NO TO ERIC HOLDER

[lame54]

Are we supposed to not question Obama for the next 8 years?

Even Obama doesn't think that

From his infomercial-

Obama:

"I'm reminded every single day, that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this, I will always tell you what I think and where I stand; I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree, and most importantly I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your democracy again."

We are coming out of 8 years of "loyalty" and I am fucking sick of it.

If Obama is on the verge of selecting for AG someone who is pro patriot act/anti marijuana legalization I am going to speak up before it's too late.

When is the time to speak up? After confirmation?

He promised to listen to us, but what's the point if we stay mute?

I for one will be contacting my congressman asking him to vote against Eric Holder if Obama puts him up for AG.

But let's hope Obama listens(because I am not alone on this) and he picks somebody more reasonable.

[GOPNotForMe]

1. With such a brilliant subject line, I can't help but not take you seriously. nt

[apnu]

3. No kidding...

Questioning is fine, but shouting "FUCK ERIC HOLDER" is not a question. It is a hysterical and irrational statement that clearly lacks any sort of question or critique.

[lame54]

15. Your fear of the word fuck is irrational...

but I changed it

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. A-ha! You're already capitulating.

Just kidding. Power to the people. Peace out, whateva.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. There is nothing irrational about good manners

[Two Americas]

68. why would that be?

why not respond to the message rather than trying to attack the messenger?

A thread titled "no to Lieberman" would not be objected to - or at least a month ago it would not have been objected to.

[lame54]

88. actually the original title was...

fuck eric holder

i changed it because my potty mouth was an obvious distraction to the actual contents of the thread

[Two Americas]

95. got it

Thanks.

[kid a]

2. That sure is how I question my kids too when I want to get something done.

Yep - nice tone for discussion.

[lame54]

5. The tone comes from the multiple "Don't dare question Obama" threads...

But I changed it for you

[Terran]

4. And yet Holder is anti-death penalty...

I'm so confused!

Seriously, has it occurred to you that Obama makes the policies and Holder merely enforces them? What his personal viewpoints are don't (or should not) play into what the JD does.

[terrya]

7. Well, that just made like Eric Holder a lot more.

[lame54]

8. It's occurred to me that people follow their beliefs...

and are not robots

Holder on the position of Attorney General:

"The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."

Why can't he pick someone who's personal viewpoints fit more with the Obama agenda

There are lots of people to choose from - Why this guy?

[bigtree]

10. Obama will need to thoroughly revamp the Justice Dept.

The list of folks who actually served at the level Holder did in a Democratic administration is short. His experience will be invaluable in determining where the bones are buried and who the players and positions are that Obama should be concerned with. Remember, either he does Obama's bidding or he's out. They have established a mutual relationship which should serve the new president as he works to reorganize.

[cali]

62. grab a fucking clue and educate yourself. Holder's views do fit with Obama's agenda

duh. That's one reason he picked him. it's clear as crystal you know jackshit about Obama or Holder.

[lame54]

64. Then it appears I wasted my time, efforts and my vote...

duped again

[bigtree]

82. so, you'll be leaving us?

what a shame

[lame54]

114. I think I'll stick around for a bit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUiEd0IHaDs

[moodforaday]

132. So you support

criminalizing marijuana, you support the Patriot Act, and you support Chiquita paying for the murder of union leaders? What a proud Democrat you are.

[bigtree]

142. I don't believe that Holder was right on pot, but I don't think that is disqualifying

. . . as there is no way in hell we are going to get any movement on that issue from ANY white House administration.

I haven't yet seen any of Holder's critics present ANY evidence of what work he actually did for Democrats in their effort to reauthorize the Patriot Act, but I have read Holder's explicit complaints about the Bush administration's abuses in their 'war on terror' which would include the overreaches in the Act. I'm not going to condemn the man on DU innuendo or the one line from that Nation article which suggested he supported every pernicious provision.

And, if you read through the thread, you will see that I'm not buying the nonsense that Holder believed he was defending folks who had supported murders in Columbia in his defense of the Chiquita executives in their plea bargain. And looking at the relatively light sentence, neither did the judge believe the executives were directly sponsoring those deaths either. So, I think it's a ridiculous stretch to say that supporting Holder is supporting the murder of union leaders.

You make a lazy argument which falls completely apart with your smear of ME for supporting Holder. Using your ridiculous logic, it wouldn't take much to tie you and whatever or whoever you support to some tangential crime or abuse that might exist somewhere.

[bigtree]

143. oh, by the way . . . fuck (edit) your petty litmus tests

[orleans]

110. ALL his views?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7868394

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/18/21472/416

[Oldenuff]

199. Thanks for that

After 8 years of Bush,who can blame us for looking at everything under a microscope?



Thanks for the information posted.

[robinlynne]

66. perhaps we do not know the obama agenda so well....

[Terran]

151. but if Congress decides to overturn the Patriot Act, or even

maybe decriminalize marijuana (or if Obama pushes for those things), then Holder will have to implement those changes. I don't quite see why you think he's going to be the Lone Ranger. It's true that he does have to maintain some distance from the president so as not appear to be the president's personal attorney; he *does* work for the People. But he also enforces the federal laws of the land, and if Obama gets those changed, which I expect him to do to some extent, then Holder must do as he's told.

[fla nocount]

26. You give Obama strengths I've yet to see evidence of.

He seems like a real stand-up go along to get along guy so far.

[Two Americas]

70. I hope not

We have just suffered for the last 8 years from a politicized justice department.

[bigtree]

6. can you do me a favor?

I know he worked on the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. What I'm not clear on is just what work he did in that regard. I'm wondering if his work was an effort to get it right and change some of the suppressive provisions in the face of a certain push to reauthorize. He wasn't a legislator and folks are tasked with all sorts of things which may be short of support for pernicious provisions. I doubt, that as a Democrat, he took a right-wing stand on the bill.

I guess I'm challenging you here to spell out what you understand he actually did with regard to the Act. That shouldn't be too much to ask.

Remember, even Paul Wellstone and Kennedy voted for the original Act.

[lame54]

13. Here you go...

Appearing on CNN in June, 2002, the former Clinton administration Justice Department aide sounded as if he had just stepped out of the Bush camp: "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do."
If that's unsettling, consider the fact that Holder was part of the legal team that in 2005 developed strategies for securing re-authorization of the Patriot Act.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564

[bigtree]

17. What you provided here is initial support for the Patriot Act

. . . not unlike the support the majority of Democrats provided right after 9-11, including such apparently unreasonable folks like Wellstone and Kennedy.

I've read this piece and it does the same thing you've done here, smear Holder on the re-authorization work without outlining exactly what work he did on that re-authorization. Unless you have that info, I'll pass on condemning a non-legislator for legal work he did for the Democratic party as they sought to fix the Act rather than (my preference) end it.

[lame54]

21. and they were wrong...

everyone of them

directly after 9/11 was emotional and they pushed it through

2005? to re-authorize then was very calculated

and it was primarily the same patriot act that was originally passed

maybe it's up to you to show what critical changes he was instrumental in making

[bigtree]

29. you made the charge, you need to back it up with more than just innuendo.

Of course, they were wrong, and reauthorizing the Act was incredibly stupid. But, I have no idea, beyond that quote you and I both found by researching his record, what Holder actually did for the party in his work on the re-authorization. I do know that he'll be tasked to do the bidding of President Obama, so . . . I'm not so concerned about this as you are.

Holder has spoken out quite forcefully against the Bush administration's autocratic responses to terror. I trust that more than I do the innuendo in that one article.

[Art_from_Ark]

198. The "Patriot" Act was shoved down lawmakers' throats

at a time when bu$h was riding high in the wake of 9-11, and "patriot" and "patriotism" were all the rage. How could one vote against a law that had "patriot" in the name?

Even my favorite Senator of all time, J. William Fulbright, voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, amidst all the "patriotic" fervor of August 1964. But two years later, he admitted his mistake in his book, The Arrogance of Power.

[slackmaster]

9. Roger that - and he's a gun grabber too

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/18/202950/27

[FSogol]

11. Ridiculous. Trying to prevent accidental shooting of children makes him a gun grabber?

Sheeesh.

[slackmaster]

14. Handgun licensing would be unconstitutional

I have no objection to teaching and encouraging safety measures, but mandating them is beyond what government should be doing.

