The confirmation of Eric Holder, Jr. is running into some trouble with the planned appearance of witnesses about his role in some of the infamous pardons by Bill Clinton. Some of the greatest abuse of the pardon power occurred in the final week of the Clinton administration, including his use of official power to benefit a family member with the pardon of Roger Clinton. Ironically, however, it is not the most abusive pardons that is attracting the ire of Republicans.
It is hard to feel sympathy of Clinton officials who assisted in the pardons of Roger Clinton, Marc Rich and others. The pardoning of campaign contributors and a family member was shameful abuse of power by Clinton. Holder should be questioned about his role in these abuses. I would personally like to know if Holder was aware of the Roger Clinton pardon and sought to discourage the President in the use of official power to benefit his own family or whether he raised questions on the other pardons like Marc Rich — who seems completely without a meritorious basis for a pardon.
However, the GOP is focusing on the 1999 grant of clemency to members of a Puerto Rican terrorist organization, which was not viewed as abusive but simply unpopular. Former pardon attorney, Roger Adams, has gone public with allegations that Holder pressured staff to drop their opposition to the pardon. However, there was nothing in this pardon (supported by members of Congress, religious groups and President Carter) that was done for personal or political gain — unlike Clinton’s other pardons.
It just shows that politicians can accidentally stumble on an issue of merit and find the one issue that involves not principle but politics.
For the full story, click here
Eric Holder is another totally corrupt Democrat. He should not be the AG of the United States of America.
I find it interesting how when reading Turley’s news notes he changes a word here and there and otherewise manages to interwine his left wing demented agenda into the article.
This is sort of like the Bush Administration announcing that 5, not 4 as previously reported, terrorists had been subject to harsh interrogation. Then adding to the report the increase was due to a redefinition of harsh interrogation and not suddenly finding their numbers were wrong.
the Turley Olbermann Maddow take on this would be “Bush Administration now tells us 25 PERCENT more detainees had been tortured than previously reported!” Then they would switch to Tom Wolf of Newsweek who would say “The world is stunned by this revelation and the outrage is pouring in”.
See what a word or two can do and Turley does it consistanly here.
“It just shows that politicians can accidentally stumble on an issue of merit and find the one issue that involves not principle but politics.”
———————————————————————–
This sums up not only politicians but our press at this time. When it comes to constantly missing what’s important and focusing on the tangential or celebrity realated issues, “I don’t believe in accidents”. This is a consistent and dangerous pattern. It seems they all follow the DOD manual on civilian psy-ops– FOCUS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE MEANINGFUL ISSUES. If ever there was a time for hard hitting investigation, this would be it. Surrealistically, this is no where in sight.
I have seen some articles suggesting that Holder is not qualified because of these pardon issues. In light of our past experience with Gonzo and Mukasey, my only question in the hearing room would be will Holder represent the People or the president? We don’t need any more yes men like Gonzo and Mukasey. They have turned the Constitution on its ear and they both need to spend some quality time preparing for the defense of their felony charges.
I think we should set up a pool to see who can guess the “name” of the next Troll will be. I think the next Troll should be named Gomer. When I see the latest troll named “Bell” I think of the character from “Paper Chase” who was named Bell. Even a troll would not want to be named after that heel.
rafflaw,
That is a good question and I think JT’s query would answer it. He wants a straight answer to this question; is waterboarding torture?
I find it interesting how when reading Turley’s news notes he changes a word here and there and otherewise manages to interwine his left wing demented agenda into the article.
bell, you are obviously cracked and your clapper is spewing claptrap that is not ringing true.
Professor Turley always provides a link to the full story which all of the literate and open-minded readers of this blawg access for more detail. The information within this blawg is space limited and Turley adds his wit to the articles that are not part of the original full story. If you do not or cannot understand the process, then your bell is cracked and fouled up beyond repair.
Regarding the topic, I do not like Mr. Holder and I think Mr. Obama could find a more honest, ethical, and acceptable AG.
Mr. Clinton destroyed the honor of the presidency, became a salacious joke, and most critically by his actions, he set the stage for the religious backlash that allowed the election of the disastrous Mr. Bush.
Clinton’s pardon decisions were unpardonable and Mr. Holder could have strongly opposed and advised against those decisions. Mr. Holder was a key player in the Clinton White House ‘legacy’. I would have voted for Mr. Gore, but like many other voters, I was thoroughly disgusted by Clinton and all things Democratic.
