< Back to Front Page Text size +

Holder on Bush, executive power

Posted by Jason Tuohey November 18, 2008 07:50 PM

Judging by his past statements, Eric Holder Jr., reportedly Barack Obama's top pick for attorney general, may aim to roll back several of the Bush administration's most controversial legal moves if he is selected for the post.

In a June speech to the American Constitution Society, Holder said the Bush administration had taken many steps that "were both excessive and unlawful" in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"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 in our struggle against terrorism," Holder said in the speech.

Holder also advocated closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, transferring the remaining prisoners to the US and adopting an "expedited and procedurally fair" review process.

"It is our task over the next several years to reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years," Holder said in his conclusion.

Watch Holder's speech.

Jonathan Mahler pointed out in the New York Times magazine last Sunday that although executive power greatly increased under President Bush (in large part because of the war on terror) the subject went mostly unnoticed in the presidential race.

The Boston Globe in 2007 gave the presidential candidates a 12-question survey on presidential authority. Read Obama's answers here, Vice President-elect Joe Biden's answers here, John McCain's answers here, and possible secretary of state Hillary Clinton's answers here.

  • CommentComment
  • EmailEmail
.

Oh God it is one thing to let the criminals loose it is another to bring them here before Baaaaaaaaaarack letsem go!!

Posted by larry November 18, 08 09:04 PM
.

My concern is that an "'expedited and procedurally fair' review process" will leave room for pre-emptive detentions. In other words, that it will allow certain suspects to remain imprisoned without being charged and without a presentation of evidence. This is America and we cannot tolerate a system of justice that treats certain individuals differently than others. Habeas corpus, the right to challenge the merits of your detention, must be upheld at all costs, even under Obama.

Posted by Hilary Smith November 18, 08 09:26 PM
.

Forget the past just get in get out and move on.We create more problems and add more burden to the people by trying to knock down the existing structure just to rebuild it.The biggest problem we face right now is unemployment and the economy it needs more of the Congress and the Presidents time and effort to fix it than anything else that is less burdensome to the American people like Guantanamo.

Posted by skmj November 18, 08 09:32 PM
.

Good for him! Now what are his views on prosecuting war criminals, i.e., Cheney, Addington, Yu, Tennet, and Bush? Bush and Cheney may be immune by virtue of their office (from U.S. prosecution) , but surely not the others. If you haven't already, read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer (Doubleday). Not for those with a weak stomach!

Posted by FadingFast November 18, 08 09:46 PM
.

Very appropriate comments from Eric Holder, Jr. We need more people of integrity like this in government. I went back tonight and read Obama and McCain's responses to the 12 questions, and found it quite telling. McCain declined to answer two questions, and deferred to waiting on a pending Supreme Court decision on a third. I am quite happy we did not elect him, as he is tacitly holding the line on undefensible positions that Bush has taken, that are being systematically found unconstitutional. We need respect for that document, that forms the basis of the best system of government in the world today. We cannot allow politicians to make a mockery of 200 years of American justice.

Posted by Jill Again November 19, 08 12:15 AM
.

Detaining people indefinately with no trial has never been the American way of doing things. If they have evidence, take them to trial but you can not just hold people for years and years without reason. Why not leave them where they are but start their trials?

Posted by carolo November 19, 08 09:44 AM
.

Under the Bush Administration, the Guantanomo trials are nothing more than kangaroo court show trials. On more than one occassion, American Army prosecutors, so distraught at this farce have switched to the defense; the Bush Administration dismissed an Army judge seen as being "fair" to the defense and the general in charge of proceedings has been relieved for tampering to insure guilty verdicts. On top of this, meetings between defendants and counsel are taped, there is no access to "secret" witnesses and evidence and hearsay evidence and torture confessions are allowed. Why doesn't the Bush Administration just take these defendants out back and put a bullet in their heads? It would be more honest.

W

Posted by Jay Bazzinotti November 19, 08 10:21 AM
.

These people are Terrorists not war prisoners. They lost all rights when they fought as terrorists. Obama, a bleeding heart liberal will let them go within our country. Poor terrorists being treated unfairly. How wast do we forget 9/11 and what they did to us.

Posted by Bob November 19, 08 10:44 AM
.

