says that any decision about whether or not to prosecute war crimes should be neither the president's decision nor the attorney general's decision:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003867

[...] But the bottom line is that there should be no call about prosecutions until there has been an investigation. The question is really how should an investigation be conducted, and who should conduct it?

In the end any prosecution would require a special prosecutor, but who should handle the threshold inquiry into whether enough [evidence] exists to appoint one? Again, the Justice Department has resources for that purpose that cannot properly be put in play. There is one clear answer, which is for President Obama to follow the example of President Ford in his dealings with allegations of intelligence community misconduct with high-level complicity that rocked the mid-seventies. He should appoint a commission to lay bare the facts, putting what the public needs to know on the record. Only then should the call about a special prosecutor be made by the attorney general. He should have the commission’s advice and findings to draw on in the process, and he should take the decision avoiding the political tug-of-war now going down and the dark interests who are driving it.

President Obama shouldn’t be focused on the fate of individual potential defendants. He should care about the nation’s reputation, our commitment to the rule of law, and a process that is worthy of our best traditions and aspirations.

- - Scott Horton, at Harper's

I'm noticing that trend, too.

Years ago I used to date a lawyer who was embarassed to admit that he worked for a large insurance company when we first met. He joked it was 2 strikes against him. He later discussed that when a driver was being sued for $400,000 for a small fender bender they liked him being there on their side, even though technically he was defending the $250,000 the company would have be on the hook for.

I see nothing "immoral" about his job.

ACLU defended NAMBLA and also the KKK. So that was all the rage on the Right in their endless attempts to discredit the ACLU.

Scott Horton at Harper's . . .

says that any decision about whether or not to prosecute war crimes should be neither the president's decision nor the attorney general's decision:

I interviewed Scott about that article -- will be up shortly.

Glenn and others are incorrectly criticizing the remarks Holder made about the likes of Atta in the wake of 9/11. Holder was very clear and repeatedly said that such people are *NOT* POWs and he is 100% correct about that!

You're mistaken. I'm aware of the distinction you're drawing, but don't agree that what I wrote was wrong.

Holder didn't merely say that they weren't entitled to all of the Geneva protections. He said they weren't entitled to any: "they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention."

His reasoning was the same as the Bush administration's: that because they're unlawful combatants, they're not entitled to any of the protections. That's the position Hamdan rejected, and this is how I described Hamdan's holding: "it ruled that even Al Qaeda detainees are entitled to the minimum protections afforded to all detainees by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention."

Holder was specifically asked about the divergence of opinion between Rumsfeld and Powell and he sided with Rumsfeld -- that the detainees, to use Holder's words, "are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention."

I am the Loyal Opposition. There are millions of us. I am just starting to look into Holder--I do remember his going after Pinochet after the Letelier assassination--getting details. I suppose that is a good thing. Elian Gonzalez? You decide. Clapping thousands in jail for drug stupidity? You decide. I know we have a ceaseless, stupid, nonproductive drug war out here in Phoenix. Marc Rich--doing the president's bidding or trying to please or something. Maybe he was even floated (notice our pres-elect tries things out to see which way the wind blows) because it would give them another swipe at Bill Clinton. As for someone on this list who was happy to hand over his or her right to privacy--is there some way you could surrender without taking me with you?

Assuming that Holder is nominated and confirmed as A.G., then the partisan political background of Mr. Holder will detract somewhat from the appearance of legitimacy.

It's true that Holder was eminently qualified to be A.G. (and had already served briefly as acting A.G.) before Holder met Obama, but his becoming a political advisor to Obama changed Holder's position.

Holder's not a crony and not a hack but, still, he was a member of the Obama political campaign, and a more independent A.G. would have been preferable.

Of course, even if Obama picked Orrin Hatch as A.G., the right wing noise machine would still end up saying that any investigation or prosecution of Bush Administration officials (or of any Republicans) was partisan and illegitimate.

But still, since Obama has announced that he will have a bunch of Republicans at high levels, why wouldn't the A.G. be a logical spot for one? Or, even better, a logical spot for somebody who HASN'T been involved in partisan politics?

Can you imagine a case you would have declined to accept? If yes, what factors would you have weighed to arrive at your conclusion?

Once having been retained, can you imagine learning of a fact set that might've compelled you to recuse (is that the right word? resign?) yourself?

Not trying to bait you or set a trap here. Knowing that you tend to argue from core principles (in our adversarial system of justice, everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense) I'm curious as to whether this matter is absolutely black/white for you.

I think many (myself included) have trouble not only with the nature of the client, but what appear to be the likely motivations for accepting the case. You come across as similar to the ACLU lawyers - willing to defend "hate speech" as a matter of "free speech" principle. Or accused terrorists, on the basis of the fact that they might not be guilty. (Yes, I'm aware Chiquita might not have been guilty).

Holder, OTOH, does seem to have collected a big paycheck in order to help BigCorp, obtain a slap on the wrist for some heinous isn't a strong enough word, activity.

You don't detect even a whiff of taint?

And please (as if you need my permission) ignore this if the personal questions are "too" personal.