Former FEd,
I have to respectfully take exception to one of the things you said. I do not agree with Clinton’s pardon of Rich or his half brother, but to say that he destroyed the honor of the presidency is way beyond reality. Whether you are suggesting it was the few pardons that were the culprit or the BJ with Monica or lying about he BJ, are they more of a disgrace to the Presidency than lying the country into a war that has killed 4500 plus soldiers and countless civilians? Isn’t it more of a disgrace to the country that Bush still says he authorized waterboarding and that it isn’t torture? Inherent in your decision to not vote for anything Democratic, notwithstanding the qualifications of the respective candidates, is the backlash that you are talking about. Would the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence be “unpardonable”?
All I am suggesting here is that before we get riled up over pardons, I think we should be more concerned about the bigger issues. The issues of protecting the Constitution and representing the people and not the President. Will Holder protect the Constitution and the people? That would be what I would be more concerned about. That doesn’t mean the pardons of any President are not unimportant, but they should not be the main focus. By focusing on the pardons, the neocons are steering us away from the major crimes of the Bush regime. The Libby pardon and some others may be the reason why the Republicans are trying to hang their hats on the Puerto Rican nationalist’s pardons. Ignore the War Crime President behind the curtain, and get me the wicked witch of the pardons.
“Eric Holder is another totally corrupt Democrat. He should not be the AG of the United States of America.”
**********
Even if true this would not disqualify him from the AG’s job. Look at Alberto Gonzalez. Corruption and disregard for law were written into the job description by Bush’s doppelganger Monica Doodling, er make that, Goodling.
Mespo,
Amen brother!
LOL! Did you see Obama on Stephanoupolis this AM! He is back pedaling from EVERY campaign statement he made, including “torture”. Stephanoupolis read the following statement Cheney made and Obama said he would pay particular attention to the advice:
“If I had advice to give it would be, before you (Obama) start to implement your campaign rhetoric, you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it, because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead,” Cheney told CBS Radio.
Obama was also flustered when asked what directives he would give the CIA and interrogation. He replied along the line that obviously he doesn’t want to endanger the country by causing CIA operatives to have to continually look behind their back.
So, bell, that should make you happy and more excited about Obama’s Presidency, yes? Otherwise, you’re in the position of bitching regardless of what he does or says which makes you a troll.
As for me, I don’t think too may folks are worried about it one way or the other. I think Congressmn Conyers and Wexler will have something to say about the matter. The fact is that Obama is IN and the evil-doers and many of their Congressional and Senate cabal are OUT. Ahhhhhh! It feels great to have our country back.
Bell,
Ringing in the New Year with more Bush loving platitudes and Democrat put downs. Just another gutless right winger hiding behind his alias and taking potshots fed to him by the likes of Fox News, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. what’s so pathetic about you is that you belief that you’re having so much fun getting under our skins. The reality is that we, both the liberal and conservative contributors to this site just see you for the pathetic person you are. You’ve been deluded into believing that an administration of draft dodgers somehow has the capacity to protect us, while all they’re doing is manipulating your fear for their profit. The most honest thing George W. Bush said was at a Texas fundraiser a few years back. He looked at the crowd with his usual smirky smile and said “Some people call ya’all the Haves and Have-Mores, I call you my base.” Somehow I doubt that you’re one of the “Haves, or “Have-Mores,” but you nevertheless represent his other base which are those less than wealthy people, who have allowed themselves to be deluded into acting against their own best interests.
Mike,
Your last sentence is a good one. It has always amazed me that so many people would vote against their own best interests during the Bush years. Even when you point out to them that they will not benefit by the tax cut for the wealthy, for example, they still just don’t want to admit that they voted the wrong way. I think the real reason is that they do not know what their candidate stands for and do not bother to investigate the plans by any candidate and they do not want to admit that they voted for the wrong person or that they were unintelligent in their review of the candidates. I think it becomes a pride issue, more than anything. I voted for the winner so that is all that matters, is the mentality at work for the “have less” Republicans.
FFLEO,
I must admit that I know little about Mr. Holder, but the fact that Karl Rove and the gang want to make his nomination a big deal actually adds luster to him in my eyes. Now I admit, knowing little, that even knaves and fools like the Rovian bunch could get something tight, sometime, but it is hard for me to trust their altruism.
