Real World Event Discussions

Attorney General Eric Holder: If the President Does It, It's Legal

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, August 2, 2025 17:53
VIEWED: 3054
PAGE 1 of 2

GEEZER

Friday, May 31, 2013 2:22 AM

Quote:
"I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive."--Eric Holder, June 2008 speech to the American Constitution Society

Since the early days of our republic, the Attorney General (AG) of the United States has served as the chief lawyer for the government, entrusted with ensuring that the nation's laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution."

Unfortunately, far from holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the attorneys general of each successive administration have increasingly aided and abetted the Executive Branch in skirting and, more often than not, flouting the law altogether, justifying all manner of civil liberties and human rights violations and trampling the Constitution in the process, particularly the Fourth Amendment.

No better example is there of the perversion of the office of the AG than its current occupant Eric Holder, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009. Hailed by civil liberties and watchdog groups alike for his pledge to "reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years" and usher in a new era of civil liberties under Obama, Holder has instead carried on the sorry tradition of his predecessors, going to great lengths to "justify" egregious government actions that can only be described as immoral, unjust and illegal.

Indeed, Holder has managed to eclipse both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, whose tenures under George W. Bush earned them constant reproach by Democrats and other left-leaning groups for justifying acts of torture, surveillance of American citizens and clandestine behavior by the government. Holder, however, has largely been given a free pass by these very same groups in much the same way that Obama has. The reason, according to former Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker, is that "Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he's gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush's every move like a hawk."

Despite getting a "pass" from those who would normally have been crying foul, during his time as attorney general, Holder has "made the Constitution scream"--that according to one of his detractors. The colorful description is apt. Some of the Justice Department's (DOJ) "greatest hits" under Holder begin and end with his stalwart defense of the Obama administration's growing powers, coming as they do at the expense of the Constitution.

Moreover, as head of the DOJ, Holder's domain is vast, spanning several law enforcement agencies, including the United States Marshals Service; FBI; Federal Bureau of Prisons; National Institute of Corrections; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as well as the U.S. National Central Bureau for INTERPOL. To say that the agencies under Holder have struggled to abide by the rule of law is an understatement.

The following are just some of the highlights of the dangerous philosophies embraced and advanced by Holder and his Justice Department.

The military can detain anyone, including American citizens, it deems a threat to the country. Not only has the DOJ persisted in defending a provision of the National Defense

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

PIRATENEWS

Friday, May 31, 2013 2:41 AM

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

AURAPTOR

Friday, May 31, 2013 2:45 AM

Thread correction. It should read .. " If THIS President does it, it's legal ".

You're welcome.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, May 31, 2013 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURAPTOR:

Thread correction. It should read .. " If THIS President does it, it's legal ".

You're welcome.

Yep.

But I notice that the usual suspects aren't leaping to Holder's defense like they did during Fast n' Furious.

Been posting critical articles and op-eds from sources as disparate as Fox News and Huffington Post, as well as National Review and the Washington Post, and no one has a contrary thing to say.

Could it be that the RWED liberals have thrown the AG under the bus?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 31, 2013 3:47 PM

Quote:
No better example is there of the perversion of the office of the AG than its current occupant Eric Holder, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009... Indeed, Holder has managed to eclipse both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, whose tenures under George W. Bush earned them constant reproach by Democrats and other left-leaning groups for justifying acts of torture, surveillance of American citizens and clandestine behavior by the government. Holder, however, has largely been given a free pass by these very same groups in much the same way that Obama has. The reason, according to former Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker, is that "Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he's gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush's every move like a hawk."

I take issue with several of these statements. Even your own article traces this back to Bush...

Quote:
The FBI alone has issued more than 300,000 NSLs since 2000.

Was Obama President in 2000??

Also, the left is not giving Obama a pass. If you think that, then you clearly don't know what the left is saying, so here are few of today's headlines to acquaint you with news from that direction:

Obama's Imperialism Makes Earth a "Free Fire Zone"

“Terrorism” and the Plans for Absolute Tyranny within the US: Our Need for a New Image of Human Liberation

UN Human Rights Chief Slams US Over Gitmo, 'War on Terror'

The Growing Boycott of Eric Holder Meeting With Press

The issues that the left was fighting against UNDER BUSH- torture, invasion, universal surveillance, habeas corpus, corporate control of government- are the same issues that the left is fighting today. So, where were you when the so-called Patriot Act was passed? What did YOU say about the government splicing into AT&T's international router?

