crime or would it be protected under the first amendment? Even if he committed a capital crime, don’t we need to put him on trial before we execute him?

    The Constitution is supposed to protect the citizens from the state.

    Arch (0baa7b)

  25. Dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    JD (318f81)

  26. ‘Shirley he can’t be serious.

    narciso (87e966)

  27. Awlaki has counseled two sets of 9/11 hijacker, his material hs been present in plots from London to Toronto, and everywhere in between

    narciso (87e966)

  28. Narciso:

    “Awlaki has counseled two sets of 9/11 hijacker, his material hs been present in plots from London to Toronto, and everywhere in between.”

    What is the nature of “his material”? Are they plans or specific targets or are they just islamist judgments of right and wrong?

    If an Administration is going to kill an American citizen, what are their limitations?

    Arch (0baa7b)

  29. If you check it out, the two statements represent separate issues—unless of course you are an ultra-conservative, and prone to conflation.

    tadcf (6f3ab1)

  30. I almost hesitate to ask, but I’ve always been curious as to what does “ultra conservative” mean. We have Ultra Palmolive sitting on our sink ledge and it’s considered to be the better, newer, higher end kind –but how does the word “ultra” apply to politics>

    elissa (7aa0fd)

  31. “Nidal Hassan is a hero…. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam….. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

    “The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right—­rather the duty­—to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy…. May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance, and steadfastness, and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen.”–al Awlaki

    The guy was an out and out traitor and a propagandist for Muslim terrorists, and whacking him out is okay by me. This is war, not a tea party.

    What’s not okay is having the Dems run America, because they’re a bunch of Godamned traitors who, if George Bush was still running the country, would be doing everyhing in their power to help guys like him, instead of killing them.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  32. Obamas and holders policies are having the effect of a take no prisoners order to our military. If they capture someone they have to read him his rights under our constitution and may not torture him with torture covering anything that might work. Then after feeding , housing, giving them medical treatment, libraries, and soccer fields they are set free to kill again so the logical thing to do is have no survivors in combat operations

    dunce (15d7dc)

  33. Listen to tadcf, expert in conflating ad homs and non sequiturs

    Icy (306668)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3271 secs.