[FSogol]

16. Whose gun got grabbed?

I get it. Like a lot of freepers, you're scared that someone will take your beloved gun away. When in our history has that ever happened? Obama already said he wouldn't do that. Why make rw allegations?

[slackmaster]

20. My involvement in the issue is based on a desire to maintain the value of my gun collection

Which is now, thanks to the decline of the stock market, one of the largest and most stable components of my retierment plan.

I will always fight against gun control proposals that would hurt me financially without any foreseeable return in public safety. Handgun licensing is a good example. Right now I have about 18 valuable handguns in my safe, which cost me nothing to keep. Licensing would impose a financial cost, which would be harmful to me.

...you're scared that someone will take your beloved gun away. When in our history has that ever happened?

Don't you remember what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

[FSogol]

25. Yes, I remember. Some gun owners used their weapons irresponsibly

and the law enforcement took them away. And it wasn't caused by Eric Holder. Are you sure that you are on the right website?

[slackmaster]

27. Your memory is incomplete

They were taking guns away from everyone, even people who had not left their homes.

Are you sure that you are on the right website?

Yes I am quite sure. How about you? Were you looking for Authoritarian Underground?

[ProfessorGAC]

47. If Guns Were Harder To Get, Wouldn't That Make Your Collection. . ..

. . .worth more?
The Professor

[slackmaster]

54. Good question, but my answer is "not necessarily"

If a new system were to impose enough gross inconveniences and recurring fees, it would make gun collecting less attractive as a hobby and demand would drop.

I'm sure that would please some people here would be delighted at that, but I don't see that any tangible good would come of it.

Without specifics, it is in my interests to object to any vague proposals for restrictions on firearms.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. OK. Just Asking

Not a gun guy, so i didn't know.
GAC

[slackmaster]

61. Professor, it's always a pleasure conversing with you on any subject

I appreciate your consistent good manners.

[Lyric]

149. Sounds to me like you made a financial gamble on an investment

and now that it looks like your investment might not have been so wise or foolproof, you want to put your own self-interest ahead of what's best for the country.

Gee, where have I heard a story like that lately?...

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

202. All investments carry risk, that is certainly true

Did I say that collecting guns or anything else was foolproof?

So far the collectable firearms component of my retirement plan has done much better than anything else. The present "run" on firearms of any kind has pushed up their valuable significantly. I have bond funds that have maintained value, and like everyone else my stocks are in the tank.

I ditched most of my precious metals in early March right around the top. I consider that move pertly dumb luck, but it was also motivated by the availability of a particularly fine M1903-A3 Springfield rifle that a friend needed to ditch for cash. That piece and most of my collection is not vulnerable to any onerous legislation that has been proposed, such as the expanded AW ban (e.g. HR 1022). However, my M1 Garands, M1 Carbine, French MAS 49/56, and several other pieces in my safe might be.

As with any other general type of investment, diversification in firearms helps mitigate downside risk. I collect pocket pistols, firearms designed by John Moses Browning, rifles of World War II, and several other discernable categories. I consider the biggest risks to most of my gun collection to be fire and theft. That's why I spent about $3,000 on a safe several years ago. I am and have always been aware that acts of Congress or my state legislature could muddy things up for the gun collection. That's why I haven't put all my eggs in that basket. Even owning stock in a financial institution or any other corporation leaves you vulnerable to total loss resulting from actions of government, for example if the institution gets taken over by a government agency. (That happened to me during the S&L crisis of the late '80s to early '90s.)

ETA - I could probably make a substantial profit by culling some weapons right now. To avoid income tax I'd have to reinvest the money on something else related to the hobby of collecting and restoring vintage firearms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=190726&mesg_id=191255

[depakid]

153. District of Columbia v. Heller doesn't say that at all

but, as sensible a policy as that might be, it's unlikely to ever happen in gun and violence obsessed America.

[slackmaster]

203. Please show me what provision of the Constitution would empower national handgun licensing

I suppose they might be able to twist the Interstate Commerce Clause to an even greater degree, but I don't believe that is likely.

BTW, licensing would be necessarily predecated on registration, which under current law is specifically prohibited. It's somewhere in 18 USC, section 92x.

[bigtree]

12. gun grabber? hardly. That's the kind of rhetoric I hear from the right

. . .when addressing sensible gun legislation, which the link you provided indicates he supports.

Holder, from the link:

"I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures.

First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold. Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence. We need these common-sense measures and we need them now."

[slackmaster]

18. When you say something is "sensible" you are really saying that someone who disagrees

Is not a sensible person, or is not being sensible.

First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.

Why should someone who has no children have to pay extra for a gadget that would serve no useful purpose?

Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

That is already the law. A juvenile conviction for a felony or violent misdemeanor prohibits the person from ever owning a gun. So it is not at all clear what Mr. Holder was thinking when he said that.

Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

Unconstitutional. Why should someone have to pay a recurring fee to retain possession of a piece of personal property? What about poor people?

Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

That should be pursued by private industry, if they think there is a market for it. Government getting on that bandwagon is a step toward making it mandatory.

And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

The Gun Show Loophole is a myth. The laws, regulations, and procedures that cover sales at gun stores apply anywhere else, including gun shows.

Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence...

To acieve that figure, one has to include people up to about age 21 according to statistics for 2005. See http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

Holder was just spewing a bunch of tired old Brady campaign propaganda, and you followed right along and repeated it again.

[bigtree]

19. none of that amounts to 'gun-grabbing'

. . . and, I'm not going to debate the merits of the 'sensible' legislation that he and others supported and support. But, I'm not going to say your view isn't sensible. It may well make sense to you and I respect that we just disagree.

[slackmaster]

23. Licensing = Imposition of a recurring FEE

That is in effect a confiscation by degrees. What about poor people, or old people living on fixed incomes?

Why on Earth should someone have to pay money to keep a personal possession? What would we get in return for it?

[bigtree]

31. I live near D.C. and the world hasn't ended because of their tough gun laws.

Folks still have quite a lot of guns here, so I really think you're promoting a hysterical view of sensible measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands as 'gun grabbing.' Show me the figures of how many folks lost their guns as a result of these efforts Holder supports.

[slackmaster]

32. DC is a crime-ridden, violent city

It's a pretty poor example to show off as the fruits of a local government imposing gun control without accountability for the results.

I explained my objections to Holder's stated positions in reply #18.

[bigtree]

33. still no evidence of 'gun grabbing,' slackmaster

It's just rhetoric, I think.

[slackmaster]

34. Making someone pay a recurring FEE to keep a possession at home is confiscation by degrees

I don't believe I can make myself any clearer on that.

[bigtree]

35. I don't believe the fee has to be prohibitively high

. . .or that, in fact, the ones proposed were.

[slackmaster]

36. Well, since Mr. Holder has not specified a proposed fee schedule

I am not willing to assume it would not be "prohibitive", and must object to it. Any kind of per-gun fee would be a serious imposition on people like me who keep multiple handguns for investment purposes. Any amount at all could potentially be prohibitively for someone who is living on a fixed income.

(I believe a federal licensing fee to keep a handgun would be unconstitutional anyway.)

[bigtree]

37. we pay fees for all sorts of things . . . autos, for instance

we manage those without 'car grabbing'

[slackmaster]

53. The federal government doesn't charge fees for cars, and fees charged by states are for USAGE

Not for possession, at least in most cases.

Here in California I can keep a car on my property, never drive it on public roads, and pay zero in fees for the "privilege" of owning it.

Don't think you can win at "cars vs. guns" with me. I've been doing this for a very long time.

[bigtree]

79. Your argument leaves me cold

I don't believe your guns or anyone else's are threatened by 'fees'. Where are the figures I asked for regarding the number of guns which were 'grabbed' as a result of these fees?

[slackmaster]

91. Sorry, I don't like playing Broken Record

It is pretty obvious that adding an annual fee to the expenses of someone who is poor or on a fixed income amounts to a REGRESSIVE tax.

If you are happy with an authoritarian AG that's OK with me. I'd just like to see someone who has a little more respect for peoples' civil rights.

[bigtree]

120. well, you claimed that auto fees were for usage

does that include registration fees? You pay those whether you drive or not

[slackmaster]

134. Speaking only for California, car registration is free if you don't drive it on public roads

It's called PNO or Planned Non-Operation.

You still register the car, but it's free. That makes sense since registration and license fees are used to cover actual costs of maintaining the road system and the DMV itself.

