Eric Holder Visits HJC

/30 Comments/in /by

You can watch along at CSPAN3 or the Committee Stream. Republican talking point of the day seems to be that Obama’s Counterterrorism approach is to have incompetent terrorists.

Nadler wastes no time to pitch his State Secrets bill. Go Nadler! “Those rules [Obama’s state secrets compromise] still reserve unaccountable review to the executive.”

Lungren has concerns about changing Miranda, since it was required by the Constitution, but implies he wants people to be enemy combatants instead (though that’s a guess) which somehow wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Conyers tweaks Darrell Issa that Jared Polis, who was just added to the committee (along with Ted Deutsch, Wexler’s replacement), has more patents than Issa does.

Issa calls for Special Prosecutor, I think to investigate Sestak’s claim that the White House tried to buy him off of running against Specter.

Anthony Weiner seems to support 9/11 trials in NYC–says it has the best prosecutors. He then complains about White House funding decisions. Says the COPS program (which provides funding for police) “is not just for towns that only have minor-league baseball teams.”

Maxine Waters complaining about review process for Comcast/NBC merger.

It’s pretty funny that there was almost never any discussion of counterterrorism oversight on HJC under Bush Admin, given how many fearmongers on the panel.

And, after everyone gets to make a statement, we get Holder’s opening statement.

WOOT! We’re back.

Bobby Scott asks about statute of limitations. Where death results, Holder says there is none.

Lamar Smith trying very very hard to get Holder to say radical Islam.

Holder: AZ law raises concerns about civil rights and preemption.

Maxine Waters asks about domestic terrorism. Holder actually says domestic terrorism before he says Islamic extremism in this hearing, much to GOP chagrin. Waters follows up on domestic terrorism.

Issa: Concerned that former Admiral in Navy and US Congressman. Will you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. What could be more serious than that this White House has offered member of Congress high appointment for getting out of race.

image_print
30 replies
  1. BoxTurtle says:

    Holder is one of the folks who should always have to testify on the record and under oath.

    Boxturtle (And you can make a case for limiting him to yes/no answers)

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    These hearings illustrate an incessant encroachment on civil liberties – those of US citizens as well as little brown furriners – discussed by Greenwald here.

    There seems to be a bipartisan effort to focus the public’s attention on the need to deny ever more civil rights in order to distract attention away from government incompetence, away from an appreciation of the practical limits of any credible law enforcement action, and away from the reality that some risk inevitably accompanies the benefit of living in a free society.

    As with Cheney’s 1% solution, this is about the perceived political vulnerability of insiders, not about public safety. If it were the latter, we’d have discussions about speed limits and traffic laws, about mine, aircraft and container safety inspections, about upgrading air traffic control and highway infrastructure, about workplace safety generally, ad nauseum.

    Instead, our government demands that we give it ever more powers, while removing it from oversight. It, in turn, gives law enforcement agencies more authority and toys than they can safely use. We expect their staffs to be supermen while being paid double or triple the minimum wage. To close the loop, insiders declare critics “unAmerican” when they criticize the routine excess use of force. The argument is similar to the right’s argument during Vietnam, if we nuke ’em back into the Stone Age, we will win. A dangerous fantasy then, dangerous now.

    • emptywheel says:

      Daphne Eviatar, Adam Serwer and I have been tweeting all morning about how there simply never was a discussion of CT policy during the BUsh Admin, except during PATRIOT renewal season. Now it’s incessant.

      Dems really need to get better about their neurosis about looking soft on terror/national security.

  3. JohnLopresti says:

    I support the FCC broadband initiative, as congress video fails to travel intact over the telco landlines at my site. Going by the post*s opening remarks precis, I think the observation about Lungren apt; he served as AG in a very conservative administration in the state where he resides; his policy is much like Bushco*s and requires parsing throughout.

    With respect, the characterization by EoH and GlGr, of certain ethnic groups as having a specific range of size and hue of dermal pigmentation, is quite dissimilar to an Iraqi uncle of mine*s appearance and mentation. GrGr purveys much hype; EoH usually much insight. Perhaps the perception difficulty is mine. In one community in which I resided about nine years as a child, often kids who were children natives of the locale*s earlier settlers would cast ridicule at me for not having the facility to recognize instantly the ethnicity of each subgroup of European descendants. I got Poles, Irish, Italians, and numerous other Caucasian ethnicities* confused; and, could not produce the appropriate jokes. I suspect some children of people of color might have difficulty distinguishing between European minorities, as well.

    • DWBartoo says:

      John, the second part of your second paragraph is an interesting and pithy sociological observation. You were, despite what those “others” might have said, an observant and obviously thoughtful child, traits you maintain today.