As for Bill Clinton, I wasn’t then and am not now a fan of him or his Presidency. Where we might part company was in the fact that the Lewinsky Affair, pathetic as his part was, is just the continuation of the Washington Go Round of Adultery that seems to characterize men so empowered by ego. Many of his congressional inquisitors were also carrying on adulterous affairs, exploitative relationships, or hiding their homosexuality in the closet. JFK’s exploits alone make Clinton a sexual piker and LBJ wasn’t far behind.
My problem with Clinton began with “don’t ask don’t tell.” Forgetting for a minute one’s pro or con feeling about the policy (I fall on the side of The Spartans, among the greatest warriors in history), his immediate surrender on his own campaign commitments showed his opponents and supporters like me, that he was to be a weak president. Hilary’s health care disaster, phony welfare reform and caving in on other key issues led directly to the Republican’s retaking the house, the ascendancy of Gingrich, Lott and DeLay (three of the slimiest pols in US history) and the election of G.W. Bush, who has created the nadir of Presidencies. In the end Clinton’s another self-serving egotist, who just happens to choose the Democratic Party as his home team.
On the other hand though his takedown by the Washington establishment was based on social class and so was equally disgraceful. As you can guess I was never a Hilary supporter.
Rafflaw,
I agree, too much of politics on both sides of the aisle has become like rooting for the hometown football team and for most people that usually requires the suspension of disbelief.
Rafflaw & Mike S.
Later on, I will reply with further discussion regarding our philosophical differences of Clinton’s lack of presidential character rather than questioning any substantive differences we might have concerning Mr. Obama.
The important aspect now is that we all voted for Mr. Obama and we must ensure that his administration does not follow the same disastrous demagogic path of unchallenged partisan ideologies that many of the past public officials have followed that resulted in the ruinous financial and infrastructure declines we are experiencing.
Former Federal LEO,
When will you be posting some more Hamas propaganda links?
bell,
No more, one (1) was enough.
Caveat: a person must never immediately trust MSM or other news sources without in-depth verifications. The honesty and ethicalness of the 1950s/60s news media is extinct.
Here’s a link to an early discussion of Holder, both some very good aspects and some very scary aspects of his opinions (ie; detainee rights and abuse) written in Nov. by Glen Greenwald. JT also address some info on him under ‘Self fulfilling legal…” (in the search box) in his article for Legal Times.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/
Here is part of what JT said in his interview with Legal Times:
“Eric Holder should be asked the same question that Mukasey refused to answer in his confirmation hearing: is waterboarding a crime? If he refuses to answer or denies that it is a crime, he should not be confirmed. If he admits that it is a crime, he should order a criminal investigation.
““This is precisely why Mukasey refused to answer the question (after first stating implausibly that he did not know what waterboarding is). The appearance around the world of not only a presumptive war crime but our continued debate over whether to investigate is destroying any credibility left after eight years of controversy. The rule of law demands that crimes be investigated equally for crimes equally whether they are committed by the lowest and the highest in our society.”
Jill,
I would love that question to be asked of Holder, but why does a refusal by one appointee result in a no vote and the same refusal by Mukasey gets him confirmed? I would hope and expect that Holder will respond with the truthful answer that waterboarding is torture. Maybe a better way of asking it would be to quote the decisions that have held waterboarding as torture and merely ask if Holder agrees with the respective courts decision. It will be an interesting hearing to say the least.
Jill,
Mr. Sands also stated that the new AG must admit that waterboarding is a crime and then order a criminal investigation.
Do you know if there is a free written transcript of the NPR/Sands interview that you linked to last week?
JT goes into details that, in part, address your question in the Legal Times interview. JT says this question should be asked directly and I agree.
In my opinion Mukasey was confirmed precisely because he would not say waterboarding is a crime. Some of the Senators have agreed with cheneybush that torture was O.K. with them. They would be looking at the charge of war crimes as well. They couldn’t afford to put anyone in place who would expose them to that risk. I can’t prove what I just said but I think it’s a plausible explanation.
FFLEO,
Mr. Sands agrees with JT on that. I have the link to his interview below. Transcripts cost $3.95. I clicked on “transcripts” at the bottom of the page to get the info. Best, Jill
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358
Jill,
In my opinion, Mukasey didn’t get confirmed because he refused to answer the waterboarding question. He was confirmed in spite of that preposterous answer. It wouldn’t be preposterous for someone like me to give that answer, but for the candidate for the top Law Enforcement position in the country to say that, it was a joke. I will agree that the Senate as a group was afraid of causing any problems with the caustic issue. I hope that Holder is asked that question and that he bluntly states that it is and was torture and if any US officials authorized it, they will be prosecuted. I am not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.