I don't know what in the blue fuck national gun registration fees would be used for. Nobody who proposes them ever says what for, so it sounds like just a way of hassling and intimidating people.

[FatDave]

131. Shame the constitution doesn;t guarantee me the right to have a car.

Because I pay a shitload of recurring fees.

[slackmaster]

136. I believe the Ninth Amendment covers your right to have a car

Driving it on public roads is a privilege that you pay for.

Owning a gun is a right. Carrying it in public is a privilege that (in most states) you pay for.

[High Plains]

42. And those bastards already do that with my car! Where will it stop?

Oh, Slackmaster, save us from the licensers!

[slackmaster]

55. The licensing and registration fees you pay for cars are for the privilege of driving them on public

...roads, not for owning them and keeping them at home.

If you had a collection of valuable cars that you kept garaged and someone was proposing making you pay a recurring license fee for them, I'll bet you would be able to see my position a little more clearly.

[Virginia Dare]

133. Anybody who could afford to keep a collection of valuable cars on their property..

wouldn't get much sympathy from me over having to pay fees to the government for it.

[slackmaster]

137. What legitimate function of government would such a fee be used to support?

You already pay property tax. Why should you have to pay another tax for an inanimate object that you keep on your property?

[Virginia Dare]

139. Spreading the wealth...n/t

[slackmaster]

140. You own me one bite of a bacon double cheeseburger and a new keyboard

:rofl:

[NeedleCast]

148. I wish someone would explain this to Virginia

We pay a property tax on vehicles we own. At least in some counties.

[slackmaster]

205. LOL, I just realized you meant the state of Virginia, not DUer Virginia Dare

Nice delayed reaction on that one.

My mom and I just visited my brother and his family in Chesapeake during the first week of November. It was beautiful there. We had an early mini-Thanksgiving fried turkey.

[Thothmes]

208. Gun show Loophole

Your are correct as far as the registered dealers that set up at gun shows. However, I as a private citizen can go to a gun show with a hand gun and am free to sell it to another private individual without have to follow any of the requirements imposed on the dealers at a gun show.

[lame54]

22. Thanks for hijacking my thread

[slackmaster]

24. I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning

:evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

28. What's the difference between one single issue hysteric and another?

Not much. You can all pound each other in this thread to decided what's more important, guns or bananas.

[slackmaster]

30. You forgot abortion

What about abortion, anyway?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

60. Wow. Trivialize much?

"Guns or bananas?"

What about "guns or 4,000 human lives?" It wasn't trade Holder was defending for Chiquita Brands. It was corporate-sponsored murder. Of Four Thousand human beings. Shucks! We started a war over three thousand murder victims. But the lawyer for the corporate-sponsored murder of four thousand is going to be elevated to the top law enforcement position in the United States?

We're on an arc to go from sanctioning torture (Gonzales, Mukasey) to sanctioning outight murder (Holder).


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Renew Deal]

74. From trvialization to exageration

DU runs the spectrum.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

97. Maybe so

But I haven't exaggerated anything.

I wish I had. Everything I've put forward here is grounded in fact.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Renew Deal]

100. Sanctioning murder?

"We're on an arc to go from sanctioning torture (Gonzales, Mukasey) to sanctioning outight murder (Holder)."

That's an exageration.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

107. No, that's a misspell. My bad.

Should've been "sanctioning outRight murder."

Holder argued that his client, Chiquita Brands' officers should NOT be personally punished for murder/terrorism when they paid a right-wing death squad to kill as many as 4000 people. His clients even paid extra to buy the guns with which the murders were committed. What is that if not "sanctioning outRight murder?" For a lawyer, it's just another day at the office. I, however, and I suspect many millions of others, didn't vote for Obama to give us "just another day at the office" bureaucrats. I didn't make all those stirring, uplifting speeches about "change we can believe in." Obama did. Holder lets a lot of air out of that balloon for me and a lot of others.

Holder's tainted. It's that simple. If I objected to it from the Loyal Bushies, I can't fail to object just because my "side" does it, too.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[LSK]

51. Good n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

38. I'm not worried about his pot position

Neither am I worried about Holder's stance on guns. In the case of the former, the states are slowly eroding the federal paranoia so that the weight of the action by the states will eventually topple the federal stupidity.

With regard to the latter issue, he can't "grab" (oh, jesus, not THIS again!) anyone's guns. Gun ownership, no matter how enlightened or benighted, is a constitutional issue. Holder's nominated for AG, not SCOTUS.

As an added bonus, I'm also not worried about his Patriot Act stance. Why? He'll be enforcing, not MAKING the legislation. If you're angry about the Patriot Act (and we all should be) then the issue lies with Congress and not the AG.

Regardless of those three, I AM worried about Holder and I don't think he's fit to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Why? We've had eight long, miserable, tortured years of corporate toadyism. Eric Holder served as corporate criminal defense counsel to Chiquita Brands, Inc. against federal charges that the company paid about $1.7 million dollars and provided arms to a Colombian right-wing death squad (the AUC). Because of Chiquita's actions, about 4000 Colombians were murdered. Eric Holder winked at that and worked out a plea deal that made sure NO Chiquita Exec did jail time, not even at ClubFed.

Before anyone points it out, let me note that I understand that lawyer ethics are different, and track a lower standard of conduct than human ethics. Eric Holder, however, had a choice. He could take the money and defend the murderers or walk away with his self-regard intact. He took the money. For that, the blood of 4,000 Colombian murder victims cries his name from the ground. I'm sure he's a great lawyer. Given what he accomplished for the Chiquita killers, it's obvious. Having chosen that path, he needs to stay on it.

After years of CriscoJohn Ashcroft and Alberto "Torturmada" Gonzales, the Office of the Attorney General simply cannot be staffed by anyone with the whiff of taint about them. If defending that corporate scum doesn't qualify as "taint," then one wonders what, if anything, does.

Eric Holder is corporate cronyism at its very most base, most bloodthirsty. By no measure does he represent "change we can believe in."


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

39. Just like your issue is with Congress, your issue with the Chiquita matter is with the court

. . . who apparently agreed with the defense contention that what the subsidiary of Chiquita had been doing was paying 'protection money' to operate in the region; not directly sponsoring killers . . . no more than protection money paid to the Mafia is a direct sponsorship of their crimes.

Also, I don't think Holder was a lead attorney in the case. I think I'm correct in that he was one lawyer on a team of attorneys handling the case. I suspect he'll be asked about this in confirmation and I think he deserves a chance to explain, if that's forthcoming.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

48. No, my issue is with Eric Holder

No court forced him to take the case. He wasn't poor, little Chiquita's public defender, snoozing at counsel table like one of those kangaroo court murder trials in Texas. Eric Holder was hired by Chiquita because of his past experience within the DOJ and Holder traded on that status in order to get what most certainly had to be a rather large fee. As such, it is a matter of his choice. He chose to travel a path that should NEVER lead to the seat of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Holder literally defended a corporation that pled guilty to TERRORISM. The AUC was on the officially-designated U.S. list of terrorist organizations at the time Chiquita kept them on retainer. Eric Holder winked at that.

The Court wasn't in a position to "agree with the defense contention" because the matter wasn't resolved at trial. It was a straight-up plea bargain.

Holder's position in the negotiations was significant, to say the least. He was quoted by the Washington Post as "Chiquita's International lawyer," not as a "team member."

Finally, your advancement of the Chiquita meme of "paying protection" doesn't hold water, either, insofar as even the right-wing Colombian government's own Attorney General, Mario Iguaran, stated flatly that such was not the case: "this was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder;" that Chiquita's actions were taken as direct action to eliminate labor opposition to Chiquita's policy of allowing no dissent among its workers. That's how it works in Colombia, whether one is Chiquita, Dole, Del Monte, Coca-Cola or Drummond Coal. Even Obama himself noted his opposition to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement based on the labor horrors that take place there. To install Eric Holder, a man who winked at some of those murders, as the Republic's chief law enforcement officer will do much harm in our struggle to regain our position as the leading advocate for international human rights.

