phred, this was written by bmaz.

and bmaz, while i am not intimate with all the details, i do believe there is a pretty strong counter-argument here that you have ignored.

it seems that, in a way somewhat parallel to the one-sided perspective that israel and the US give on the palestinian plight, there is an enormous faction out there who see and saw those FALN members as political prisoners. many many puerto ricans have some pretty sad stories to tell about US exploitation of their “territory” (some there feel they are an occupied territory), many of them just as horrifying – if not more so – than what the fbi has to offer.

for some insight, go here for one story:
http://www.democracynow.org/19…..esidential
and then do a FALN search of the DN! site for some full monty background on it.

in general, bmaz, i really appreciate and honor your legal insights, but i do have to say that you have been posting some fairly reactionary stuff for a while, and it is unbecoming. this latest just one case in point. you did not perform the journalistic research to learn more about the big picture. did it ever occur to you that the LATimes might be carrying the republicans’ water here? we already know from ew’s speculations that there are very BIG reasons behind the republican decision to delay holder’s confirmation.

please, look before you leap on these instances. given the political prisoner slant to this story, one you completely missed, this revelation might actually bode very well for holder’s tenure as AG. from a truly progressive point of view. too many knee jerk reactions like this one and you might find yourself an unwitting tool of the creeps we’re all trying to get rid of.

I just don’t see Holder making it through the 23rd, but his nomination has certainly kept the discussion away from Cleaning-Up DoJ.

Holder seems much more of a ’screen’ for the Obama Administration’s true intent with respect to Restoring Integrity and the Rule of Law to Main Justice, than a serious candidate for AG.

A core nest of Neocons, and Mukasey is one of them, know exactly what’s going on here – they have no intention, whatsoever, of ever allowing Congress or US to ’see’ Bush’s “Subversion of Justice in the name of Keeping US Safe.”

Since no progress can be made on the issue until after Bush is out of Office, imvho, Holder has been put-up as a BSO in the meantime.

I agree in total with lllphd @6
bmaz is pulling too hard on the right rein of his wagon team an will wind up in a neocon doj circle.
All progressives should wait an keep our powder dry on jumping to quick to support neocon critics.
Remember “one man terroist is another man’s FREEDOM FIGHTER”.
I have yet to hear any true citizen respectable Republican complain on Obama picks.

He is sorry.

OK, all set.

Aquarius74@50 asking where the cut-off point would be if there IS some move on torture prosecutions, is a good thought. “Our” democrats almost certainly knew more about this than they would like aired out.

I was surprised as a youngster on a tour of congress before Modern Times, though still repressed 50s, when the tour guide seated us in a mezzanine in the House of Representatives and told a tale of a terrorist shooting there the prior year, or some time fairly recent; I had little news awareness at that youthful age. It seems four nationals from the territory referenced in the instant Holder matter, had fired arms from that balcony during a vote on immigration matters. For a garrulous recounting see the seargeant-at-arms’ transcript recorded forty years later. In that rambling interview a very subjective account of subsequent PatriotAct-ish legislative activity ensues, describing the lower chamber which had held the reek of gunpowder, voting enthusiastically for upgrading security, but the Senate refusing to join the incentive.

One of the interesting features of the discussion around the Holder nomination, for me, has been the effort to define what precisely Whitehouse saw as the breaches in the appropriate relationship between Potus/OVP and DoJ during the US attorney purges /vote suppression scandal two years ago.

In college, a close acquaintance was a scion of a moneyed class in that island nation, obtaining as near to an ivyleague education as his family’s mores would permit, stateside. There are some documents online now available to recount the history of the difficult relationship between that territory and the US.

After formal education, or, rather as it disintegrated in a failed research project in Iberia, I observed some of the political roots of Latin American politics, probably as useful for understanding Western Hemisphere politics as it would be to have studied it at some campus on the Thames, which is to say, a distant view.

The tale of three-corner politics in Latin America is a difficult context to understand in a US perspective, deriving as our system has, mostly from governance systems nurtured north of Pyrenees.