Thank you Jill. I wanted to confirm what I remembered hearing Mr. Sands say.
rafflaw,
I will go a step farther and say that the Senate displayed a bit of professional cowardice regarding Mukasey’s questioning. I would have grounded my son—when he was younger and not so tall—if he had lied about the weatherboarding issue like Mukasey did.
rafflaw,
This may interest you as well: It’s an old article on Mukasey. Best wishes to your family and especially, your new grandson!
New York Times | PHILIP SHENON | October 18, 2007 10:31 PM
“President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which simulates drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects.
On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.”
Sorry to double post.
Let’s hope we don’t get a repete with Holder. Also see how the press says waterboarding “simulates” drowning. It doesn’t simulate drowning, it is drowning. People have died under this “simulation”. Notice how he feels about expanded presidential authority. There is no way this man should have been confirmed and neither should Holder if he feels the same on either/both points.
Jill,
You are correct that waterboarding is drowing, not simulate drowning. Mukasey showed us his true colors with that ridiculous answer. Thanks for the wishes. My grandson is adorable, even if he doesn’t look like me!
Waterboarding simulates drowning. It is NOT drowning.
It is torture BECAUSE it ‘simulates’ drowning. Otherwise, it would be murder.
People have died, but from causes other than ‘simulated’ drowning which is not only frightening, but can be life-threatening if performed ‘unproperly’.
Jill, I am going to make a direct request – that you stop perpetrating such disinformation, especially medical and scientific.
You are not helping.
LOL! So sad. The liberals are on a rant “WATERBOARDING IS A CRIME, WATERBOARDING IS A CRIME, WATERBOARDING IS A CRIME”.
Then when America gets attacked under Obama (and we for sure will they way he is running up the white flags) the liberals will scream “WATERBOARDING WAS NECESSARY IN LIMITED USE BUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OVERDID IT SO OBAMA WASN’T ABLE TO USE IT ON A SUSPECT WE HAD IN CUSTODY! IT IS ALL BUSH’S FAULT!”
LOL! SO SAD.
PattyC,
I don’t know what the problem is between you and Jill, but more than one expert has stated that waterboarding is drowning because the person is almost dead from the process and then the handlers step in to save him. The longer the person fights it, the closer to death he gets. Here is just one link for you to review: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/09/nance/.
Bell Pepper,
SO SAD, SO SAD, IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW, EVEN TROLLS HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE! WATERBOARDING IS A CRIME AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES. AND JUST TO REFRESH YOUR SHORT MEMORY, TORTURE DOES NOT PRODUCE ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE, ACCORDING TO THE FBI. SO SORRY, SO SORRY, BUT BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT ALLOWED IN ALLEGED SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. SO SORRY, BUT YOUR PRESIDENT IS A WAR CRIMINAL.
On the drowning issue, Patty C is grammatically and logically correct here. Drowning is death as caused by suffocation when a substance enters the lungs and causes interruption of the body’s absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. Waterboarding, though barbaric, merely simulates drowning since the person does not die, but it is attempted drowning, in my view.
Mespo,
I am not a big grammarian, but wouldn’t it have to be written as, “drowned” to say the person is dead? Drowning is the process of dying by swallowing too much water….isn’t it?
Anybody dumb enough to believe that Barack Obama is going to risk his place in the history book & re-election over whether to conduct harsh interrogation on a civilian murdering terrorist we have in custody – I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
The only question to ask is how will they (the left) present it as a 100% different situation Obama was in than Bush and why what Obama did was necessary but what Bush did was criminal.
Hilarity run amuck.
rafflaw:
I think drowning means you have died, much like electrocution means you have been shocked to death. I will check the dictionary.
Ken:
“Hilarity run amuck.”
*********
I hear Eichmann and Goebbels were a riot too. How’d they end up?
From rafflaw’s link,
“My name is Malcolm Wrightson Nance. I am a former member of the U.S. military intelligence community, a retired U.S. Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer. I have served honorably for 20 years.
Waterboarding has the ability to make the subject answer any question with the truth, a half-truth or outright lie in order to stop the procedure. Subjects usually resort to all three, often in rapid sequence. Most media representations or recreations of the waterboarding are inaccurate, amateurish and dangerous improvisations, which do not capture the true intensity of the act. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a simulation of drowning — it is drowning.
