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

-- Tomhere

A write up in Wiki says that he is anti-death penalty.

During his confirmation hearing, Holder's opposition to the death penalty was questioned, but he pledged his intention to cooperate with the current laws and Attorney General Janet Reno, saying, "I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I will enforce the law as this Congress gives it to us.

O, Tom Here, a Cha`quit`a. huh. tease.

In past day, Cicero was beheaded. oho.

O bellow, sorrows, and so it's best I go.

Certainly, these clowns who got caught up in the ongoing war had the tacit approval of certain quasi-governmental entities.

If the combatants are caught up in technical definitions, then yes, they are unlawful in that the Geneva Convention treats war as something between nations or states.

But were that definition extended to cover large conspiratorial bodies that do not have a dedicated geographically defined home (free agents on behalf of host governments, for one example) then they would certainly be in a better position to be treated with some humanity.

The question is not so much the definition. These guys were fighting for, in their belief, the improvement of situations in their homelands, even if not directly for their host governments.

A civilized world would treat these guys like any warring enemies rather than trying to let them fall through the cracks, because in this war, as in any, part of the victory lies in the world public opinion, the psychology, of the methods in which the two warring sides fought the war.

If the bully can be made to look decrepit and uncivilized, then the victory, to a great extent, is already granted to the opposition by world opinion-- David vs the Evil Goliath.

defending the Chiquitas of the world who break the law as part of a profit driven cost/benefit analysis

Just change that to read defending the gang members of the world who break the law as part of a profit driven cost/benefit analysis.

Most criminals are $$$ motivated. There are a few that are just plain pyschos and derive pleasure from hurting others, but would representing only the criminals that are not motivated my money make a lawyer more "moral"?

.....

elleshum, the problem with what you are saying is once that you have any group that is deprived of the right to the rule of law in this country is that their is creep by demand.

If you say one group doesn't deserve lawyers, trial, evidence, the right to a hearing, etc. it will soon be extended to other unpopular groups.

First it's just the "terrorists", then it's the child molestors, then it's the drug dealers, then it's gang members, then it's people in radical organizations....

And remember that "terrorists" are defined by the government in charge. Today it's Al Queada and certain left wing groups like ELF. In the future it might be the white supremists and "Army of God" anti-abortion people.

I don't want the power to determine whether I have constitutional rights given to to anyone. I have them, so did Jose Padilla, so did Randy Weaver.

it's probably best to take post-9/11 remarks with a grain of salt.

I guess when the village has been attacked, it's hard not to shake your spear in the air with the rest of the men ...

Fortunately, those matters are being decided by the courts, and Holder doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to resist or stonewall the courts like the old DoJ did.

Baldie makes a good point - why is it that nobody ever considered treating these guys, and other al-Qaeda types, as common criminals, and the struggle against them as a simple law enforcement battle, sort of like dealing with the mob? That strikes me as the correct posture. There is an international aspect to terrorism, of course, but there are international criminal organizations too.

The "War" metaphor has lead us to retaliate in a way that is way, way disproportionate to the harm we suffered. This, in addition to other obvious abuses like rendition and torture, has squandered the good will of the world that we had right after 9/11, and I believe fueled the resistance.

The inappropriate use of force has been a boon to terrorist recuriters, by allowing them to portray themselves as plucky defenders of Islam who dare to fight back against the uncaring violent imperialist non-believers. If we simply treated them as the murderous thugs they are, and charged and tried them and presented the evidence in public trials, I think that would be a far better way to win the PR battle, which strikes me as the only way to "win" in the long run anyway.

Forgive me if I'm exposing my ignorance, but doesn't the geneva convention bar any sort of coercion in interrogations?

That is, it's possible (and from the language used, seems to me likely) that Holder was advocating a system where the prisoners would be given geneva-like rights while still being interrogated humanely.

Looseheadprop of FDL is quite displeased by the the choice of Holder. She seems to be mostly put out by his action in the Marc Rich pardon.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/18/holder-why-oh-why/

Despite the fact that terrorists may have state sponsors, it is still best to deal with the problem by treating the terrorists themselves as criminals to be prosecuted in the courts, and their state sponsors as adversaries to be dealt with via diplomacy.

In cases where you have an actual insurrection over political grievances, like Northern Ireland or Palestine, the only solution is to negotiate.

al-Qaeda does not fall into that category - they will not negotiate. But they can be isolated via diplomacy with their state sponsors, and through good police work to hunt them down. This business of invading and bombing countries where terrorists reside, besides being immoral and criminal, is also counterproductive.

You're the best Glenn, but disagree with you about the representation of Chiquita. This is not merely zealous representation that Chiquita is getting, but it is the best that money can buy. There is no way this can be compared to indigent criminal defense, where your reasoning is usually employed. This is representation of a company with very deep pockets. A lawyer is not ethically obliged to take on any case, and many would be willing to step into Holder's shoes and receive those huge payments.

I understand your reasoning, but look more closely at it and I think you'll see a mere defense of the status quo and the powerful. We have a system where vicious, and like you said evil companies are entitled to the best defense money can buy. The lawyers who provide this are then shielded from any blame because of this facetious reasoning that is drilled into us in law school. The poor, the weak are then entitled to representation, yes. But very limited as any look at the racial and socioeconomic make up of our jails show. I know this is very disjointed, but I just think it is wrong for a person, let alone one aspiring to public office, to represent a company that eliminates other human beings in pursuit of profit.