My take was the Obama administration’s formation decision for DoJ needed to be as confident as a 59-vote shortfall of cloture facing a guaranteed Republican filibuster in the wake of the serious degradation which occurred 2000-2006 there, and that Holder was the politically agile response to that guaranteed opposition, as well as Holder’s being someone with a record of concern for constitutional theory. In the presidential primary campaign there was a time when Hillary traveled to Puerto Rico, where she had worked prior. There are some interesting archives of other people engaged in relations what that territory, as well, in some of the presidential libraries. It is a difficult part of the world for US policy, though one that will be managed better than the IranContra secret trade contracts approach in coming years. Maybe I would support 2/5 of Holder’s decisions, and 3/5 of the electorate would approve of another 2/5 of the things he would underwrite as AG. For now, those 59 votes, or 58 if the RNC keeps Franken from taking his seat, seem inadequate for the inevitable parliamentary showdowns. The Republicans have a lot of identity at stake in their new coalition which brought so many illicit policies during the past several years that they are going to show a resistance to any but the most milquetoast continuation of autopilot government, unless a new crop of interesting candidates begin to appear to change the face of Democratic party leadership.

Herewith each and every passages extracted from the 1999 HGRC report at the FAS site [the vault to Secrecy Blog, home of our friend Secret Steve: tinyurl.com/8kpkdq] in which Holder or his office is mentioned.

Cautions [related]:

#1: I exercised discretion in redacting some, tho not all, ‘inferences’, ‘views’, ‘takes’, ‘intepretations’, ‘extensions’, ‘conclusions’, ‘judgments’, musings, cheap shots, stretches, etc., interposed with the lengthy, not to say obsessive, recitation of facts.

On due reflection, I think I will go right ahead and call a spade a shovel: obsessive.

#2: The report was the product of a committee chaired by Danny Lee Burton.

For the cogniscenti: Yes, that guy. For those perhaps not optimally familiar [as in ‘Lord, take me now’], I recommend a refreshing dip in the primal ooze-pool of Congressman Burton’s ‘mind set’, most recent available on the occasion of Roger Clemen’s command [his own] performance before Congress.

#3: Those must have been heady days for Beltway chiros, what with all those matches Capital Hill grounds crews had to pick up from Clinton witches he was trying to set on fire.

“3. Justice Department Action on the Clemency

The Pardon Attorney had her first meeting with the attorneys and advocates of the FALN and Macheteros prisoners on July 19, 1994. …

[snip]

… supporters of clemency also met with Counsel to the President Jack Quinn in October 1996, and later meetings were held with Deputy Attorney General Holder, Attorney General Reno, and White House Counsels Quinn and Ruff.

[snip]

By December 1996, the Pardon Attorney made a recommendation against clemency and that recommendation was forwarded to the White House. Nevertheless, OPA continued to meet with or respond to requests from the supporters of the FALN and Macheteros clemency.

By fall of 1997 … From a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, it appears that the Justice Department had been getting inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros from both the White House and outside parties. In November 1997, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder met with clemency supporters Congressmen JosJ Serrano, Luis Gutierrez, and Nydia Velzquez. Th[os]e Members of Congress argued for commutation of the prisoners’ sentences and asked Deputy Attorney General Holder that he “render to us the ability to be here [in Congress] when these people are released.”

Deputy Attorney General Holder mentioned to the Representatives that the prisoners had not petitioned for clemency on their own, and asked whether that made them unrepentant. Congressman Gutierrez replied that the fact that the prisoners did not apply “reinforce[d] the political nature of who they are.” However, the Congressman said that the prisoners would provide a written statement answering the question of why they did not apply. Mr. Holder pressed the question on how the prisoners had changed since they committed the crimes, and Congressman Gutierrez said that the prisoners would reflect on that question also and respond in writing.

