You allow me to be lazy. I was wondering about Holder, and now I feel as if I don't really have to.

I was all set to comment regarding "times being what they are, I'll consider Holder's views on Guantanamo, etc. a vast improvement, BUT you didn't mention, Glenn, his callous remarks about mandatory minimums" - and then I got to the paragraph where you addressed that.

Consequently, "I got nuthin'" other than thanks for this one. And no GIH (Greenwald-induced headache) today!

I have heard that Holder had been AG when both the Waco conflagration and the Randy Weaver assassinations had occurred.

This is false (and easily researched by a simple Google search). See my comment on the first page about this.

Maybe I am desperate for positive news and reading way too much into this, but in the Holder quotes Glenn provides on the topic of 9/11 detainees and the Geneva Conventions, I'm tempted to hear a relatively thoughtful attorney trying to justify ideas that he knows, on some level, are deeply problematic.

He wants to remain "almost consistent with the Geneva Conventions" and call attention to "humane treatment," but still leave that loophole to enable (presumably) brutal interrogations...but he's not able to come right out (as others were) and advocate such. True, that's hardly a profoundly principled position, but hell, compared to some of the bloodthirsty and vengeful talk about "working the dark side" in those days, it's relatively rational. And rational people can learn and change their minds, eventually, based on cooler emotions and considered evidence. I'll take that over a dumbshit ideologue any day.

What's also striking to me is the reminder that we, as a nation, immediately defaulted to the concept of "war" and to trying to fit the 9/11 CRIMINALS into the category of combatants. So you've got people like Holder struggling to apply Vietnam and WWII P.O.W. conventions to a situation that really doesn't fit the mold.

Totally OT, but Glenn, are you feeling a bit self-absorbed today? For some reason, your byline shows up three times in a row. :-)

Appearances to the contrary, I had not read the comments (or more precisely, your comment) before posting mine.

How did you know what I was thinking?

Why should the AG work for the president at all? Why should what we refer to as the "policy preferences" of any president have any influence on deciding who in this country is investigated and prosecuted for crimes? Shouldn't such choices be based strictly on who seems to have violated the law of the land, not which laws the sitting president would prefer to enforce or leave unenforced, or worse, against whom he would prefer to enforce the Law, and from whom he would prefer the Law to look the other way?

Every other jurisdiction that I have ever lived in, apart from the federal jurisdiction, does not give the local executive any control over the local DA. Many do not give the local executive any control, or sharply limit control or even influence, over the local police agencies. They do this for a reason, a reason that applies in spades at the federal level. Direction from the executive has no useful role in law enforcement, there is no public policy reason to have it, and it has the huge potental downside of the executive misusing it to prosecute his enemies or to persecute hated minorities in order to gain votes from majority racists and homophobes.

The current situation, in which the outgoing administration has clearly committed crimes, and the only real question is the extent of official criminality, makes the need for total independence of federal law enforcement unusually acute. The new administration, because we have foolishly arranged things so that the police and prosecutors work for the president, will have to decide whether to let much official criminality go uninvestigated and unprosecuted, or go ahead with such. If it goes ahead, no matter how scrupulously fair the president directs DoJ to be in prosecuting BushCo, the other side will never admit that such prosecutions are anything but a partisan witch hunt, to be revenged in spades the next time they control the police and prosecutors.

Stop this cycle before it starts. Take control of federal law enforcement away from the president. Split even this independent power so that one official does not control both police and prosecutors. What's good enough for my state and county is plenty good enough for the US, and a lot safer.

I'm glad you find this generally a positive sign, Glenn. My number one issue in this election was investigating the criminal Bush Administration. Any chance of that happening, or is Holder a more political animal than that?

He wants to remain "almost consistent with the Geneva Conventions" and call attention to "humane treatment," but still leave that loophole to enable (presumably) brutal interrogations...but he's not able to come right out (as others were) and advocate such. True, that's hardly a profoundly principled position, but hell, compared to some of the bloodthirsty and vengeful talk about "working the dark side" in those days, it's relatively rational. And rational people can learn and change their minds, eventually, based on cooler emotions and considered evidence. I'll take that over a dumbshit ideologue any day.

What's also striking to me is the reminder that we, as a nation, immediately defaulted to the concept of "war" and to trying to fit the 9/11 CRIMINALS into the category of combatants. So you've got people like Holder struggling to apply Vietnam and WWII P.O.W. conventions to a situation that really doesn't fit the mold.

Well put.

The ability of someone to hold an irrational or undemocratic thought, but to clearly change it after a period of reflection is a good sign to me that that is a thinking person, and not necessarily one who is led solely or primarily by political dogma. It's a good sign, but, like Glenn and others, I'll hold out for more background and behavioral evidence before making my final judgment.