I want to be clear: I'm not condemning Holder for taking the case. Lawyers defend all sorts of odious thugs like the suits from Chiquita. What I am saying is that no person who has done such things has any business being Attorney General of the United States. It's like this: how would you feel knowing a mafia "wartime consigliere" was going to be AG, no matter how good a lawyer he was? Unsettled, to say the least? I should hope so. That's what we have, if not worse, in Eric Holder.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

71. well, the board member of Chiquita who broke the story

. . . claimed that 'protection money' was being paid to these groups in violation of the law.


from WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102601_pf.html

Roderick M. Hills, who had sought the meeting with former law firm colleague Michael Chertoff, explained that Chiquita was paying "protection money" to a Colombian paramilitary group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. Hills said he knew that such payments were illegal, according to sources and court records . . .

Chiquita, Hills said, would have to pull out of the country if it could not continue to pay the violent right-wing group to secure its Colombian banana plantations.

Starting in 1997, according to court filings, Chiquita's subsidiary in Colombia, Banadex, began making cash payments to AUC. The payments were suggested by AUC leader Carlos Castano, who said he planned to drive the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas -- a group also on the U.S. terrorist list -- out of the northwest region of Uraba, according to the filings.

In September 2000, Chiquita executives learned about the payments in an internal audit but allowed them to continue, according to a prosecution filing not disputed by the company. In the plea agreement, Chiquita officials said they knew that AUC was blamed for numerous killings and kidnappings in the region, but that they had no alternative to keep their workers alive and to secure their operations at a time when FARC guerrillas were blowing up railroads used by U.S. companies and kidnapping foreigners for ransom.


This isn't so cut and dry a case of 'aiding terrorists' as the criticisms suggest. It also appears that Holder was concerned about the fact that the whistleblowers he was defending were subject to prosecution . . .

from the article:

"(Holder)said he is concerned that company leaders who chose the difficult path of disclosing the corporation's illegal activity to prosecutors are now facing the possibility of prosecution.

"If what you want to encourage is voluntary self-disclosure, what message does this send to other companies?" asked Holder, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "Here's a company that voluntarily self-discloses in a national security context, where the company gets treated pretty harshly, and then on top of that, you go after individuals who made a really painful decision.""

. . . legal sources on both sides say there was a genuine debate within the Justice Department about the seriousness of the crime of paying AUC. For some high-level administration officials, Chiquita's payments were not aiding an obvious terrorism threat such as al-Qaeda; instead, the cash was going to a violent South American group helping a major U.S. company maintain a stabilizing presence in Colombia.

And, the matter of the plea was heard and decided (and agreed to) before a judge.

from the article:

"U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who must decide whether to accept the Chiquita corporation's plea agreement, privately warned both sides last month that he wants to know more about the role played by Chiquita executives in approving the payments, according to sources familiar with his remarks, made in a closed meeting in his chambers.

Lamberth specifically said he wanted to know which company officials made the key decisions and whether they would face prosecution."

[GrpCaptMandrake]

89. It's not as easy as all that

A member of the Chiquita board went to Michael Chertoff at DOJ. It created an immediate DOJ conflict of interest. Probably good strategy from Chiquita's standpoint if their goal was to give a little "heads-up" and at the same time forestall serious prosecution, affording the Loyal Bushies at DOJ an opportunity to come up with a means of letting Chiquita off the hook.

Holder was a bit disingenuous, as it was the officers of the corporation (his clients) who stood to do jail time, and not some faceless member of the Board. The Board wasn't facing the possibility of prosecution, but Holder hid behind his less-than-forthcoming argument just the same.

And if murdering four thousand innocents constitutes "maintaining a stabilizing presence in Colombia," then Katie-Bar-The-Door. Please remember that the DOJ side of that "genuine debate" was headed by Loyal Bushies, whose rationale Holder was more than happy to accomodate in order to keep his clients from a richly-deserved stay at Club Fed.

Loyal Bushie: "Y'know, death squads can be a stabilizing presence. Remember El Salvador?"
Holder: "Absolutely."
Loyal Bushie: "Wanna make a deal?"
Holder: "Well, if you insist!"

Bang. Instant "genuine debate." Both sides of this "debate" were on the same side.

Query: Holder said Chiquita got "treated pretty harshly." Do you suppose he thinks Chiquita was treated more or less harshly than the 4,000 Colombians whom Chiquita paid to have taken away in the night, gunned down and their bodies left to bloat in the tropical sun?


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[AndrewP]

116. Very interesting. I had not even heard about this.

[bigtree]

118. you are making a case which wasn't upheld by the judge

If he thought Chiquita was guilty or complicit in the deaths of 4,000 Colombians I would think he would have said so or the verdict would have reflected that.

Also, your argument against the executive who brought the case to the attention of the Justice Dept. looks like opinion rather than supported by fact. It was the DOJ who decided to prosecute wasn't it? And, you're taking the position that EVERYONE was under the wing of the Bush DOJ, including Holder. That just doesn't add up.

The problem with arguing Holder's position is that we don't have very much on that outside of decidedly opposed opinions like yours which conflate the deaths of Columbians at the hands of the AUC with Holder's defense of the Chiquita executives without detailing his argument or on what grounds he was defending them. It's a convenience which allows you to characterize Holder's involvement in the plea deal for the Chiquita executives in the worst light possible. It may gain you hurrahs from folks here, but it's really a one-sided argument without more information in Holder's defense to weigh.

And in totally dismissing the 'stabilization' comment you are ignoring the fact that an objective of the AUC was reportedly to confront the murderous FARC, their rival.

[fla nocount]

41. Well argued, well presented and well researched. Great post! n/t

[Renew Deal]

80. Well researched? Really?

What do you base that on considering the OP didn't site one single source. How do you know the person didn't just make the whole thing up?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

98. Follow threads much?

/snark

The commenter was referring to my post, not the OP.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[fla nocount]

108. When I compliment someone's post it's my views on their skills.

It was balanced and well presented and not partisan in anyway, almost clinical in an OP Ed manner. If you and your ilk who have suddenly come alive defending the indefensible want to truly influence opinion here or elsewhere you're going to need a blindfold, earplugs, a ball gag, and a Vulcan mind meld. If there is this much divisiveness and dissent after only 2 weeks, imagine what 4 years is going to be like. I've been at this game since I got "clean for Gene" in 1968. I'm not easily influenced by you or the poster who I thought presented a really good product.

You won't find many "Good Germans" posting here other than those paid to do so.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

113. Self-delete n/t

[bigtree]

121. what a joke. You praise one post for it's completeness

. . . and you post this biased diatribe against anyone who might present an opposing view. Apparently you only support dissents you agree with.

"you and your ilk . . ." Really?

[fla nocount]

207. It's the difference between a well thought-out position post..

and a challenging, rambling diatribe by a partisan newbie. What'cha wanna bet that the poster I so admire is a law student with a mother who loves him and it's evidenced by sense of right and wrong?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

105. Thanks!

I don't oppose for opposition's sake. Heck, I argued that Rahm would do OK in his CoS position.

The last eight years have seen the DoJ ripped to shreds. We may be decades putting it back together. It strikes me that this man, with his divided loyalties (corporate America never completely turns you loose; they're like the mob that way) is not the guy who can root out the sleaze and slime, let alone take a long hard look at prosecuting people like Bush and Cheney for war crimes. If what Chiquita did was OK, then how is what BushCheney did not OK?


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. Your post deserves a thread of its own. Please post this separately. Excellent.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

72. I may do that at some point

but for right now, I'd probably be attacked for a "dupe" post, if the responses within this thread are any indication.

[slackmaster]

57. I think there is a common thread in the objections that lame54 and I have raised

It's an authoritarian mind-set. My personal objections to the Patriot Act and someone being opposed to decriminalization of marijuana come from exactly the same philosophical roots as my objections to senseless gun control and restrictions on abortion.

Maybe an authoritarian mentality is exactly what we want in an AG. This is just discussion.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. I disagree with you re the pot issue.

Even though several states have either decriminalized it and/or allowed for Medical Marijuana, the feds have not been real shy about closing down, then trying and convicting growers of MM, clinics and dispensaries. I don't know that an Obama administration would go after the (easy-target) pot growers/distributors as fervently as the * administration has but I don't see him changing the current fed laws either. If he even goes NEAR this subject, the Republicans (at least) would start screaming for his head because he's "soft of the war on drugs." And let's get serious, President "Change" isn't going to do anything to rock the boat -- we have that next election to look forward to.

