« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Shame on Holder for politicizing secret memos

He knows better

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  April 24th, 2009 at 10:16 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Eric Holder, President Obama’s Attorney General, has shamelessly adopted the tactics of the disgraced prosecutors of Senator Stevens.

Holder has now released 11 formerly classified legal memoranda. These cherry picked legal opinions have been seized upon by left-wing extremists to call for prosecutions of those involved in interrogations of terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” The terrorist has also admitted involvement in some 30 other terror plots.

The left’s call for the political retribution of show trials over a disagreement over War On Terror policy was given a green light this week by President Obama.

Like the Stevens’ prosecutors, Holder didn’t bother releasing documents that could be used to defend the War on Terror policies the left, Holder and Obama now find so abhorrent. Former vice president Cheney called for the Obama Administration to release the exculpatory files as well.

Holder, to his great discredit, claims he isn’t aware of memos Cheney says should now be released. Watch the following exchange between Holder and Congressman Frank Wolf:

As Wolf said, Holder has an “obligation to release the rest of the memos.” Holder’s obfuscation that he is “not familiar with those memos,” that he has “not seen them,” and that he doesn’t “know
that they exist,” simply does not cut it.

Holder, having released the documents he and the left find so damning, must find and release the documents which Cheney says will detail the valuable intelligence gained from the use of the now objectionable policies. Holder’s failure to do so would be no different than what was done by the prosecutors, or is that persecutors, of Senator Stevens.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Achance

    gone absolutely nuts over this assault on Attorney – Client Privilege. I’ll guaran-damn-tee you the ABA and ACLU would have gone ape-@#$% if GWB had released something that came withing the ambit of privilege. Guess it’s OK if a Democrat does it.

    I’ll be the first to admit that A-C privilege gets abused in government, often the advice is political, not legal, but this stuff seems to be genuine legal advice.

    • red4ever

      Because the ABA is too concerned with limiting gun rights and vetting liberal judges for Obama to appoint and supporting transnationalism (which is not all bad). For a group that contains a WIDE variety of political opinions, the ABA is a very left leaning organization. I am a member and get all the amendments to vote on.

  • janis

    if Holder keeps stonewalling. (“Stonewalling”. Now there’s a return to the happy times of the ’70′s, isn’t it?) Then we’ll see how much spin he and O will try to put on it and on their true intentions.

    These people are so truly loathsome that some days I can’t even look at the news. Watching what is going on in Pakistan daily is enough to turn my hair white without even considering how clueless this administration is in their ability to do something to help stop the radicals from taking over a nuclear armed country. Of course, the radicals have already taken over THIS nuclear armed country, but we know they won’t use the things, they’ll just try to stuff a daisy or two in the nosecone.

    • Wayne

      you mean about the news Janis. And the trolls who post here are completely unaware of how close the Taliban/Al Quaeda are to getting their hands on nukes in Pakistan, because they’re caught up in this man-made “crisis”. On the other hand, with his public pronouncement about the intelligence derived from enhanced techniques, I’m sure that Dennis Blair has put himself firmly at the #1 spot on the list of any defense witnesses if George Soros, I mean Obama decides that we need show trials.
      Of course, if the trials are held in D.C., as I’m sure they will be, we can all take a guess as to what the verdicts will be, regardless of who testifies.

  • RJD

    and haven’t met a shredder. These people are Clinton holdovers and Chicago politicians after all.

  • Achance
    • $peciallist
      • bobojake

        will obama have to swear Holder in for a 3 rd time or just throw holder under de bus with Ayers and Wright

      • Achance

        Maybe Chrysler or GM could start making shredders to save their companies! I’m thinking that’s one of the few growth industries in the Country.

        • $peciallist

          I’ll give it a break!!….lol

  • rauljg

    Was it politicizing when the GOP when after Clinton for much less transgressions (lying under oath about a personal sexual indiscretion). Back then the GOP was clamoring that laws were being broken and that Clinton had to be held accountable. Spent millions of dollars. Talk about politicizing. Now, we have much worse laws being broken by an administration and all of a sudden laws and the constitution doesn’t matter anymore. How hypocritical. If no laws have been broken then there would be no fear of an investigation as they would be in the clear. The right is petrified as they know laws have been broken and now are trying to say its politics. Wasn?t just last week at the tea parties where everyone was talking about the crumbling or our constitution? Less than a week later that’s all forgotten by those same people and now they want to usurp the constitution to protect republican officials. And finally, how can you justify breaking the law based on the results you get from breaking those laws? The argument from the right is, not that torture was not committed, but that it was and it lead to supposed positive results so the breaking of the laws doesn?t matter. So much for dying for our freedoms and upholding our constitution.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      1) No one on the right accepts your premises that torture was committed or that laws were broken. That’s the whole point – we’re talking about efforts by the left to change the laws and apply them ex post facto to past deeds and past administrations.

      2) The Clinton impeachment had to do with calling a current adminstration to account. Whether or not you think it was a good idea, the process was well within a Constitutional framework.

      3) Do you really want to start a tradition of criminalizing the actions of past administrations every time you have a change in power? That’s a tiger you don’t want to ride – unless your intention is to hold on to power forever. That’s not democracy – that’s a call to tyranny – and to civil war.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      The guy didn’t even bother to update his rants to reflect the change in administration. There’s something… sad… about that.

      No, really. There’s something depressing in seeing someone lose all interest in what was once his avocation.

      Moe Lane

      PS: Sweet surcease, rauljg. Embrace your oblivion with secret joy.

    • $peciallist
    • ehosterman

      Let’s do a little recap for the less than terminally stupid:
      .
      Case of Clinton:
      .
      1) The president committed perjury. this is a fact not in question. This is a crime. We can debate all day the high crimes and misdemenors clause, but an actual crime was committed.
      .
      Case of Justice Dept. Memo’s regarding waterboarding (Note: I did not say torture)
      .
      1) We have a case of lawyers providing legal opinions (note: opinions i.e. free speech) as to whether waterboarding could be performed legally on suspected terrorists. Do you leftists really want to try to criminalize the offering of legal opinions (i.e. protected speech)? The memo’s did not authorize “torture”, they provided legal opinions under which circumstances waterboarding could be conducted legally. Clearly not breaking the law anywhere but the lefties twisted
      alternate universe.
      .
      2) Congress was fully briefed regarding the methods to be used nad concurred either actively through questioning whether the methods were harsh enough, or passively by not objecting and moving to ban such actions by Congressional action.
      .
      And you are foolish enough to say that the republicans are politicizing events?

  • johnt

    Trotsky, what Trotsky ?
    Statist gangsters do have some psychological quirks in common. We’ll have to wait a little bit longer to see how much the Obama, Axelrod, Emanuel, Holder axis shares with some of the memorable if infamous collectivist scum of the past. I must say they’re off to a good start.
    But what would you expect from an AG picked by a moral loser who couldn’t quite remember Wright and Ayers?

  • Praying

    killing 3000 people, we will torture you. In my opinion we did do NEARLY enough to these evil people. That is my story and I’m sticking with it.

  • texas214

    In the footage they refer to the testimony as a discussion on “harsh interrogation techniques”. In the past it has been referred to as ‘torture’. The left is not going to approve of this, Olbermann’s head may explode if it is now referred to a something less sinister.

  • red4ever

    The Dems now want to impeach a judge who was approved AFTER the participating in writing the memos.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/24/democrats-impeachment-judge-justified-interrogation-tactics/

    Not for any malfeaseance in office as a judge, but for activity that they darn well should have known about at the time of the confirmation process. And they complained about the US Attorney firings?