Althouse: If Holder chuckled "That would be true" about the existence of a debate within the administration about that memo.

March 9, 2012

If Holder chuckled "That would be true" about the existence of a debate within the administration about that memo.

Then he admitted that the memo — whose existence had not been admitted — exists.

20 comments:

Rusty said...: Brian Terry could not be reached to comment.; 3/9/12, 9:40 AM
Robert Cook said...: Murderers always do try to obscure evidence of their guilt.; 3/9/12, 9:41 AM
edutcher said...: I'll say it again - the people in this Administration are nowhere near as bright as they'd like us to believe.; 3/9/12, 10:17 AM
cubanbob said...: holder lied, people died. bush does it, bad. obama does it good. leahy remains the same which is always bad and killing our enemies is always good. nothing new here.; 3/9/12, 10:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: "bush does it, bad. obama does it good."

No. Bush does it, bad.
Obama does it, bad.; 3/9/12, 10:50 AM
cubanbob said...: RC i give you props, unlike the usual lefties commenting on ms ann's site you do have consistant ( albeit often times wrong from my POV) points of view.; 3/9/12, 11:25 AM
traditionalguy said...: But Holder holders all the power.

Until Obama is retired, all means are Justified to the end which is always ending American wealth and political power.; 3/9/12, 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: People calling for Holder's resignation are just more whitey power trying to bring down a black man.

Black men have just as much right to be corupt, evil, conniving politicians than all the whiteys before them in similar rolls.

Holder, a black man, has just as much right to be John Mitchell as did John Mitchell the whitey.; 3/9/12, 11:35 AM
Carnifex said...: You think it's bad now? Wait till it looks like the One is gonna loose the election. The streets will run red with blood.; 3/9/12, 12:27 PM
Mark O said...: Race first.; 3/9/12, 12:28 PM
tim maguire said...: When I first read this, I thought it would be about Fast and Furious. Rusty apparently did too. But it's not, it's about al-Awlaki. And I have to wonder, if a person on foreign soil is plotting attacks against the U.S., why do we care that he is an American citizen? I sure don't.

If he's local, we can send the cops. But in far away lands, we send the soldiers. And the rules are different then.

Plus, the quote can easily be read as Holder responding to the debate over drones and targeting of US citizens, not necessarily some specific memo.; 3/9/12, 12:29 PM
Rusty said...: When I first read this, I thought it would be about Fast and Furious. Rusty apparently did too.

The point being, like Janet Reno, Holder doesn't seem to have any qualms about the death of actual American citizens in the actual United States.; 3/9/12, 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "...if a person on foreign soil is plotting attacks against the U.S., why do we care that he is an American citizen? I sure don't."

How do we establish for the record that he is indeed plotting attacks --who makes the call? Would this level of discretion have been acceptable in the hands of a Nixon or LBJ?

Remember the accusations that Putin had sent 'hit squads' to poison Russian journalists working abroad? How is this different?

What is troubling is the lack of any kind of review by persons not answering to the president. Judicial review is not a panacea any more than jury trials are, but they exist for the same reason: as a check against executive discretion.; 3/9/12, 1:07 PM
tim maguire said...: You're right, Craig. Let's send a squad car round to the Yemeni desert and pick them up for questioning.

The fact is, we already trust the president with this discretion and nobody's arguing that we shouldn't. But does the mere fact that one of the plotters is American make a difference in how it should be dealt with? I don't see why.; 3/9/12, 2:01 PM
Robert Cook said...: Tim McGuire said, in response to Craig's spot on question regarding our killing American citizens from afar without due process:

"You're right, Craig. Let's send a squad car round to the Yemeni desert and pick them up for questioning.

"The fact is, we already trust the president with this discretion and nobody's arguing that we shouldn't."

Says who?! Of course we should question the President having discretion to assassinate people from afar without due process!

"But does the mere fact that one of the plotters is American make a difference in how it should be dealt with? I don't see why."

Because American citizens are guaranteed--or formerly were promised we were guaranteed--due process in questions of criminal accusations against us by the state.

You beg the question by referring to "one of the plotters."

How do we know Al-Awlaki participated in plotting violent attacks against America?

Because the President says so? Fuck that! By that standard, why even have jury trials for citizens accused of murder, rape and mayhem domestically? Obviously--by this tryannical standard--if a person is arrested, he must, by definition be guilty! If a person is indicted by a grand jury, he must, by definition, be guilty! If a District Attorney or police chief announces to the public that a particular citizen is suspected of complicity in any given crime, he must, by definition, be guilty!

After all, if we can't trust in the probity, honesty, good judgment and omniscience of our government representatives, who can we trust?!

The answer: no one. This is why we are guaranteed due process of law...to insure insofar as is possible that unjust convictions are prevented, that innocent parties are not wrongly punished, and that the state's power to abuse its authority is checked and mitigated by rule of law.

Al-Awlaki was not on a battlefield, brandishing or discharging weapons against American soldiers. All we have are accusations that he was an operative of Al Qaeda, and that he was complicit in plotting violent actions against America. These accusations have never been accompanied by an airing of any evidence to support them, and have never been subject to the stringent examination a courtroom should provide.

In accepting the President's discretion in such matters, we grant the President the de facto powers of an absolute monarch.; 3/9/12, 4:07 PM
Fletch99 said...: compubI almost never comment, and I never agree with Robert Cook-- so, I MUST give him credit for that last reply (4:07).

Awesome.; 3/9/12, 4:52 PM
Robert Cook said...: Thank you, Fletch99.; 3/9/12, 6:35 PM
Carnifex said...: RC's response was the same arguement I made to my dad at the time it happened. In fact the ay back machine would probably give evidence to my saying something close to it on here.

Men of good will, though the have different ideas of the leanings of government, can agree when the government overreaches itself. Bravo RC, bravo.; 3/9/12, 7:13 PM
Phil 314 said...: They should have consulted with John Yoo.; 3/9/12, 8:06 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Saying something is true is the easiest way to spill the beans - even if you're trying to hide something.; 3/9/12, 10:22 PM