The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Google Seeks to Exploit Sony Cyberattack for Its Own Self-Interest

The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national security and the very safety of American citizens.

Accordingly, immediate public discussion should focus primarily upon the gravity of the attack and how the Internet, one of the most transformative and beneficial innovations in human history, can sometimes become a tool for those with destructive and even deadly intent.  While Sony Pictures, its employees, and its customers were the immediate victims this time, the reality is that this could happen to anyone and any enterprise.  In fact, such attacks on other companies and individuals occur at an alarmingly accelerating pace.

Leave it to Google, however, to attempt to profit from the attack and leverage it on behalf of its own…[more]

December 19, 2014 • 03:09 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
The End of Eric Holder Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, April 06 2011
By rejecting the Military Commissions Act and relying instead on federal codes of evidence and procedure, Holder wanted avowed terrorists to receive constitutional protections from a country they live to destroy.

Liberals in the media are busy commiserating with Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to reverse himself on prosecuting 9/11 terrorists in federal civilian courts.  To the chattering classes, Holder’s failed promises to civilize terrorists and close down the Guantanamo Bay prison show his pragmatism.  To the rest of America, it proves his fitness to be fired. 

The Washington Post says Holder is “making the best of a less than perfect situation.”  The New York Times mourns that “Mr. Holder’s dream…crumbled.”  If only Congress and the American people could have been more enlightened, more enamored of showing strength through weakness, the nice guys could have won. 

(Or rather would have won as Holder infamously guaranteed when asked whether terrorists might prevail under civilian court rules.) 

In the media’s telling, the vociferous opposition to American trials for international terrorists by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NY) and congressional majorities under the leadership of both parties is just the latest stain on America’s darkened soul. 

What liberals wanted was public-be-damned “statesmanship” of the kind practiced by deposed speaker Nancy “deem-and-pass” Pelosi (D-CA).  What liberals got was a tone-deaf ideologue posing as a frustrated newbie in-over-his-head. 

It’s hard to forget the self-serving sanctimony Holder and President Barack Obama lavished on themselves when they came into office.  During the January 22, 2009, signing ceremony of an executive order attempting to shutter the military’s Guantanamo Bay prison, Obama declared that “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”

Refusals from other countries to accept Guantanamo Bay detainees – coupled with congressional prohibitions on relocating them inside the United States – kept that liberal fantasy a pipe dream.   

For his part, Holder committed America’s most prestigious prosecutors to the ACLU’s worldview.  By rejecting the Military Commissions Act and relying instead on federal codes of evidence and procedure, Holder wanted avowed terrorists to receive constitutional protections from a country they live to destroy.  

In the Vietnam era, that kind of argument was formulated as “bombing a village in order to save it.” 

Looking back on Holder’s time at Justice, one fails to find a reason why he or Obama should want four more years together.  Unlike Obama, Holder is a liberal’s liberal; the kind of Ivy League, white-shoe lawyer who splits time between making big money defending corporations and supporting lawsuits that hamstring national security. 

Before being appointed Attorney General, Holder was a signatory to lawsuits challenging every aspect of former President George W. Bush’s War on Terror.  Though unstated by Holder – and underreported by the media – the current head of the Justice Department worked with other prominent liberals like Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal to slow down the process of terrorist prosecutions. 

Challenging everything from jurisdiction to variations on hearsay exceptions, Holder and his colleagues waged a legal war against United States national security.  Most damaging among their pseudo-grievances was the claim of right to access all incriminating evidence against their terrorist clients.  This forced military prosecutors to spend precious time arguing that top secret intelligence cannot be shared with a person known to associate with a terrorist organization.

That argument fell on deaf ears.  For Holder, prosecuting 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is about manufacturing a legacy for himself.  In an interview with the New Yorker last year Holder admitted as much when he said a New York-based trial would be “the defining event of my time as attorney general.”  

Much like Obama and nationalized healthcare, Holder and the terrorist trials turned into so much less than doing well for other people.  Rather, it became an exercise in self-aggrandizement, a way to justify a manifestly unpopular – and unnecessary – policy position. 

With his “defining event” now scribbled into the history books, it’s time Eric Holder got back to what he does best: suing the government and making millions. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Americans was the first to successfully fly a self-propelled, heavier-than-air aircraft?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Obama is hardly the first president to seek rapprochement with our adversaries and reconciliation with our enemies, of course. But his determination to make nice -- even in the face of clear and repeated rejection from the other side -- is unparalleled. For Obama and his team, diplomacy with rogue regimes is an end in itself, and any deal, however one-sided, is a win, especially one that the White…[more]
 
 
—Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
— Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. opening diplomatic relations with Cuba?