Same bunch of plutocrats and their enablers. Just a different political party.

YUCK!!

I just would hope you would get over this one drop rule -

Remember :'TRANSFORMATIVE'! And if you claim Obama for yourself I have the right to do so too!

Unique and brilliant as always, Glenn. But I think you've gilded the lily with your emphasis on the distance necessary between the AG and the POTUS. After all, the greatest AG in American history was about as close as one could get to a President -- his own brother.

Even if, as you argue, "Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that" (and I think the analogy inappropriate and unconvincing), that doesn't mean he isn't compromised by it.

Dan Kovalik points to HRW's recommendations that the DoJ should

"[c]reate meaningful legal incentives for paramilitary leaders [a number of whom have already been extradited to the U.S.] to fully disclose information about atrocities and name all Colombian or foreign officials, business or individuals who may have facilitated their criminal activities," and "[c]ollaborate actively with the efforts of Colombian justice officials who are investigating paramilitary networks in Colombia by sharing relevant information possible and granting them access to paramilitary leaders in U.S. custody."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html

And he suggests that there's now a question mark as to whether these recommendations will be acted upon if Holder is AG.

More importantly, the appointment sends a mixed signal from the new administration about its commitment to labour rights in Colombia and elsewhere.

The issue is not whether it was appropriate for Holder to take the Chiquita case, but whether it is appropriate for Obama to appoint someone who did take the case.

Did Holder ever say what status he thought Atta (had he survived) and Moussaoui should have?

Seems to me there's room to believe he would have simply considered them criminals, because that's the common sense answer. That situation is very different from (supposedly) capturing people in an overseas shooting war. And Holder was never in a position (an official one, that is) to make any practical decisions about Gitmo inmates, was he?

Further, we can't tell much from the quote referencing Vietnam. Again, he seems to be stating common sense there---that there is precedent for holding POWs for the duration of a conflict. Of course that ignores details such as a potential inability to successfully negotiate a prisoner exchange, etc., and perhaps he knows no more about the actual history of the war (or any war) than do most Americans.

between defending individuals and the due process that assures individuals aren't deprived of their liberty falsely and defending the Chiquitas of the world who break the law as part of a profit driven cost/benefit analysis--where the only downside is a adverse money judgement and very rarely a criminal or civil one against the individuals who personally hide behind a legal fiction to prevent their amoral decisions from having personal consequences. As much as the law has set the precedent that fictional legal entities and living breathing human beings have the same rights it has become quite clear that entities have greater access and ability to protect their "rights" than do humans because of money. And that simply doesn't comport with most people's sense of Justice. There is a difference of which Glen is quite aware, and he should speak to that. Is that to suggest all corporate lawyers are bad (no--some are even donating their time to defend Guantanamo detainees under threat that their corporate clients might take their business elsewhere--but there can still be legitimate questions about a corporate lawyer's do-gooder motivation given their normal client base).

As far as Holder goes, almost anybody (including that self oiling nutbag Ashcroft) is an improvement over Consigliere Gonzalez.

The report on NPR this morning was that he is "Pro death penalty".....

Also that Specter was upset about the Rich pardon.....

This will be a good opportunity to see just how much of a roadblock the republicans will be.

More importantly, the appointment sends a mixed signal from the new administration about its commitment to labour rights in Colombia and elsewhere.

The issue is not whether it was appropriate for Holder to take the Chiquita case, but whether it is appropriate for Obama to appoint someone who did take the case.

Let's apply this reasoning:

ACLU lawyers have undoubtedly represented actual terrorists. Would the appointment of an ACLU lawyer "send a mixed signal from the new administration about its commitment to" fight terrorism?

Most criminal defense lawyers -- private and legal aid -- have represented actual murderers. Should they all be barred from DOJ appointments lest we "send a mixed signal from the new administration about its commitment to" fight crime and oppose murder?

First Amendment lawyers -- such as myself -- have represented all sorts of horrible people. As but one example, I represented numerous neo-Nazis whose First Amendment rights were being abridged. Would my appointment to a government position "send a mixed signal from the new administration about its commitment" to racial equality?

Do you know any lawyers who haven't represented bad people at some point? Who isn't tainted?

http://www.acslaw.org/node/6720

This is the speech that's being quoted. I mailed ACS asking if they have a transcript and if not, offering to transcribe it. The transcription is going pretty slowly so if anyone else is a good typist, maybe they can do it. But I'll keep plugging away.

Frankly, I find Savage to be highly interesting as an ICONOCLASTIC thinker. The man is very intelligent. He is not just someone who regurgitates Republican talking points lockstep. And while he does lean right, that alone is not a crime. He is nearly as quick to condemn the right when it is being stupid as well.

Once you get past his bombast and your own virgin ears, you might too find him to be someone who makes you think and see past your ideological blinders.

Since I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist, I pick and choose my informers in the media and elsewhere merely by how much discussion and thought they generate in me. So O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter to me are basically useless. Limbaugh is very smart and makes me think, but his adoration of the Republicans sickens me.

Really, if you fancy yourself to be a liberal, it would serve you and others like you well to open your eyes to other thoughts. I thought that was the DEFINITION of liberal, being open to other philosophies (and obviously, I am always startled at how closed-minded, SMALL-MINDED, blindered, and hypocritical the left really is)