No decisions had been made on the clemency by the spring of 1998. On April 8, 1998, Deputy Attorney General Holder again agreed to meet with a group of supporters, this one from the religious community. During that meeting, the supporters of the prisoners finally delivered the prisoners’ statements promised during the meeting with Congressman Gutierrez in November 1997. According to notes of the meeting, the Deputy Attorney General discussed whether the prisoners would renounce violence if offered clemency. Reverend Paul Sherry responded that they “would not change their beliefs.” The Department of Justice participants interpreted that statement to mean that “they would not change their beliefs about the desirability of Puerto Rican independence, although [Reverend Sherry] gave a carefully phrased answer that did not make it entirely clear that they had renounced the use of violence.” The Justice Department asked the supporters additional questions about the prisoners, such as why some of the prisoners had not sought parole when they were eligible. The supporters responded that “their principles would not allow them to.”

During the meeting, Roger Adams, the Pardon Attorney, again explained the clemency process to the supporters. He also acknowledged that OPA was preparing a report on the clemency petition for the Deputy Attorney General. … In addition, in response to questions from the supporters as to the timing of the report, the Deputy Attorney General told them that “it would likely be fairly quickly” and added that they “had delayed its final preparation until after [that] meeting.” Between the first meetings and the meeting on April 8, 1998, it is unclear whether OPA revised its guidelines to allow for the sharing of information with clemency supporters. In fact, the representation that a decision would be made soon, was later used by the attorneys for the prisoners as a basis for complaining about their treatment…

[snip]

The President announced his offer of clemency to the members of FALN and Macheteros on August 11, 1999. On August 23, 1999, Pardon Attorney Adams sent an electronic mail message to Jamie Orenstein in the Deputy Attorney General’s office regarding the FALN terrorists. Adams stated, “[a]lthough noe [sic] of the 13 were actually convicted of a bombing, the group with which most of them are associated – the FALN – certainly was responsible for over 100 bombings about 20 years ago.”

This statement by the Pardon Attorney is misleading. The 12 FALN members all were indicted and convicted of the seditious conspiracy alleged in Count 1 of their indictments. That meant that a jury found that they participated in a conspiracy, the result of which was the placement and detonation of 28 bombs at specific locations. All 12 were convicted of this count. …the Department of Justice transmitted its second report on the prisoners to the White House on July 8, 1999. … it is apparent that between December 1996 and the fall of 1997, the Department began to write another report and recommendation to the President. This is particularly odd because the Justice Department report is only a recommendation that the President need not follow.

[snip]

As part of the clemency process, OPA requested the recommendations of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices that tried the cases involving the FALN and Macheteros members. Although the President has claimed privilege over the actual recommendations, it became clear through documents and testimony that the U.S. Attorneys, sentencing judges, and FBI all opposed a grant of clemency to the proposed individuals.

[snip]

As early as 1994, the United States Attorneys from Connecticut and the Northern District of Illinois informed OPA of their opposition to clemency for the FALN and Macheteros members. However, the President has claimed executive privilege over those letters. … After the decision on clemency was made, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder prepared to make courtesy calls to the United States Attorneys for the districts in which the 16 clemency grantees were convicted. Talking points prepared for Mr. Holder in anticipation of the telephone call to U.S. Attorney Scott Lassar state that, “[t]he United States Attorney for the N.D. Illinois recommended strongly against commutation of sentence. Also, one of the sentencing judges in the N.D. Illinois was quoted in the print media as opposing clemency.” Similarly, talking points prepared for the telephone conversation with U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Stephen Robinson state, “[t]he United States Attorney strongly opposed clemency in these cases. The sentencing judge also expressed the view that the sentences should stand.”

[snip]

Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter. Meanwhile, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General Roger Adams was appointed Pardon Attorney. It appears from the privilege log that Adams began working on the clemency matter for OPA.