      However, the first sentence of that paragraph has me quite bewildered. I know who EOH is, but have never observed his writing to disparage groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) or describe them according to size or pigmentation.

      I am not certain who the commenter is whom you refer to as GlGr or GrGr.

      Might you clarify these confusions of mine?

      Forgive me but, without context, and I see nothing, at least on this thread, to “explain” or justify your comment, your words are, simply, disturbing.

      DW

    • DWBartoo says:

      EOH’s comment was SNARK.

      He was referencing the apparent “attitude” of others. Consider Arizona, consider Vietnam, and consider slavery in the American South.

      A number of commenters here, in total disgust with the “big” (as in “too-big-to-fail”) white-boyz ‘n gurls “club”, the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Corporate-Etc.-COMPLEX, sometimes snark on the pathetic absurdity of “exceptionalsim” which is racist and inhumane.

      You do realize that, don’t you, John?

      Just to clarify.

      DW

      • skdadl says:

        Hey, c’mon, DWB. Poets don’t mess with poets. My three favourite poets here (apart from EW herself, o’ course) — DWB, eoh, and John. Can’t we all try for a little negative capability, guys?

        • DWBartoo says:

          Oh, dear, skdadl.

          I catch your drift …

          EOH and John do have the gift.

          On myself, however, I must tattle …

          MY way with words

          is just absurd.

          In confusion, around I muck,

          t’is wisdom to give me little truck.

          Should my mumbles ever stumble

          over something worthwhile to say,

          why, I’ll screw it up another day …

          ;~DW

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The phrase “little brown furriners” is as DWBartoo suggested, snark; otherwise, I might have spelt foreigners correctly, just to be neighbourly. As for size, I don’t think it’s relevant except when describing smiles or calculating oil spills. John D. Rockefeller and Churchill were pint-sized in stature and gargantuan in ego. Steroids make some things big and other things small. It’s a relative put down, like a Yaley accusing a Harvardian of not being very bright.

      It is the kind of epithet – and thought process – the American right often uses, not just with foreigners or out-of-staters, but anyone not like them. The laundry list of outsiders, the “other” in sociologists’ jargon, might be Catholic, Jewish, African American, American Indian, you name it, anyone the local “in crowd” needs to demean. Since 9/11, that list is headed by Muslims of Middle or South Asian origin, no matter how long they may have lived in this country or whether they still are or ever were Muslim.

      The target is always moving. In the 19th century, it would have been the first generation German business owner putting up a sign that says, Irish need not apply. He, in turn, would change the sign to Italians, to Hungarians and Czechs. Seeing that, the second generation immigrant from Scotland or England, would just smile, hire those other immigrants for less because no one else would, and hike up his prices.

  4. BoxTurtle says:

    Holder: AZ law raises concerns about civil rights and preemption.

    Then challenge it, you doofus! If you’re too busy, there are at least a dozen high power lawyers who would write your paperwork for you on their own time.

    Boxturtle (Wassamatter? Afraid of annoying McCain?)

      • DWBartoo says:

        Who is the chiefest lame game blame holder?

        Eric, banana fana, the factotum mana, or your favorite (as well as mine) multi-dimensional, cipher-choosin’, Rahm-bam boozlin’, rootin’ tootin’ oil-galootin, bank astutin’, pharma-hootin’, war-be-bootin’, people-lootin’,
        party-poopin’ White House Putin?

        DW

  5. BillE says:

    Is Issa messing with Sestak? They must be afraid of him. How else can the club for growth elect someone in this electoral climate.

  8. Mary says:

    I guess all Congresspersons that Holder was visiting were completely disinterested in getting any input on the Arar case.

    You’d kind of think that a case going before the Sup Ct, where the US solicited and arranged and manipulated torture for an innocent Canadian – you might think somone would ask questions.

    A question.

    Mention the name?

    Or not.

  9. Hmmm says:

    EPU’d from the Kiriakou/Libby thread:

    Bond accuses Holder of engaging in a “hostile takeover” of the intelligence communit

    y.

    Now that’s interesting. Anyone have a hunch what ol’ Kitty Boo might be referring to here?

      • thatvisionthing says:

        Thanks fatster. I can scream but I can’t do the kind of analysis I see you guys do here. Anyway, bloody murder …

        • fatster says:

          You’re doing analysis at all times, thatvisionthing. Good analysis, too. You may not write it up, but it’s there.

        • DWBartoo says:

          Please keep posting this, that vision thing. The current post would benefit from its discussion,

          DW

        • thatvisionthing says:

          To DWB and fatster, thanks to both of you for the encouragement, I don’t know how to– everything. But thanks.

Comments are closed.