DELIVERING FAVORS TO CONSTITUENCIES—POLITICIZING JUSTICE-HOLDER

3/9/13

PART TWO:

Holder opposes the death penalty and favors draconian federal hate-crime laws. Then we had Janet Reno, who convened a grand jury for 16 months during the mid-1990’s with the goal of finding evidence of an organized campaign by national antiabortion groups to bomb clinics and kill their personal. She abandoned the probe in 1996 w/o securing a single indictment.
What is different about Holder is the sheer number of ideological pies into which he has sunk his thumb during 4 years in high office. Enter operation Fast and Furious which licensed US gun dealers in border states sell weapons to illegal straw purchasers who would then pass them on to Mexican drug dealers. When Holder was US attorney for the D of C he gave a speech to the Women’s National Demo Club expressing a need for society to “change the way in which people think about guns—and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable—not hip to carry a gun anymore. The reason behind F&F was to demonstrate how easy it was for US sold firearms to end up in the hands of foreign criminals—with the hope of fomenting public outrage that would trigger tougher gun restrictions in American. (PHONY)
When the ATF lost tracking of nearly 2000 weapons, hundreds of which were later recovered at crime scenes and drug lords caches. Both Holder and Obama maintained they knew nothing about the gun-walking program until after Terry’s death. Holder refused to turn over about 1500 pages of F&F documents to a House oversight committee investigating the debacle this past summer. White House refused to cooperate with the Justice Dept inspectors general, mike Horowitz. On 6/28 the house voted to hold Holder in contempt of Congress. (ANYBODY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT???).
Holders legal assault on state voter ID laws has not exactly been a success either. 74% in a Washington post believed voters should have to show some form of photo ID when they cast ballots. The elderly was 75%. 2/3 of the non-whites also backed voter ID. On 8/30/12 a 3 judge federal court backed the justice in blocking the ID in Texas. The panel held that requiring a photo ID would impose strict unforgiving burdens on poor blacks and Hispanics in rural areas. Even though the ID were FREE. On 10/10/12 a different 3 judges unanimously rejected a similar discrimination argument against SC. In 2005 the justice dept had precleared a photo ID law in GA that was identical to SC. Enter Perez again in a voting rights act would be violated in that state because 10% of SC nonwhite voters lacked ID in contrast to 8.4% of whites.
Section 5 reauthorized by congress for 25 years in 2006 not only intrudes upon state sovereignty by requiring federal micromanagement of the inertest changes in local election procedures. Congress has repeatedly renewed Section 5 along with the rest of the Voting Rights Act, rewriting the act’s preamble in 1982 to permit justice to attack state and local election procedures that produce the result of lower minority turnout.
Long before Obama became president he had promised his progressive base that he would reverse nearly all of Bush’s antiterrorism policies. “As president, I will close Gitmo, reject the military commission act and adhere to the Geneva conventions”. The military commission act signed into law by Bush in 2006, established military tribunals with their limited constitutional protections as the venue for trying foreign born enemy combatants captured outside the US. It was revised in 2009, to ease its due process restrictions somewhat effectively ratified the Bush adm use of tribunals to try foreigners. The AG was sacrificing national security to a preoccupation with procedural niceties for alleged terrorist. Holder’s decision in 11/09 to try Khalid Mohammed in a civilian federal court in Manhattan, meant terminating an ongoing military trial. New Yorkers were angered by the prospect that more lenient civilian trial rules could result in KSM’s release in the very shadow of the towers. In 2011 congress passed a law forbidding the use of federal funds to transfer Gitmo detainees to the US—a law criticized by both Obama and Holder. Holder still insisted that KSM was due a civilian trail.
Holder also promised a “reckoning for Bush-era waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA also the black sites. Waterboarding was used on exactly “3” al Qaeda linked figures, and fewer than 3 -dozen prisoners were subjected to any form of harsh interrogation. And it indeed appeared that enhance interrogation yielded valuable information, some of it helping to get Bin Laden. Articles written by Jay Bybee and John Yoo in 2002-3 concluded that the tactics did not meet the legal definition of torture and were permissible if not engaged in on US soil. As late as 8/09 John Durham’s investigation was expanded by Holder to include not just the alleged destruction of evidence but the CIA’s interrogation techniques themselves. He thus ignored the declination memos produced by the team of career prosecutors of the Eastern District who had decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute.
Panetta, Obama;s own appointee to head the CIA protested the reopening of the criminal investigation. Holder announced that there would be no charges stemming form the destruction of the videotapes. In June 2011 Holder further announced that he was closing eh cases—again because there had been no indictments. Holder maintained that his department had declined prosecution solely because “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Holder was using the CIA as a prop in a political drama. Since Bush left office, Obama’s drone strikes have killed orders of magnitude more suspected terrorist than interrogation at CIA black sites ever did. Holder argued as early as March 2012 for the constitutionally of using drones to kill American citizens abroad who were suspected of Al-Qaeda ties.
John Brennan in a speech last year that the fatal strikes were “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense”.

Source—weekly standard, charlotte allen

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s