More than anything else, is Holder going to uphold the rule of law? I would love for the criminals in the Bush administration to get what they deserve, but at the very least, the abuses they promoted need to stop.

Actually, I change my mind. There definitely need to be some prosecutions. I've always felt that the lack of hard time for Iran/Contra led to the kind of problems we saw with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

the abolition of the Department of Justice and remaking it from the ground up. It has been so thoroughly corrupted and politicized during the Bushevik reign that I don't honestly think it can be redeemed by putting a different head on its putrid and rotten body.

Holder has flaws like anyone else who comes from that melieu (let's not kid ourselves into believing that the corruption of Justice began with the Busheviks, ha ha ha ha) but he could be the right person to guide and oversee a complete redo of the Department -- if any such thing were being considered by the Obama Administration and the new Congress.

Risks are many; necessity may will out nonetheless.

Any preservation of the status quo will not fix things that have gone wrong at Justice.

So far, Obama seems to be intent on stabilizing and reinforcing the Big Picture status quo. "Change" is for the margins, if that.

So I'm not expecting much from Holder.

On the other hand, if the Rs are true to form, Holder won't get through the Senate confirmation process...

I believe in things like closing Guantanamo. It is a huge embarrassment. I believe in the debate over torture, etc...

BUT - and I will get skewered for what I am about to say - I am not up in arms over certain things like wiretapping. I have nothing to hide - the gov't can listen in on my conversations all it wants. The day that uses that information in some unsavory manner, well then I'll have a problem with it. Mostly I have a problem with the Bush administration pushing these things through with a simple "we can do what we want, so butt out" attitude. I do believe on limitations on it, I do believe on oversight and control. I do believe that the possibility of catching under-the-radar people saying very bad and informative things is a greater good to protecting innocents from having their dinner plans overheard.

To make my point more finely, Liberty Gal said (paraphrasing here) that where the column mentions that under Clinton we did listen to client/attorney conversations, but not without a judge involved and she finds that appalling. I get that on principle, I really do. I am not blind to the cries for personal liberties protections. However, with a judge's involvement means there has been some presentations of evidence for the need/reasonability of the request. And I agree with Holder that I would not have considered Mahammad Atta a POW - he wasn't a hired soldier with no choice but to carry out the orders of his govt against other hired soldiers because it was his/their job to be soldiers. He was acting on personal passion and conviction in the justice of personally slaughtering 3000 innocent people. he wasn't a potential POW, he was a murderer with a big weapon. (and, as with other known murderers, once you've taken away someone else's liberties and human rights, I'm not overly concerned with yours.) There is a difference and I'm not advocating treating criminals (or even just murderers) like pieces of meat. But there are also lengths that I will not go to to protect the human rights of such a person.

I'm rambling a bit, but suffice it to say that Holder's highlighted comments don't bother me. I like a person who upholds the principles of civil liberties, while acknowledging that those principles can also be employed blindly, so they may hold us hostage and be used against us.

It is okey dokey with me if the government tries to smoke out heavily armed, suicidal religious/anti-government zealots.

You can always second guess how well the government deals with delusional psychopaths. But said psychos bear the brunt of the responsibility. Most of David Koresh's followers were probably innocent victims, just like Jim Jones's followers. But a heavily armed compound of religious (or anti-government) fanatics is a danger to the community and must be disarmed. Anyone who doesn't accept that Koresh started the Branch Davidian fire hasn't really listed to his insane apocalyptic ramblings.

It's easy to second-guess the government's approach to cleaning out a dangerous rat nest. But remember that federal agents were killed, too. Any tears for their families?

Hey, I can use all the good news you can send my way!

Glad to hear that we have one good appointment coming up. Now let us try for two.

:-)

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.

This topic interests me immensely. I did search your article on the terms "Waco" and "Reno" and came up empty. If anyone can point me to the reference, that'd be mighty appreciated.

Thanks. Good work as always Glenn.

The person who informed me about Holder's possible role in Waco was Michael Savage. I know that he, fancying himself a provocateur, sometimes plays fast and loose with facts. So I would be interested in hearing what really transpired.

That's the link to Glenn's comment about Waco and Ruby. It wasn't in his article, it is on page one of the comments.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/permalink/fd841cb7cd21f7c210a3046bff945194.html

if you are really our old 'friend' thrasher where did you get your information that Obama is just 'a black dude' - I always thought he was a white man?

regarding what really happened at Waco. There is something called rule of law and a court system to process criminals. Surely, our mighty government can be more decent when trying to deal with its wayward citizens rather than isolating, threatening and possibly killing people in a private compound in a way that multiplies the questions and leads to cynicism about government intent.

If Koresh can be taken down for not toeing the party line, ANYONE can. Hence, so much for religious freedom and tolerance.

As for Guantanamo Bay, it needs to be kept open. After all, we need SOMEWHERE to imprison Bush, Cheney and Cabal.