[Renew Deal]

77. The people that oppose Holder are going bananas.

:evilgrin:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

99. Har-har-har!

Your comment just murders me! FOUR THOUSAND TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Renew Deal]

102. lol

:hide:

:rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

92. Thank you, GrpCaptMandrake! Chiquita's death squad attorney should not be U.S. Atty General!

In addition to what he may actually do in that position, to get corporate criminals--including those who pay assassins to take care of their "labor problem"--off the hook, and to further sell our Constitutional rights away to private 'prison-industrial complex"/police-state contractors...

...it sends a terrible message to Latin America that the lives of poor workers and union leaders aren't worth shit to our leaders.

Obama may talk a good line on labor rights in Latin America, but the appointment of Holder SCREAMS over his voice, "MONEY MONEY MONEY RULES!"

This appointment sickened me. I understand that Obama had to compromise with the pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-rich people, pro-neoliberal, anti-labor, anti-democracy wing of the Democratic Party leadership, to get elected, and probably to get vetted and approved by the global corporate predators and war profiteers who rule over us. But does he have to go this far? Couldn't he be quieter about installing death squad attorneys in the government?

Sorry, I just can't make sense of this. "Change you can believe in"? I'm biting my lips and crossing all my fingers, and hoping, hoping, hoping this doesn't mean what I think it means. Worst case--Oil War II, South America (that Obama intends to succeed where the Bushwhacks failed, to reconquer Venezuela's and Ecuador's and other South American oil fields for the bad guys), or--short of a hot war--more economic warfare on the people of the south, for global corporate predators like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Monsanto, Chiquita, Dyncorp and co.

How will corporate crime be handled here? How will corporate crime that is committed there, be handled here? How sincere is Obama that you can't murder thousands of union leaders and workers there and get 'rewarded' with U.S. "free trade"? These are some of the grave questions that Holder's appointment as A.G. raises. It seems to align Obama with Donald Rumsfeld, who called for economic warfare against Venezuela and other leftist democracies, in a WaPo op-ed in Dec 07, and, if that fails, "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies in South America." And I think that means U.S. military support for the fascist thugs and murderers and white separatist cabals in the oil rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The South Americans just turned back one such Bushwhack coup attempt in Bolivia, this summer. The fascist coup plotting in Venezuela may come to head next week, when Venezuela holds by-elections.

I would like to believe Obama's rhetoric of peace. But I got sucked in once before by the Democratic Party on an issue of war and peace. In my first vote for president, I voted for the "peace candidate": LBJ. And what I got for that vote was TWO MILLION PEOPLE SLAUGHTERED in Southeast Asia, including over 55,000 U.S. soldiers.

Beware of Democrats bearing peace. That is the lesson.

Oil, lots and lots of it, right here in our own hemisphere. Our corpo/fascist rulers want it. They are appalled that democratic governments in the south are using their oil profits to benefit the poor. They want to stop that. They are aghast that leftists, and labor union activists, and human rights groups, and social movements are succeeding in elected pro-people presidents and legislatures in the south. They want to stop that as well. And Eric Holder was the high-priced corporate attorney for one of the chief malefactors in South America--Chiquita International--who paid $1.7 million to rightwing death squads in the worst country in South America--the one run by murderers and drug traffickers, the one getting $6 BILLION in U.S.-Bushwhack/Clintonite military aid--to assassinate some four thousands union leaders, over a seven year period. Holder colluded with the Bushwhacks to get these Chiquita executives off with a hand-slap--when their victims' families sued them in a U.S. court.

What does that say about law enforcement against corporate criminals? What does that say about Obama policy toward the brutalized poor of Colombia? What does that say about Obama policy towards the good leftist governments of South America that support labor rights and human rights, or the ones like Chile, Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela, who are investigating and trying to prosecute U.S.-supported fascist torturers and mass murderers from past regimes, or toward the courageous prosecutors and judges in Colombia, who are fighting the death squads with what legal tools they have, under constant threat?

It seems to me that Holder's appointment as chief legal officer of the U.S. is great big "fuck you!" to Latin America and its awesome democracy movement.

That's my take on it. Obama may be a very cunning leader, indeed, and is trying to pull these corpo/fascist Democrats back into the service of the people. And I do NOT underestimate the forces of evil that snake through our government and rule our political establishment. I know they can whack him, one way or another. Don't we all know that! But of all the attorneys in this country--he picks Chiquita's attorney to head U.S. law enforcement?! Ah, me!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

104. Thanks, Peace Patriot!

We're not talking about rocket science here. We're talking about having someone in an incredibly powerful office who actually finds value in more than the hopes and aspirations of Corporate America.

I'll have to admit that Holder is likely no worse than anything McHoover might've appointed. That's a mighty low standard, however, for someone who's trying to raise a family and teach his children some essential lessons about the uplifting hope this country can offer.

One step forward. Two steps back. With both feet in a bucket.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[yellowcanine]

43. But you gave no reasoning for opposing Holder. That needs to be in the OP.

Otherwise this falls into the category of "flamebait"

No one is saying that Obama should not be held accountable for his picks. But neither should his picks be opposed without any accountability. It goes both ways.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

44. See post #38 for an Excellent argument against Holder.

[yellowcanine]

46. No thanks. The OP needs to justify his claim. Otherwise it is flamebait. This thread should be

locked.

[lame54]

52. From the OP...

If Obama is on the verge of selecting for AG someone who is pro patriot act/anti marijuana legalization I am going to speak up before it's too late.

pro patriot act/anti marijuana legalization

plus - as someone else pointed out

attorney for chiquita bananas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4498925#4499362

[yellowcanine]

63. That hardly qualifies as an "argument". And the OP should stand on its own.

Simply citing one or two issues without any explanation is not sufficient.

What exactly does "Pro patriot act" mean?

And even more so, what does "anti marijuana legislation" mean? ALL marijuana legislation? Any piece of legislation that MENTIONS marijuana? As I said, there is no argument there.

If you are going to make the case against Holder, then make it. Bumper sticker sound bite language is not going to convince anyone.

[NJGeek]

49. why? you people need to RELAX... we won.. give Obama a chance to get going here

[cali]

56. Question all you like. And don't choke on the words AG Holder

Thanks for the reminder to call Senators Leahy and Sanders to tell them I appreciate their voting for Holder.

And I can guarantee you that he's gonna be AG, and that Pat will get him through the hearing in no time.

sucks to be you.

[lame54]

58. and your reasons for thinking this guy is good?

besides spiting me

[cali]

73. I've actually done some research on him

do I like everything I've found out? No, but the balance is more toward the good than the bad. He's for shutting down Gitmo. He's strongly anti-torture. He's extremely well respected by those who have worked with him. He knows the department inside and out, he's results oriented. He's a believer in equality for all and social justice.

That weighs against his representing Chiquita and his anti-marijuana position of several years ago. Furthermore, I voted for Obama because I have a degree of faith in his judgment, and Obama clearly thinks he's the right person for the job.

Oh, and I think stupid quixotic quests (not all quixotic quests) are laughable. I guarantee you that not one dem Senator will vote against him and neither will Bernie.

[lame54]

81. "He's a believer in equality for all and social justice."...

unless you live in columbia

or need medical marijuana

[cali]

85. he's a lawyer. he represented a horrible client. lawyers do that you know

and his stance on marijuana may or may not still be the same but he'll be following Obama's policy stances on that- and every other major issue.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

93. That's not quite correct

The DOJ is not supposed to be a policy arm of the Executive Branch. While it is part of the Executive Branch, it is supposed to operate independently of the political machinations. As such, the AG isn't supposed to "follow policy stances." We've had eight long, miserable years of AGs who "follow policy stances." You want more of that?

If you read my objections to Holder, you'll note that I acknowledged that lawyer ethics are necessarily lower than human ethics and lawyers, by the nature of their work, represent some pretty nasty people/things. I fully understand that. I maintain, however, that a lawyer who has chosen a path such as Holder has chosen ought not be put in a position of being the chief law enforcement officer of the republic any more than Johnny Cochran, Brendan Sullivan or any other criminal defense lawyer. There is an inherent conflict in such an appointment that stems from the moral compartmentalization that the lawyer has had to undertake to keep his humanity from his lawyerly side. If he was the best lawyer in the country, would you want the man who defended John Gotti as AG, just because Obama chose him? That's what Holder is. He looked at murder and torture of union leaders and workers in Colombia and rationalizd "Eh, another day, another dollar. Who am I to judge?" That's what criminal defense lawyers do.