In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn’t know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat. It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation.
It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening — I was being tortured.”
‘Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a simulation of drowning
— it is drowning.’
—–
No doubt, his is a descriptive interpretation of the very well-known torturous procedure known as waterboarding a based on a horrific personal experience.
It is, however, obviously, a fact that waterboarding is not drowning.’
In medicine, we see ‘near-drownings’ quite often.
How else do you think Mukasey was able to get away with (not)
answering the question ‘Is waterboarding torture’ as he did
ie ‘I would feel that it was’?
He had no idea what else he should think, anymore than the rest of us who never experienced it, at that point, other than to say that it was already considered torture, worldwide, and had been for centuries.
It was already illegal. It was already a war crime. No matter what the administration said in preparation of, just prior to, or after the fact as justification or since.
The only question now is ‘Who ordered it’?
Rafflaw, my problem with Jill is that, too often, she doesn’t know what she’s is talking about.
Gotta go with Patty C. Her definition matches Miriam Websters:
drowning
One entry found.
Main Entry:
drown Listen to the pronunciation of drown
Pronunciation:
\ˈdrau̇n\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
drowned Listen to the pronunciation of drowned \ˈdrau̇nd\ ; drown·ing Listen to the pronunciation of drowning \ˈdrau̇-niŋ\
Etymology:
Middle English drounen
Date:
14th century
intransitive verb: to become drowned transitive verb1 a: to suffocate by submersion especially in water b: to submerge especially by a rise in the water level c: to soak, drench, or cover with a liquid2: to engage (oneself) deeply and strenuously 3: to cause (a sound) not to be heard by making a loud noise —usually used with out4 a: to drive out (as a sensation or an idea) b:
I am sure wateboarding will be renamed shower-planking when Obama has to admit his CIA is doing it to those that pose as imminent threats to us. Last think Barry wants to do is go down the history books as the guy that never listend to Dick Cheney’s advice.
“to suffocate by submersion” is exactly what happens during waterboarding. Remember, people have died from waterboarding. We often see articles about people who were drowning and then were saved by a rescue worker or family member. There is nothing either colloqially or medically counter factual in my use, nor in the use presented by the SERE trainer who was waterboarded. My actual point is something you are missing entirely. The media is downplaying what really happened to our prisoners. This misrepresentation makes our populace more willing to accept torture. I am sorry my point wasn’t clear to you the first time.
Mespo,
It is isn’t a big deal, but your definition didn’t mention death, but I did see another that indeed did call drowning as “death by suffocation”, so I stand corrected.
It looks like our resident Troll has a new name. Ken, I didn’t know that you were on a first name basis with our President-elect. Don’t worry, President Obama will never worry about listening to a future felon, Dick Cheney.
I must say that I agree with Jill when she says that the use of the phrase, “simulates drowning”, does water down (sorry about that pun) the ominous and torturous technique that the Bush regime has hung its hat on. The long and short of it is that waterboarding is illegal domestically and under international law.
rafflaw:
It’s a tough call I agree. Seems to me it does imply death with the term suffocation but I think suffocation can also mean discomfort through lack of oxygen. As you can see I am no etymologist.
Mespo,
I can’t even pronounce etymologist.
There is nothing either colloqially or medically counter factual in my use,
—
wrong again.
Last thing Barry Obama wants to do is go down in the history books as the guy that failed to listen to Dick Cheney’s advice and allowed America to get hit again.
Kennyboy,
The real last thing our President Elect wants to do is listen to the guys who were warned by the CIA in 8/2001 that Bin Laden was going to attack us with planes and ignored it because they were on vacation. However, what should one expect from cowardly draft dodgers who attained success solely through corruption and lies.
There is a bigger philosophical question that many on the Repub. right forget (or chose to do so I suspect) is that torture and super harsh methods yield poor intelligence data. You might as well flip a coin and write up an opinion. Humans talk nonsense when in pain, and leading questions at that time gives what one might charitably call B.S. not hard evidence. (The “non-violent” Polygraph is big lie as well) So it seems the aim then is mindless revenge and sadism. How are we different then from radical Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Maybe people like Bell above want just that, but call it “defense, freedom, patriotism” etc. If the tide were to turn one of these days, you Mr. Bell could be at the wrong place and time and will be subject to extraordinary rendition. Keep the phone numbers of leftist lawyers handy, (JT would be your best) for they are the ones who will defend you.