It's "hied."

God, you're such a troll!

You make a good point. Thank you. Perhaps a better word is privilege. Or perhaps it would be better to say that to uphold a sytem that allows the few to trample on the the many, or even anyone to trample on anyone is wrong. And I am not arguing that people should then be burned or whatever for functioning within this system. I am opposed to violence. I just don't think it is right to excuse Mr. Holder because he is acting within (and thus perpetuating) this system.

Perhaps ethics are better understood in the legal sense, as in what a lawyer is obliged to do. So yes maybe it is a question of morality. And right and wrong along with these other ideas are perhaps etherial and hold no concrete meaning, but these actions do have consequences.

Maybe I'll pose a question. Let's say a powerful individual or group (as measured by wealth or political clout) works for social justice. If they are then oppressed and need assistance, can they be said to be powerful in any recognized sense of the word? And I am not saying that power=unethical=evil. I am saying that a corporation that engages people to torture, rape, and murder is evil. Though I would argue that power is in itself corrupting.

Shouldn't jschultz at least get a dishonorable mention? I mean, so willingly opening a soft gut for evisceration by an eagle should be good for something. By comparison, those moose antlers can't gore a thing...

[Not that I would dream of trying to tell you what to do. You're doing a great job with Troll of the Day and I don't have the toughness to pull that off.]

toot toot!

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/permalink/b41752622a6cb57453fdd0204cbfb1e9.html

God, you're such a troll!

I new you'd say that. Here's the thing, my friend, either you support freedom or you do not! I myself, speaking from only expierience, have learnt the hardway. I've said more than once that GG is my hero! Well, he is!! I'm not ashamed of that. Are you?

I'll stop here so you can mustard your brain cells to think of how to respond!

Inspired choice.

I'm not sure how I ended up as the troll for trying to correct Derbig as politely as possible about his error. But I guess that's why they left you in charge.

I respect Eric Holder personally and professionally but the decision he made to authorize Ken Starr to investigate Monica Lewinsky showed either remarkably little thought or else remarkably little backbone.

Starr had to get permission to widen his mandate beyond Whitewater, which as you may recall was going no where. In order to show that the Lewinsky issue was a natural outgrowth of the Whitewater case, Starr asserted to Holder that by showing Clinton was lying in the Lewinsky matter he could establish a pattern to support his contention that Clinton was also lying in the Whitewater case.

By this standard, no investigation on any issue would ever be ruled out. By the time Holder approved this, Starr's behavior had already compromised his integrity as a neutral investigator. Why didn't Holder appoint a different counsel to handle this issue, either from DOJ or from outside.

So I always ask myself, why did Holder let Starr assume this investigation. it. Did he actually believe there was a connection. Was he too busy to look for another independent counsel? Was he afraid to stand up to Starr? I don't know but this was a momentous decision that, with Clinton's avid assistance, sent his administration into a ditch.

However --

"I personally discount -- not entirely but somewhat -- what people said and did in the immediate aftermath of the trauma of 9/11, and I consider January, 2002 to be part of that period. Many people who have ended up as important advocates for the Constitution and the rule of law made some early statements and formed some positions, undoubtedly attributable to the emotional impact of 9/11, that they came to regret.

"Holder's remarks came before there were any reports of the extremism and abuse that the Bush administration was planning. . . ."

_____

People have a short memory as to the extremism which occured in late 2000, when a far-right anti-Constitutional election theft occurred. That foundation -- the unconstitutional appointment, by the unelected SC which usurped the authority, exclusive to CONGRESS, to resolve the election dispute -- wasn't sufficently unconstitutional and extreme to not slip one's mind?

_____

. . . . Holder's involvement in the sleazy Marc Rich pardon is definitely a blemish, though, given his peripheral role, it's a relatively minor one.

_____

It is nothing of the kind, unless one relies upon the far-right anti-Clinton smears concerning that pardon. For one, the person representing Rich, and lobbying for the pardon for him, was L. "Scooter" Libby -- hardly a Democrat.

For another, Rich was not given a pardon in the form assumed: total. Rather, he was pardoned for miscontrued application of the tax fraud statute -- this was the view not only of Libby but also of some three DOJ attys. whose responsibility was to review pardon applications -- said misapplication having been applied by US AG Rudy Guliani -- and another aspect of his sentence was made more stringent.

The jury is out on Holder -- some of his statements are promising; others are not so much. But we aren't yet certain that he'll be appointed AG, any more than it is final that Hillary will be appointed Sec. of State. Both are qualified for AG; she is also qualified for Sec. of State.

The problem with your argument is that the Protocols are international treaties that our Senate have not ratified. Thus, we are not a direct party to them and, therefore, they certainly have no force of law within the US.

You cannot expect the USSC to base its decisions on international law that, by our Constitution, is not binding on us.

Except that the U.S. Constitution says (Article VI)

...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...

And the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says, (Article 14)

1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:

...(c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification;

Are you going to argue that the President of the United States does not have the power to sign treaties subject to ratification?

Why do you think the Bush administration withdrew their signature from the Rome Statute during the scramble to try to make torture legal for Abu Zubaydah in 2002?

The point is moot anyway, the validity of Geneva in all armed conflict requires at least Article 3 protections, and requires an Article 5 hearing (not a presidential decree, regardless of any "Article II powers") in order to reduce the requirements to Article 3. If there were an argument that al Qaeda must be treated as international criminals because there is no war, that's one thing. Then they cannot be held "for the duration of conflict" because there is no conflict. But if they are to be treated as adversaries in war, you can't wriggle the U.S. out of the Geneva Conventions.

Oddly, this situation is profoundly confused in Afghanistan right now, since the U.S. has prisoners under control of the U.S. military, but technically there was a cessation of conflict a long time ago, and the U.S. maintains that there is no occupation, either. Technically the U.S. military has no jurisdiction to hold prisoners there. Want to talk about extradition without hearings from Pakistan and Afghanistan? Eric Holder has a frigging mess on his hands to restore all this lawlessness to the rule of law, and will need help from the military lawyers as much as the civilian lawyers.

As I've mentioned before here, perhaps the Afghan government can help, since they can request investigation and prosecution from the International Criminal Court. The U.S. is not a signatory, but they don't have to be for the court to issue arrest warrants against anyone who committed war crimes in an acceding or signing state, and Afghanistan acceded in February 2003. Maybe Carolyn Woods can plea bargain for a lighter sentence with information incriminating the top of our current government. Bush will then be the rough equal of Omar al Bashir.