< 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 transition to the new administration and other national political happenings.

Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com

News from the Washington Bureau

Mass. health overhaul offers lessons for US program

WASHINGTON - A fear that employers will drop private coverage and dump their workers onto federally subsidized health plans is a major concern among lawmakers crafting healthcare legislation on Capitol Hill, leading House Democrats to propose stiff financial penalties for businesses that don’t contribute to employee premiums. (Globe Staff, 1:28 a.m.)

Liberian’s war-crimes testimony may shed light on Plymouth jailbreak

WASHINGTON - It has been a mystery for more than two decades how Charles G. Taylor, Liberia’s former president, broke out of Plymouth County Correctional Facility in 1985, starting a journey that ultimately made him one of Africa’s most notorious strongmen. (Globe Staff, 1:35 a.m.)

In health bill, billions for parks, paths

WASHINGTON - Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets. (Globe Staff, 7/9/09)
Reporter's notebook

To a young reporter, McNamara was a plain-spoken observer of US affairs

WASHINGTON - To a reporter fresh out of college hired to cover the Pentagon for a little-known newsletter, Robert S. McNamara was nearly a mythical figure. (Globe Staff, 7/7/09)

More female veterans are winding up homeless

WASHINGTON - The number of female service members who have become homeless after leaving the military has jumped dramatically in recent years, according to new government estimates, presenting the Veterans Administration with a challenge as it struggles to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Globe Staff, 7/5/09)

Healthcare overhaul could limit tax breaks on benefits

WASHINGTON - For the secretaries and environmental engineers, game wardens and van drivers who work for the state of New Hampshire, surgery is free, even at Boston’s top teaching hospitals if it’s necessary. So are MRIs, CT scans, and X-rays. (Globe Staff, 7/4/09)

Obama confronts skeptics on healthcare, pledges action

ANNANDALE, Va. - President Obama, pledging to overhaul healthcare this year despite divisions in Congress and the public, took on his skeptics directly yesterday, seeking to assure patients that their costs would not increase and that they would not be victims of a “government takeover.’’ (Globe Staff, 7/2/09)

Consumers likely to face increased bank costs

WASHINGTON - An array of government-created insurance agencies - which have long charged bargain-rate premiums to banks, credit unions, and brokerages - are seeking to make up for massive shortfalls in their insurance funds by raising fees and premiums, many of which are likely to be passed on to consumers. (Globe Staff, 7/2/09)

Lobbyist at center of healthcare overhaul

WASHINGTON - The face of the insurance industry in Washington is a slight, soft-spoken former AFL-CIO employee benefits director with a penchant for data-driven logic. She has the confidence and intellectual agility of a skilled debater, but prefers to dwell on areas of agreement. On healthcare, Karen Ignagni often sounds like the lifelong Democrat that she is. (Globe Staff, 6/30/09)

Supreme Court rules in favor of Conn. firefighters

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided US Supreme Court ruled yesterday in favor of a group of white firefighters who accused the city of New Haven of racial discrimination, potentially making it much harder for employers to bring racial balance to the workplace, while handing ammunition to critics of high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on the eve of her confirmation hearings. (Globe Staff, 6/30/09)
archives