The issue of clemency for the FALN and Macheteros prisoners picked up again in the summer of 1998. On May 19, 1998, Pardon Attorney Adams sent Deputy Attorney General Holder a 48-page draft memorandum to the President, “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Several months later, the Attorney General was informed of the new activity concerning the clemency. On August 7, 1998, the Pardon Attorney prepared a two-page memorandum regarding the history of the clemency request, which was forwarded to Attorney General Reno on the following day. By the end of August, the Pardon Attorney and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General were again working on drafts of the clemency report. …

… Between April and July 1999, there were numerous drafts of the report and discussions between OPA and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. … in March 1999, according to White House documents, the Justice Department continued to oppose the clemency. In an e-mail to Counsel to the President Charles Ruff, Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste wrote, “[m]y recollection of the last status is that there was some movement towards a conclusion that commutation might be ok for some of the prisoners but not all –but DOJ concluded no go then – is that about right?”

On July 8, 1999, Deputy Attorney General Holder sent to the President a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” This was the second report sent to the White House regarding clemency for the members of the terrorist groups FALN and Los Macheteros. At the end of July 1999, Counsel to the President Ruff personally spoke with an attorney in the office of the Deputy Attorney General regarding the clemency. On August 9, 1999, OPA and the Deputy Attorney General’s office held a meeting about the clemency. The President announced the clemency two days later on August 11, 1999.

Although it is impossible for the Committee to know what was in the Department of Justice’s report, an article in the New York Times claimed to have an official source with knowledge of information in the report. The article stated that although the opposition of the U.S. Attorneys and FBI was mentioned in the report, the Justice Department made no specific recommendation. Rather, the report “contained what law-enforcement officials said was a more carefully worded analysis that presented the President with multiple options for each prisoner, from unconditional release to no leniency whatsoever.” This is a matter of some concern to the Committee because it appears that the Justice Department has bent and even changed its rules to accommodate this politically charged clemency. By refraining from giving a clear recommendation, it is almost as if the Justice Department is doing the best that it can to bolster a decision that had already been made.

[snip]

During a November 5, 1997, meeting with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Vel

Out of what some might see as a late burst of enthusiasm on the part of the committee to show equanimity, albeit conveniently as well completely within the confines of what passed for the chairman’s characteristic wit [Punning has been called the lowest form of humor, yet sarcasm the form of choice for bullies.], the last two sentences of the lengthy, pain … stakingly detailed [Did I mention obsessive?] report appear to comprise the entirety of any effort on the part of the committee to wrestle with President Clinton’s possible rationalization[s] for the commutations, being restricted entirely to lifting a portion of the testimony from the attorney for the recipients of the presidential grants:

“Once the prisoners accepted the commutations, their attorney, Jan Susler, stated, “[w]e think this is an unprecedented, historic moment that the President of the United States could recognize that men and women who have dedicated their lives to the freedom of their country deserve to be free . . . to participate in the political, legal process to shape the future of their country.”

Through the act of commutation the President erased the facts of their convictions and transformed these terrorists into honorable freedom fighters.”

Notes on some dispatches:

bmaz @ 19 “Eric Holder is the wrong guy for the [job]. That is the point”

Well enough; but in that cause, I’m with William Ockham: this is tea of the weakest sort, and worse, from Burton’s dregs.

bmaz @ 31 “Anybody seen any evidence that Holder had any deep abiding concern over the FALN? I sure haven’t”

Point taken; but IMO it doesn’t work in favor of your cause.

THATanonymous @ 26 [quoting Helen Thomas] ”Doesn’t he (Obama) know anybody”?

Am I the only one who thinks the Obama transition team should have sat down with Ms Thomas before making any selections? And if they ever put up a White House press corp head on Mt Rushmore, may it be that of Helen Thomas.

Tanbark @ 51 “I’ve been thinking about the Clinton hand moving around in the Obama punchbowl … Obama takes office and immediately has these ethics problems slapping him in the face”

Are you even suggesting the LA Times would even CONSIDER stooping to serve a partisan political agenda? What’s next? The Wall Street Journal? The Washington Post? The New York Times? Hah – HAH I say!

Footnote on today’s ThinkProgress post on Adam:

“Today, former Republican officials expressed their strong support for the Holder nomination. In a series of letters released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Judge Louis Freeh, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, former Attorney General William Barr, and others, endorsed Holder.”

Okay now I’m concerned.