omooex is neither (omooex = good, so !omooex = !good = bad).

Chris, if I could follow that, I would have become a computer programmer. All I want to know (having been away from the comments section for a few weeks) is, Does omooex = oomex?

I have enogh trouble without mixing up posters with similiar handles.

You'll have to refresh pretty fast to read the musings of the gentleman in question. He's on a tear and his stuff is pulled down as fast as GG can delete him.

He may be writing a strong letter of protest to Salon right now for not getting to post, he made that threat earlier.

you are providing a really valuable service.

i might have a slightly different reading on this Holder comment than you do:

Ironically, the account of Holder's ACS speech that Digby cited (I haven't been able to find the full text of Holder's speech) claims that Holder said "it was disgraceful that the Supreme Court 'had to order the president to treat detainees in accord with the Geneva Convention'" -- a criticism that would also seem to apply to Holder's early view that detainees were not entitled to Genvea protections.

---

Perhaps what Holder was saying is that it was disgraceful that the President was so dismissive of detainees' rights that the Court had to intervene to tell him that they still had certain rights. Know what I mean?

Keep doing what you do. It's really important to keep the light shining on this stuff.

"If the relatives accepted the rights of the father"

At the time of the illegal raid, the "rights of the father" in this case had not been determined by a court.

"the relatives defied an order by the Department of Justice"

There was no court order authorizing the INS to raid the home. They defied the constitution.

An order written by the President, or his Attorney General, does not give law enforcement the power smash into your home. It takes a court order to do that . . think about it for a minute. How would you feel if Pres. Bush and his AG had that power? . . . you're argument is weak.

I think the weakness of the government's role in this event is why Glenn left it out of his article.

You, sir, are a stalwart fellow. I enjoyed (which is to say, appreciated) your argument regarding Chiquita/corporate clients, etc. While, as a matter of principle, I agree with Glenn regarding representation, I acknowledge your point about the thousands daily who receive minimal (and I'm thinking here of court appointed attorneys) legal aid.

Personally I don't care but you can probably ask. He always likes talking about himself (and pretending people are listening). After all, it is all about him, all the time. Always.

see my response to GBT.

I think the weakness of the government's role in this event is why Glenn left it out of his article.

Actually, I left it out because I didn't know Holder had any involvement in the Elian case (and still don't know what he did - the decision is usually attributed to Janet Reno) and hadn't really focused on the legal arguments in the Tribe Op-Ed.

I'm now adding an update as a result of your comment.

I don't see the problem with judging the guy's record, which includes the cases he decided to take, when deciding whether or not you support the appointment.

Sure. I simply disagree with what you see as a "blemish". I don't see it that way. To me, the client is one thing, and the attorney is another. The law, as I understand it, depends upon a vigorous defense. It is absolutely critical. Regardless of the specific client or case.

This is bedrock stuff, imo.

Eric Holder served as a spokesperson immediately following the raid. I tried to find the text of a press conference from that time, but could not.

I have no idea if he was involved in the decision to raid the home. He certainly defended it in the immediate aftermath.

One of the reasons I remember this is because of an answer he gave when asked if the INS agents found any guns in the home.

He replied that he could not confirm that, which of course was a lie, since if any guns had been found, the public would certainly have been informed.

Glenn, what I am getting at is that we are supposedly a nation of laws, not of influence. If Holder's representation of Chiquita was based solely upon his knowledge of, and usage of the law at the time, I have no problem with that.

However, if the new administration's promise of "Change" is sincere, then I would find it rather disconcerting to have his choice of AG be a person who has a history of gaming the system - utilizing inside connections rather than purely legal means to secure favorable treatment of his clients. I have no information which would tend to prove or disprove that Holder's legal representation of Chiquita was anything other than straightforward but I believe that we should know the ins and outs of this representation before we bestow knighthood on him.

I guess it's philosophical. Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation which subscribes to the Who You Know theory of law.

I'm not against Holder, per se. I would be against his nomination if I thought he utilized other than legal (and I don't mean illegal) means to represent him.

I thought Obama promised something along those lines but maybe I am mistaken. I'm just getting a whiff of Versailes here and it makes me uncomfortable.

He may be writing a strong letter of protest to Salon right now for not getting to post, he made that threat earlier.

I'm curious what part of "Salon reserves the right to delete any letter at its discretion" some posters don't understand.

Derbig, do you really think there's a commenter called "oomex" or are you just being your usual droll self? There is a guy named "Paul Daniel Arse" around here, though, who's been really chappin' my Ash...