Freedom Line Blog

He is if he’s guilty of pre-judging the constitutionality and effect of Arizona’s new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, before even reading it.  When asked at a House Judiciary Committee hearing whether he’d read the law he’s criticized repeatedly, the U.S. Attorney General responded, “I have not had a chance to – I’ve glanced at it.”

Granted, reading 17 pages of legislation is a bit dry; so if the AG is looking for a Cliff Notes summary moved along by some punchy writing, I humbly suggest this piece.

H/T: Fox News

Another week, and now there are two articles dissecting Eric Holder’s tumultuous ride as United States Attorney General.  In one, Michael Gerson lists five consequential mistakes, any one of which would be enough to spur the Democratic blogosphere into a feeding frenzy had Alberto Gonzalez been the culprit.  Among his transgressions are incoherently keeping some Bush era terrorism policies while changing others.  The effect is creating a man without a constituency.  Then, there are the quickly reversed decisions to try certain terrorists in civilian court, close down the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, and give Miranda warnings to the undie-bomber.

Almost forgot; Holder’s planned indictments of John Yoo and Jay Bybee fizzled after being dismissed by the Justice Department’s top career attorney.

Not to be outdone, Massimo Calabresi attempts to explain away any threat to Holder’s job security as the product of partisan Republicans.  However, he doesn’t give one example of a major Holder decision carrying the day.

The overriding prominence of Obamacare is certainly benefiting Holder because it is shielding him from a much-deserved performance review.   Sacking him now would only add to the perception that the Obama Cabinet is staffed by people who couldn’t manage themselves out of a paper bag.

Unlike the specter of Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder has made his presence felt in this administration.  If President Obama ever gets a string of wins, don’t be surprised to see Holder announcing his intention to return to the private sector.

Though I don’t subscribe to the idea that public officials should be hounded out of office over policy differences, I do think there comes a time when a person becomes such a distraction that an Administration is probably better off asking for a resignation.  That time is fast approaching for Attorney General Eric Holder.  By all accounts, he is a decent man with establishment credentials.  He may even be a good attorney.  But he is not an effective Attorney General.

To date, Holder’s most consequential decision as AG was moving Guantanamo Bay detainees from a military court system to a New York federal criminal court.  Though the decision was apparently fought by the White House, President Barack Obama let Holder make the call.  After protests from everybody except the Justice Department, the decision is in the process of being reversed.

Now, it is revealed that he failed to provide the Senate with seven briefs he signed prior to his nomination as AG.  Republicans claim these are material omissions that could have derailed his nomination.  Probably not.  But all of these are self-inflicted wounds that give the president’s opponents something to crow about.  As of today, Holder is a third strike away from being the first Obama Cabinet member to be asked to call it quits.

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, publicly stepped in the proverbial “it” once again this weekend. 

Fresh off a round of blockbuster appearances in which he explained the remarkable intelligence benefits of the 50-Minute Undie Bomber interrogation, he made a speech at NYU.  In answer to a question, he sought to dismiss concerns about the 20 percent recidivism rate for released terrorists, saying, “You know, the American penal system, the recidivism rate is up to something about 50 percent or so, as far as return to crime.  Twenty percent isn’t that bad.”

We understand from The New York Times that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting some White House help with “messaging,” because of Holder’s inability to differentiate terrorists from common  domestic criminals.  Regarding Mr. Brennan, it’s just too bad this is an administration that doesn’t support “no child left behind.”

The Associated Press reports:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The New York Senate has passed a resolution opposing trials of terrorists being held in New York City.

The resolution passed Tuesday urges President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to move trials of those linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks back to the military tribunal system.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder are reportedly considering alternative venues for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial.  But both still believe it best to try the 9-11 mastermind in a civilian court.  They may be the only two people left in America who feel that way.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.

In the “not a big surprise” news category, the ABA announced that it “supports” Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try some Gitmo detainees in New York federal court.

Carolyn Lamm, President of the ABA (American Bar Association) and occasional lobbyist for Uzbekistan, wrote General Holder arguing that “[t]he transfer of these high-profile cases to federal court affirms this nation’s adherence to due process and the rule of law, and clearly establishes that these men are being tried as criminals, not as soldiers in armed conflict.”

CFIF has opined on these trials here and here, and while the Gitmo detainees are clearly being treated as criminals now, are we not now in an “armed conflict?”  How many Americans have died in Afghanistan because 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed decided to turn passenger jets into missiles?   Would American conspirators in foreign countries be tried in civilian courts for engaging in acts of war?

The ABA seeks “competent assistance of counsel … due process … and [the right] to be treated as innocent until proven guilty” for the Gitmo detainees.  Let’s hope they receive those rights without jeopardizing national security or turning a real trial into a spectacle that puts American foreign policy on the witness stand.

In an apparent expression of thanksgiving, a lawyer for one of the five terrorists to be put on trial in New York said that his client and the others are planning to plead “not guilty” in order to “give their assessment about American foreign policy.” And just what might their assessment be?

Their assessment is negative.”

Glad we’re spending millions of dollars to hear that message!  Bear in mind, the accused don’t dispute whether they are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They just want to “air their criticisms” while standing trial in the world’s media capitol. Perhaps this Thursday we can name the bird Eric Holder in honor of the nation’s #1 turkey.

Sometimes I think the best way for conservatives to dominate public opinion would be to just get out of the way and let liberals do all the talking.

A good example of this principle can be found in the new column by the Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts. In a defense of Attorney General Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda terrorists to trial in civilian courts, Pitts claims that the primary motivation of those opposed to the move is a visceral need for vengeance:

Pitts’ response:

But you have to wonder: Are our emotional needs the most important consideration here?

It’s worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

As prosecutor Robert Jackson put it: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”

One little problem. The enlightened example cited by Mr. Pitts was a military tribunal — exactly what KSM and company would have had if the Attorney General hadn’t booked their Manhattan vacation.  Never mind that Nuremberg only took place after World War II had ended …

In the aftermath of the Obama Justice Department’s (and, let’s be clear, the President’s) decision to bring a group of terrorist figures — including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — to trial in American courtrooms, liberals in Congress are bending over backwards to tout the administration’s moral superiority.

What’s notable about their talking points is how thin the gruel they’re serving up is.  Consider this gem from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan):

The argument by some that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be treated as a warrior and not as a common criminal misses the point. He wants us to treat him as a warrior. But he should, and will, be treated as the common terrorist criminal that he is.

As Charles Krauthammer noted on last night’s “Special Report,” the phrase “terrorist criminal” is, in and of itself, an oxymoron. But there’s also a bit of a stolen base in Levin’s argument.  Because KSM wants to be treated as a warrior, he shouldn’t be? How about a justice system that operates according to the facts rather than the feelings of those involved? Sure, KSM might want the glories of martyrdom — give it to him.  For every died in the wool jihadi who bids him well as he’s ferried across the River Styx to the land of subjugated virgins, they’ll be another potential Al-Qaeda recruit who learns that terrorism is a short road that ends in the embrace of an American noose.

Also weighing in was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):

By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world.

That Leahy seems to think that whether or not America has any faith in the judicial process hinges on whether or not we empty out the population of Guantanamo Bay into New York City courtrooms doesn’t speak well of his standing as judiciary chairman.  But are the military tribunals that these men would have otherwise faced not part of our judicial system? Or does he not remember being on the losing end of the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. Unfortunately, these days that water is in the Potomac River.