Moreover, for clarity, my argument would NOT be the same were Holder nominated for the SCOTUS. That's jurisprudence and not advocacy.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice



On edit: punctuation and clarity

[orleans]

111. exactly. this really gets me as well. hopefully, when he goes through

the q&a someone will ask him about these issues.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

173. Don't hold your breath

The Democrats in the Senate won't ask him because he's a Democratic nominee. The Republicans won't ask because they won't want to air Chiquita's blood-stained laundry. See how nicely it all works out?

And all we'll get from the For-Profit-Only Media is vacuous pablum about how "historic" the confirmation is.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[GrpCaptMandrake]

69. Sucks to have a conscience, too, I guess

Because that's what motivates my opposition to Eric Holder.

The sad thing is that you're right. Holder will breeze through the Senate without a peep being made about what he did, what he sanctioned, what he approved of in Colombia. And the American corporations doing business there will keep right on killing. Chiquita, responsible for four thousand dead. DelMonte, Dole, Coca-Cola in the same bloody business. How many widows, how many orphans do you suppose those dead left behind? How many more will be created when Corporate America sees it has one of "its own" at AG?

I have so many hopes for this Administration, for what Lincoln called "a new birth of freedom." It saddens me to know this is the kind of person whom Obama chooses to do the work that desperately needs doing. It tells me that much of the work will likely not get done.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[cali]

84. Holder is for shutting down Gitmo. Strongly against torture

a big proponent of social justice and against the DP. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and besides there is no perfect. We need someone at Justice who knows the department inside and out. Holder is actually one of the very few people that do.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

103. To make sure I understand . . .

It's great that Holder opposes the U.S. government using the death penalty, but he's OK w/ corporate America doing it offshore?

He opposes the U.S. government sanctioning torture, but he's OK w/ Corporate America doing it in Colombia?

"The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good?" Indeed. Don't forget, however, that The Murder is the Enemy of the Living. No one, least of all me, is demanding "perfection" from the AG nominee. All I want is a de minimis standard of having a person in the office who doesn't have a history of countenancing murder and torture. Holder can't meet that standard.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[EFerrari]

123. To paraphrase Cornel West on Holder, "dear brother Eric" needs to say

how much he personally and ideologically had to do with that case. I'd like to know, myself.

:)

[bigtree]

126. That would be my aim as well. He should be asked about this and given the opportunity to a defense

But, there is no court or any judge who holds Holder complicit in the deaths of those Columbians as the poster does. No judge or court would take the position that a defense attorney bears ANY responsibility for a crime they were defending a client against.

[EFerrari]

128. That's a very legalistic argument. There is no judge or court

that dictates conscience, either.

It would be good if this was aired out, though. Just get it out in the open if possible.

[bigtree]

130. But, the argument should be based on the facts in the case, not how it's perceived from where we sit

What are you using to make the judgment about Holder's actions? If the judge didn't accept that the Chiquita executives were complicit in the deaths of the Columbians or were somehow directing the combatants with the money they paid, then it is a stretch to argue that outside of the legal process. I'm not saying a case couldn't be made, but we are talking about Holder defending them in a plea bargain; not defending the combatants, but defending the executives who were not charged with complicity in the deaths. Despite that, some folks feel comfortable in making that leap and making the further stretch that Holder supported the killings with his defense.

The way I understand the case, he didn't believe the folks he was defending were, in fact, guilty of complicity in the deaths. Apparently, neither did the judge, so I don't know how one can make the leap that Holder believed he was defending folks who were guilty or complicit in the violence. I really don't know how we can draw these broad conclusions from the articles that are out there.

[EFerrari]

135. Because we bring our experience to bear.

To be an agent of Chiquita or Exxon or Coca-Cola or their peers is to participate in their business model which involves strip mining both people and planet with an utter disregard for either.

There is no judge that sits on any single case that can change that context.

[bigtree]

138. an agent? that's not the fact.

He represented some executives of the company in this one case as a defense lawyer. That's not exactly 'an agent' of Chiquita. There are obviously parameters of his involvement which can be measured. You haven't shown the evidence of complicity or malfeasance that you're complaining about outside of the fact that he 'defended' them in this plea agreement. It's a smear, really.

[EFerrari]

141. Yes, an attorney acts as an agent. Ask any attorney.

Main Entry:
agent

noun Etymology:
Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, leadDate:
15th century

1: one that acts or exerts power

2 a: something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b: a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle

3: a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result

4: one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a: a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent> b: one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : spy <secret agent> c: a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent>

5: a computer application designed to automate certain tasks (as gathering information online)

Eta: You don't seem to know what agent means and you feel perfectly comfortable in accusing me of smearing Eric Holder. Wow.

[bigtree]

145. not withstanding your post of the dictionary

As I said, the parameters of his involvement with Chiquita can be measured. There's just not as much there as you suggest.

How ridiculous to suggest I don't know the meaning of an agent. You exaggerated in your post. Holder defended Chiquita executives in this one case. You suggest otherwise by claiming he's an 'agent' for them. That connotes support for more than this one case defending the executives in this one plea deal. Unless you have more than this one case, or can actually show a pattern of behavior, I really don't see the point in this attack on Holder.

And, as before you are relying on innuendo rather than any actual facts about Holder's representation of the Chiquita executives in this case to make your point. It's just a smear without at least providing some account of what he actually did or actually argued. It's a one-sided smear.

[EFerrari]

146. Good luck with that one, bigtree. n/t

[bigtree]

147. hey, I'm just another idiot poster on a discussion board

I don't need any luck to do this

[EFerrari]

152. Well, I'm not an idiot. And I align myself with other people who are not idiots

like Dr. West and Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill and Amy Goodman in observing Obama's choices and in thinking about them from my own position as a liberal.

[bigtree]

154. you said yourself that Cornel West wants answers from Holder

. . . right now, all we have are the criticisms with absolutely no defense from the man.

And, you may not be an idiot. I certainly won't call you one. But, politics is an idiots game and we are all playing it here. I happen to enjoy the idiocy like a pig likes mud.

[EFerrari]

168. Search Chiquita death squads and read for yourself.

I admire dear brother West but we don't share heads.

[bigtree]

171. I've obviously read what I could find

. . . still no comprehensive defense from Holder available to refute all of this chatter.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

176. Did you find this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html

You might find it informative.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

178. that's the most visible article out there

:shrug:

We disagree, so you assume I'm uninformed? Nice.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

182. I made no such assumption

I asked if you'd read it. Apparently you have. You answered the question. Issue resolved.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[treestar]

155. Exactly. Holding lawyers responsible for the actions their clients are accused of

is just plain wrong. The rule of law says anyone accused can have counsel. It is an ethics rule that lawyers not turn down cases because they are unpopular. Even the "terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay should have the right to counsel. That is what the rule of law is about. Even Saddam Hussein was entitled to counsel for his defense. Is that lawyer to be singled out and hated? No.

It undermines the whole concept of a legal system, just the same as those arguing the executive powers, the police, should be able to just shoot the accused and be done with it.

[EFerrari]

156. I hold Eric Holder accountable for selling his services to corrupt murderers.

That's an entirely different matter.

Tell you what. Go defend Exxon for a while overseas, and then come back here and move into the highest law enforcement job in the nation. Try it. It won't be a good fit.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

159. I'm afraid you have quite missed the point

Mine, at least, is not a criticism of Holder for taking the case and defending it zealously. Lawyers do that. They build a hard little shell around themselves in order to permit them to mount that defense. The one question a criminal defense lawyer NEVER asks is "Well, did you do it?" If she does, then she's completely destroyed her ability to defend the case without at some point subborning perjury.

My point, which seems to be incredibly difficult for a number of people to grasp, is that no lawyer who has done such things within the course and scope of her practice should be the Attorney General of the United States, no matter how effective she might have been in a trial counsel role. It presents far too much of an ethical minefield to expect anyone to negotiate it successfully, let alone faithfully enforcing the laws. Eric Holder is simply tainted by his past practice in terms of his fitness to be AG.

John Gotti's lawyer, no matter how effective, shouldn't be the AG. Neither should OJ's. Neither should Chiquita Brands'.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

162. I get your point, I just don't share it.

And I don't believe the Chiquita executives were as culpable as you assert or as pernicious in their actions as John Gotti.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

169. Ah, so we'll play at semantics, then?

Murder by knife isn't as wicked as murder by gun? Or is it the other way around? John Gotti was worse than men who hired the killing of four thousand workers how?