You weren't interested in civil rights under Bush. That was then and this is now. So. What have you done LATELY? Did you call your Congressman and protest SOPA? Write to the FCC for net neutrality? Urge anyone to close Gitmo? Protest the treatment of Bradley Manning? Donate to Julian Assange? Anything???

Yeah, I thought not.

The difference between you and "the left" is that the left has a genuine interest in human rights. All you have is an interest in is slamming Obama. So drop the fake concern, it's not convincing and everyone knows that as soon as a Republican President is elected to the White House (whenever that is) you'll go back to licking ass anyway.

And rappy??? We KNOW what rappy thinks of civil liberties. Torture? OK! Rendition? OK! Universal surveillance? OK! Preventive dentention? Double check! Anything he says on the topic is pretty meaningless.

When I talk with anyone about this, it's with people who are truly interested in the topic and who plan on doing something about it. That means "not you".

NIKI2

Friday, May 31, 2013 6:33 PM

Well, this is a pretty silly topic.

Quote:
“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” ~ Richard Nixon

Quote:
Matt Lauer: "Why is waterboarding legal?"

Bush: "Because the lawyers said it was legal"

(quote at :30)

Do we really need to go back to make the point that numerous administrations have had that mentality?

SIGNYM

Friday, May 31, 2013 6:35 PM

So, NIKI- to be extremely pointed about this- what have YOU done, under Obama, to right wrongs and promote justice?

NIKI2

Friday, May 31, 2013 6:39 PM

Sorry, Sig, I didn't read your post, I merely responded to the initial statement. I'm not sure to what you're referring, so you'll have to clarify.

If you're asking in general, it would be a long answer. Do you mean aside from Occupy and other protest demonstrating, signing petitions, writing my representatives, working for and voting for government officials to be elected/appointed, donating funds and trying to educate others on issues? And if so, what specifically are you asking, and how does it pertain?

SIGNYM

Friday, May 31, 2013 6:44 PM

Quote:
And if so, what specifically are you asking, and how does it pertain?

It's a "compare and contrast" between the faux "concern" of the right versus the genuine concern of the left. Because I guarantee you that all of the right-wingers who are bleeding beet juice and ketchup all over this topic haven't done a damn thing, then or now. Thank you for your bona fides.

NIKI2

Friday, May 31, 2013 7:11 PM

Oh. Okay, I read your post, I thought you were asking for specifics or something, so I was writing the following before I read your follow-up.

I've been involved through the above-listed activities in trying to help with, off the top of my head:

Numerous state and national environmental issues

Protecting abortion rights

Closing Gitmo

Increasing funds for the V.A. and veteran assistance in other ways

Replanting Lake Ponchetrain and the Gulf (still attached to that group)

Killing the Patriot Act and things that came with it

Donating and advocating for ildlife protection

Fighting voting rights discrimination

Combating animal abuse

Advocating against fracking

Sponsoring two through Save the Children

Ending Citizens United

Supporting Wolf Haven

Protecting Civil Rights

Advocating for moderate un restrictions

Increasing alternative energy

Ending SOPA

Combating police violence

Advocating for local issues

Fighting privatization of prisons

That's off the top of my head. I'm on the fence about drones; hate 'em, but hate boots-on-the-ground even more, and people keep wanting to go to war... There are other things I'm on the fence about, so I try to stay out of them.

I admit my interest lies more in the environment and animal rights than human rights; my activities are probably 60/40 for the environment/animals over humans, and I'm less involved in individual things like Assange and Manning than I am in the larger causes. I forgot to mention; I make signs for and otherwise volunteer around demonstration, but rarely demonstrate personally any more because I can no longer stand long or walk far, and I write letters to the editor and I read petitions carefully, because often they are the opposite of what the person asking me to sign says they are.