"Detaining people indefinately with no trial has never been the American way of doing things."
Crashing airplanes into buildings and killing innocent civilian life for absolutely no reason hasn't been the civilized world's way of doing things. You moonbat liberals want to let these people go?? THEY AREN'T NORMAL CRIMINALS. They don't care if they die - they actually think it's righteous. They don't care if they kill innocent people - they actually think it's righteous. I say we slowly burn them alive until they give up the info - and if they don't, then we kill them anyway. Their existence is nothing but dangerous. Don't believe m? Ask the families and friends of everyone that died on 9/11.

Posted by Tom November 19, 08 10:45 AM
.

Your lack of understanding of what the terrorist wants to eliminate scares me. They publicly say it is our oil policy in the Middle East and our friendship with Israel. Only one of those is true the Israel part, they want to eliminate our culture. American movies, music and rights don't sit well with these religious fanatics. If they win, it will be the liberal left who suffers the most as Gay rights, women's rights, the ability to speak out against religion, and abortion will be gone. A woman's right to chose please only if her husband decides it for her. Remember your anti-Bush rhetoric is fine but to give your enemies rights guaranteed for a United States citizen is suicide.

Posted by JoeMac3313 November 19, 08 10:48 AM
.

I hope with all my might that Obama releases some of these terrorists into our society and they strap themselves with explosives and kill his family. Then he might begin to understand how dangerous these lunatics are. What kind of sick-o pacifist is this idiot Obama and his circle of idiot friends. He can't find anyone that will vouch for him that isn't a crook with dirty laundry.

Posted by mike January 15, 09 10:17 AM
add your comment *(If you put a URL in your comment, it must be relevant )
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About Political Intelligence

Reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors about the Obama administration, the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and other national political happenings.

News from the Washington Bureau

Support wanes for curbs on credit-card interest rates

Efforts in Congress to cap credit-card interest rates are faltering because of opposition from Democrats and a lack of specific support from the White House, despite growing consumer outrage over a rush by banks to impose rates as high as 30 percent. (Globe Staff, 11/19/09)

Obama domestic agenda largely a one-party effort

Despite early pleas for bipartisanship, President Obama is forging ahead with his domestic agenda with a largely single-party strategy, unable to corral more than a handful of Republicans on a wide range of major legislation before Congress. (Globe Staff, 11/17/09)

Beirut attack victims’ families face new hurdle

On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. (Globe Staff, 11/14/09)

Powerful health care groups offer optimism on overhaul

Two leading health care interest groups, representing insurers and big business, struck a more conciliatory, even optimistic tone on the health care overhaul yesterday, emphasizing their support of the overall goal of increasing coverage and containing costs even as they warned that the wrong bill could cause great harm. (Globe Staff, 11/13/09)

FHA runs low on cash, fueling bailout concerns

The Federal Housing Administration, which propped up the collapsing housing market last year, acknowledged yesterday that it has drained its cash reserves to dangerously low levels, heightening concerns that it might need a taxpayer bailout. (Globe Staff, 11/13/09)

Earmarks’ cash flow lifts firms, lobbyists, lawmakers

16 defense-related firms in Massachusetts have secured nearly $30 million in federal funding in next year's defense appropriations bill pending in Congress. The tally offers a lesson in the practice known as congressional earmarking, in which lawmakers direct federal money to specific projects, usually in their districts. (Globe Staff, 11/12/09)

Afghanistan wary of US plan to send more advisers

Afghan officials have begun to push back from the Obama administration's plans to send hundreds of advisers to the country, complaining the Americans are often overpaid, underqualified, and unfamiliar with the culture of the country. (Globe Staff, 11/12/09)

Mass. keeps an eye on US bill’s funding ban

Massachusetts officials are closely monitoring an abortion funding ban in the sweeping health care legislation before Congress to make sure that it does not restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the state. (Globe Staff, 11/11/09)

Survey raises new doubts on military’s ‘don’t ask’ policy

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration received more research yesterday to help make its case for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. (Globe Staff, 11/10/09)

Lieberman’s threat of filibuster looms large

When a recent conversation among Senate centrists turned to insurance company antitrust concerns, Joe Lieberman boasted of his bona fides: As Connecticut attorney general in the 1980s, he sued the industry. (Globe Correspondent, 11/9/09)
archives