What you don't "believe" is a far cry from the facts as they exist. The facts are these: Chiquita ADMITTED hiring out murder. That's what the guilty plea WAS. Holder claimed, however, that only the corporation should be punished, and not the executives who actually committed the crimes.

Is that the kind of legal philosophy we need after eight years of crooked corporate cronyism?


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

174. they admitted to making payments which the Justice Dept. determined were illegal

Chiquita maintained throughout that they were paying 'protection money' for the defense of their workers from AUC, not for the purposes you assert here. Of course, that distinction wasn't enough to hold off charges and convictions.

And, as for word play, you are the one reduced to making your own interpretations of the relatively light sentence they received and claiming that was a penalty for 'hiring out murder.'

[GrpCaptMandrake]

181. Do you even KNOW what Chiquita pled "GUILTY" to? n/t

To what word or words do you reduce the act of knowingly paying for the slaughter of human beings? These aren't my "own interpretations." Here's an "interpretation" from one of the witnesses: "They cut off his head with a machete, dumped the weapon, then calmly walked to their motorcycle and drove off, without saying a word." I suppose anyone financing such conduct would hope for a "relatively light sentence."


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

184. they claimed throughout that they were paying 'protection money'

They were operating in a state of anarchy where their own workers were subject to the very same violence you describe; Columbian farmers were at risk, not Chiquita executives. The company claimed there was a protection racket operating in which their lives were threatened if they didn't pay up. They asserted throughout that they were paying AUC to keep AUC from attacking their workers. In that effort, if you accept their perception and characterization of the payments, They were being victimized (extorted) by the very forces you claim they were deliberately aiding. That's very different from what you describe as the motivation for the payments. They weren't convicted or charged as complicit in any murder.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

188. And even the Attorney General of Colombia says that's malarkey

He wants the Chiquita executives extradited. Based on the facts, I agree with him.

P.S. I went ahead and gave you the name of the felony for which Chiquita was indicted in another post.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[GrpCaptMandrake]

157. I never asserted that a court or judge did hold him complicit

I find his behavior contemptible, not for complicity in the murders (which he wasn't), as you mistakenly assert, but for his willingness to wink at them after the fact, via statements like "they (Chiquita) paid a pretty harsh penalty." In comparison to what? Four thousand dead human beings? By that standard, Chiquita's punishment didn't even amount to punishment.

The responsibility Holder bears is an ethical one; a responsibility that I have made clear is not one of legal ethics, which are by definition far lower and slipperier than the human variety.

What troubles me is the fact that he winked at the murders and even prevaricated about the monies Chiquita paid, even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary that came from the Colombian government itself.

No man who has done such work should be Attorney General. Not John Gotti's lawyer, not OJ's lawyer, and not Chiquita Brands' lawyer.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradiontwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

158. You are making an interpretation that the court didn't seem to agree with

Holder presented his case and the judge seemed to agree with the relatively light sentence he doled out.

And, your rhetoric certainly does conflate Holder's defense with the murders.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

160. And you are making unfounded assumptions about the Court

The Court didn't get to hear a "presentation." It was a plea bargain worked out in the back rooms of the DoJ and handed to the judge for his approval.

By your own words, you just said that Holder doled out the sentence. How does a defense attorney do that?

Note: the Enron financial creeps got more time than any of these Chiquita execs, even though the evidence from Colombia demonstrated that they knew exactly what they were paying for.

Holder's lawyering was probably quite good. He took a Loyal Bushie DoJ that was reticent to prosecute (just like they didn't want have the nerve to ask for the death penalty against Eric Rudolph) and used it to his client's advantage, working out a deal that penalized Chiquita $6,675 per dead Colombian worker over a five year span. Good for him, good for Chiquita, bad for American principles of justice and worse for the Colombians who were murdered.

Holder is simply too tainted by this affair to hold the post. Surely to goodness there's a career prosecutor somewhere that doesn't bear the taint that Holder does.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

164. the bottom line is that the judge reviewed and accepted the plea

. . .as did the prosecutors. If they were as culpable as you assert then I would assume there wouldn't have been the opportunity for such an agreement. You're now quibbling.

[Two Americas]

65. of course

I can't understand why we have thread after thread mocking and ridiculing people for expressing their opinion.

It is our civic duty to speak out, and as you point out Obama himself encouraged dissent.

The true betrayal of Obama is to use his victory as an excuse for increasing the attacks on the left and the divisions within the party - ironically under the banner of "unity."

The Obama campaign was not an endorsement of the centrist and conservative faction within the party. It was not a repudiation of the left. It was not a call for blind loyalty.

Before the election, those attacking the dissenters now were certainly not telling anyone that an Obama victory would mean the end to dissent, the invalidation and rejection of the left. In fact, they were saying the exact opposite.

[garybeck]

75. AG is supposed to enforce the law, not make it

I wouldn't worry too much about his stand on the patriot act or marijuana. as AG he will not be in a position to affect any of these policies.

I believe this is what they call separation of powers. While Bush abused the office and concentrated powers in the executive branch, I would expect the next admin to follow the constitution more and whoever is the AG will not be deciding policy.

[lame54]

76. The Fed govt. interferes with state marijuana laws all the time...

ignoring the will of the people

[garybeck]

87. even under Bush, there are many thousands of people growing marijuana legally

and while a few people have been proseducted, the vast majority of people following their state laws have not.

with Obama we have the potential for the federal law to be relaxed some and I would expect the AG to enforce accordingly.

Ironically, the last 10 years have seen more progress in marijuana laws than ever before, on the state level. let's see what happens with the feds now.

[lame54]

90. My son-in-law has a much needed medical marijuana permit...

and nearly all the clubs in his area have been shut down in the last two years

he lives in Castro Valley - just outside of San Francisco

[garybeck]

94. i have friends in N. Ca and Oregon who have growing permits and all is well

I have heard there is a lot of abuse at the clubs, people with no presceptions getting access, etc. I'm not saying that's what's going on in Castro, but I can tell you we're still way ahead of where we were 10 years ago.

[zorahopkins]

78. Give President Obama A Chance!

For goodness sake, can *e PLEASE give President Obama a chance to succeed?

If President Obama *ants Eric Holder to Attorney General, I think *e all should support our new President!

*hy do some people not *ant to give President Obama a chance??

(note: As a protest against the continued occupation of the *hite House by the corrupt and immoral Bush/Cheney regime, I am refusing to use the letter bet*een "V" and "X".)

[lame54]

83. Maybe your right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82py_wk5vE4

[zorahopkins]

86. Leave Britney Alone!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FAuJod1XmY

[GrpCaptMandrake]

96. Thanks for the clarification

For a minute there I thought your typing fingers were as squirrelly as mine sometimes get.

As to the substance of your post, this has NOTHING to do with failing to "give President Obama a chance." This has to do with holding him to account for the lofty aspirations he espoused and thousands of us believed. Some of us expect more than a corporate criminal-defense lick-spittle in the office of the republic's chief law enforcement officer. For some of us, winking at death squads and terrorism is a bit too much to stomach.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

125. But, you've shown NOTHING here that shows he 'winked' at death squads and terrorism

Just innuendo based on the fact that he defended Chiquita executives in a plea bargain. You still haven't shown what Holder actually argued; just a load of speculation and a stretch to accuse him of actual complicity in the deaths suffered at the hands of the Columbian combatants. There is no evidence at all in the outcome of the case that the Chiquita executives approved, supported, or were paying for the terrorism you accuse Holder of supporting by defending them.

It may well be that you don't believe the court got it right, or that the judge reviewing the plea bargain was correct in the relatively light sentence he handed out, but there is no evidence supported by any legal proceeding which we use to determine guilt or innocence in America that the Executives were as complicit in the deaths you accuse them of supporting with the payments they were making.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

163. You're right in one regard

Holder represented a company that PLED GUILTY to hiring out murder; not nolo contendere or "Not guilty," but "GUILTY." Got that? Chiquita Brands ADMITTED they hired out murder. Holder, however, claimed that hiring the commission of those murders didn't constitute a punishable offense with regard to the people who hired the actual commission of the acts.

