Glenn, thanks for the post - this is one of the reasons I read your blog. Information like this is very hard to get, especially in condensed form, from other sources.

Holder sounds like as good an appointment as one could have hoped for. Sounds like there is the potential for me to have to admit I was wrong about the Obama administration's willingness to perpetuate Bush's abuses. I fervently hope my instincts are incorrect and Obama and Holder will restore respect for the law in the executive branch.

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.

He was asked specifically about the split in opinion between Rumsfeld and Powell and sided with Rumsfeld, arguing that it was vital that we be able to interrogate them and that "given the way they have conducted themselves," they're not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. He then specifically went on to say that we could hold them for the duration of the war.

He was not advocating that they be treated like common criminals (criminals are incarcerated for a finite sentence, not indefinitely for as long as a war lasts). He was clearly advocating that they are unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to Genvea protections. He even said, when asked if they could be held "forever": "It seems to me you can think of these people as combatants and we are in the middle of a war."

As combatants in the middle of a war -- not criminals.

A small but important point.

"Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period."

Sorry, but to me that's just a crazy parsing of ethics. A large corporation that has made millions upon millions of dollars, historically, by exploiting corrupt governments and abusing latin american labor is not some penniless nazi in the Ozarks. Its not a question of adequate representation for a client that would not necessarily be able to afford it, or who would be shunned by the majority of other attorneys; anyone of ten thousand lawyers would be happy to file the briefs given the paycheck. If Chiquita went after a former high ranking official in the Clinton DOJ, its not because it was the best they could do, it was because it was their best path to victory. Arguing that a lawyer should not be criticized for the million dollar cases he takes on at the behest of slimy corporations with no regard for international law, because he is doing some kind of service to the concept of jurisprudence is--I don't even know a word for it...

The legal system in this nation is inherently biased toward the wealthy. Chiqita wasn't accessing its right to counsel under US law, it was accessing its right to the absolute best council that money could buy from a former high ranking member of the DOJ.

Its this kind of attitude that really turns average people off to attorneys. Legal professionals often make this claim, without ever recognizing that millions of Americans are defacto left without representation against colossal corporations or the justice system that have every advantage under the legal system. You never hear about these people, they are under the radar of pro bono defense attorneys and organizations. They just go to jail or pay lots of money and no one seems to lose any sleep over the ethical failings.

And by the way, didn't you argue that you were optimistic(if skeptical) about Mukasey?

Sorry, about the tone here. That statement really sets me off.

Jim, From what I see in the media about Holder’s nomination, it’s a done deal.

Paul, you precisely expressed my feelings about Glenn. Tell me where on the blogosphere where you can find anyone with more of an open, non-ideological mind who relies so much on facts and does such thorough research. There may be a few who match him, none that surpass him.

It is very clear that Obama has decided he wants smart, experienced people on his team. All of his picks so far, even Hillary should not be a surprise from what we heard Obama tell us about the government he wants and the kind of leader he would be. He wants and needs experience right from the start. His most significant theme that was signaled in his 2004 convention speech is unity. To convince the American people, not the progressive left, that he will listen and court all sides, he has to select people and make decisions that many of us don’t like, such as the infamous Lieberman decision to forgive and move on.

Glenn’s number one theme is hypocrisy. What I want most from Obama is minimal or virtually no hypocrisy. Obama and those of us screaming on the left can’t have it both ways. We are hypocrites if that is what we expect. You are either a unifier or you are not. In times of such great national and world peril, I will be supporting decisions that unify and do not further divide our nation and the world.

Obama has also said that he is leading a movement where the people will be listened to and have real power. We won’t know how much he really meant that until he is president. He should receive constant constructive criticism and pressure from the people if he and we are going to succeed in righting our listing ship. It is much too early to judge how successful he and his team will be.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield in his book, “You Don’t Have to be Wrong for Me to be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism,” gives us an insight that is going to guide me. A book reviewer on Amazon said that an alternative subtitle might be "A Practical Guide to Saving the World."

There was a wonderful discussion on Monday on Chicago public radio’s Worldview show with Herschfield and a Christian theologian and Muslim community organizer discussing religion's role in the American public square. The three provided insights into a united playbook for solving a lot of American and World problems and were very inclusive of those who believe in no God or any specific organized religion. Here are the links to the audio of that program and the reviews on the book.

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_WV.aspx?episode=30217 (see sig)

http://audio.wbez.org/wv/2008/11/wv_20081117.mp3 (audio download)

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0307382974/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

The Right Wing makes its biggest mistake by believing that they can only be right by proving others wrong. People can maintain their beliefs and fully respect those of others. If we set as a goal that both sides in a conflict can seek a win-win resolution, we have a much greater chance of succeeding. When we insist on a win-lose outcome, we eventually end up with lose-lose.

I believe this is what Obama means by being a unifier for our nation and the world. As he makes his decisions, I will be looking most at how those decisions bring us more together so we can use all of our talents to make the world for my grandchildren a great, unified adventure rather than a horror show.