You can rationalize it any way you want for whatever reason you want, but it does not change those essential facts. You apparently don't like my choice of the phrase "winked at." Substitute any other phrase you like, but it does not change the facts of what Holder claimed. The future AG said that commissioning murder is not punishable under the laws of the United States as long as a multi-national corporation does it.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

165. That wasn't their admission and you know it.

We're sinking into hyperbole here which isn't supported by the facts in the case.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

185. Please tell me what "terrorism" involves

Then we can decide whether I've sunken into hyperbole.

After all, the GUILTY plea by Chiquita Brands in a FELONY indictment was for "Engaging In Transactions With A Specially Designated Global Terrorist." The statute provides for incarceration of those found guilty of the crime. Contrary to the plain language of that statute and thanks to Eric Holder and the Loyal Bushies at DoJ with whom he worked closely in crafting Chiquita's "sweetheart deal," the names of the actual executives who knowingly and intentionally committed the crime were not even made public. Imagine that! American corporate executives knowingly and intentionally engaged in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist, and we're not even allowed to know who they are.

Do those facts give you even a second's pause?

Does "terrorism" involve kidnapping? Does it involve torture? Does it involve murder?


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

190. I can accept Chiquita's assertion that they were being extorted

. . . and paid the money as a price to operate their business in Columbia.

But, I also agree with the proposition that, if paying extortion money to terrorists is the price for operating a business, that business shouldn't operate.

The law is a good one and they were sanctioned for breaking it. They broke it by caving or bending to the demands of AUC, not in the way you describe.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

193. Then it appears obvious to me

that you're the one who's sunken into something here: not hyperbole, but rank rationalization.

You may "accept" Chiquita's assertion, but the Court did not. The Court ACCEPTED a plea of "Guilty" to the felony as charged. Had the Court "accepted" Chiquita's "extortion" claim, which apparently no one outside Chiquita, Eric Holder and the Loyal Bushies did, then there would've been no conviction.

Moreover, if the situation was as you wish it had been, there would've been no need to hide the identities of those who paid the "extortion" money. Instead, however, the purpose of hiding the names was to forestall civil liability in a suit now on-going and in which Eric Holder is once again lead counsel.

Given the fact that Obama mentioned Colombia's labor troubles specifically, how do you expect that Holder will avoid a conflict of interest once he's confirmed? It's apparent to me that he'll have to recuse himself, which just makes appointing him all the more misguided. What good is an Attorney General who can't even participate in matters relating to an issue Obama has made clear (assuming he was sincere, which I want to do) is a matter of great significance to him (i.e. the relationship between labor abuses and Colombia "Free Trade?"

Sadly, Holder WILL be confirmed. The Democrats will be as silent as Colombian graves at the confirmation and the Republicans won't want to embarass a valued constituent like Chiquita, or Dole, or DelMonte, or Coca-Cola, or Nestle, or Drummond Coal.

Perhaps you can have enough confidence in Holder for the both of us.

Good night, and thanks for the rousing debate.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

195. They still were not found guilty of the murders you ascribe to their actions.

The fact of the relatively weak sentence points to an acceptance by the court of a weak culpability in the actions of AUC.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

200. It's now clear

that you have absolutely no comprehension of the court process. Procedural rules allow for the prosecution and defense to enter an agreement that ties the Court's hands as to sentencing. It doesn't mean what you seem so anxious to believe. Why you're so anxious to believe Chiquita isn't what they admitted they are is baffling to me, but your motives are not subject to a discussion of the facts about Chiquita's conduct.

No matter how hard you rationalize, Chiquita Brands pled GUILTY to paying and supporting terrorists and the facts as they exist in Colombia make clear what the payment was for.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

201. it's clear to me

. . . that you have absolutely no comprehension of the nature of the verdict if you believe that the sentence was a conviction for the murders you have accused them of being culpable for in this thread.

It's also clear that you have no idea what a protection scheme is.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

206. Keep trying

There was no "verdict." Verdicts are delivered in PUBLIC by juries or a judge following a trial. There was no trial. And no charges against the executives, whose names are hidden to this day ALL thanks to Holder and the Loyal Bushies.

You and Holder and Chiquita can keep talking about a "protection scheme," but the facts on the ground prove that to be just more corporate PR hogwash. I don't know why you feel beholden to a company like Chiquita, but your loyalty does not displace facts. Do you not understand that this country cannot afford four more years of corporate cronyism in the DoJ, or do you actually favor that?

Again: the words of Colombia's chief prosecutor, Mario Iguaran, who's actually investigated Chiquita's crimes:

This was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder.

What makes it so hard for you to comprehend those few short words? You've genuinely piqued my curiosity.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Taverner]

101. I'm with ya

[Occam Bandage]

106. Obama is not going to appoint anyone who's pro-marijuana-legalization. nt

[lame54]

109. All they have to be is...

pro-let the states work it out for themselves w/o interference from the Feds

[orleans]

112. k&r n/t

[mzmolly]

115. We should question him incessantly. For example, I don't care for the tie he was

wearing today.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

117. In Eric Holder's own words on where he stands, does this differ from DU ?

This is directly from today's Post.
"Here is a summary of a defining speech Holder gave before the American Constitution Society in June.
"I never thought I would see the day," Holder said, "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. . . ."Our government authorized the use torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants, and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution."Now, I do not question the motives of patriotism of those responsible for these policies. But this does nothing to mitigate the fact that these steps were wrong when they were initiated and they are wrong today."We owe the American people a reckoning.

"Holder said that "our ability to lead the world in combating these dangers depends not only on the strength of our military leadership but our moral leadership as well." But that moral leadership "has been fractured. To recapture it, we can no longer allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. . . ."The term 'leader of the free world' is bestowed upon the United States president because of the civil liberties and rights we guarantee our people. It comes from the power of our values as a nation. And for the last six years, the position of leader of the free world has been largely vacant. . . .

"For the sake of our safety and our security -- and because it is the right thing to do -- the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights. . . ."It is our task over the next several years to reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years. We as Americans must stand up and recognize the mistakes that we have made, and we as Americans together must begin the process of correcting those errors, as we have in the past.""

[Romulox]

119. Now quote some of his whacko Drug Warrior crap, would ya?

Else you are just cherry picking. :hi:

[bigtree]

122. that's this poster's right, as much as those who are posting on the Columbian issue

. . . are using that complaint as a definitive argument opposing him.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

124. You are joined on the right with your discontent about Holder, so you are not alone.

I cherry picked what is very important to me. The drug issue is important to you. I will do more research so I can understand what is important to you. So you are not just cherry picking on focusing on Drug Warrior issue, here is more.

November 19, 2008, 11:15 am
Political Wisdom: Eric Holder, Going Down Hard on the Right
Here’s a summary of the smartest new political analysis on the Web:
by Sara Murray and Gerald F. Seib

However well it might go down within Democratic circles, President-elect Barack Obama’s apparent choice of Eric Holder as his attorney general isn’t going down well on the right, if a piece by the editors of the National Review is any indication. “As we observed throughout the campaign, Barack Obama gave indications that his election would mean a return to the September 10 mentality, a national-security outlook marked prominently by its lack of seriousness about the terrorist threat,” the Review Online writes. “In choosing Eric Holder to be his attorney general, President-Elect Obama has taken a step toward confirming those misgivings.”

The editors argue that Holder is “a conventional, check-the-boxes creature of the Left. He is convinced justice in America needs to be ‘established’ rather than enforced; he’s excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he’s a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he’s more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he’s in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime.”

[Romulox]

127. So he's *our* whacko Drug Warrior?

:puke:

[EFerrari]

129. There are plenty on the left that question this appointment.

And, it's the job of the right to call Obama a Marxist, lol, and to frame Holder as a leftist which he is not.

[girl gone mad]

144. That might be enough to keep him from becoming AG.

Dem leadership doesn't seem to care about our opinions, but they are usually eager to appease the right.

[EFerrari]

150. Ouch. n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

161. And yet . . .

Long before he made that speech, Holder had taken the (bought-and-well-paid-for) position that hiring the murders of 4,000 of his fellow human beings did NOT constitute criminal conduct sufficient to merit imprisonment of the people who hired out the killings.

To recap Holder's philosophy:

Kidnapping: not OK if done by the U.S. Government. OK if done by Chiquita Brands.
Torture: not OK if done by the U.S. Government. OK if done by Chiquita Brands.
Murder (4,000 times over): Not OK if done by the U.S. Government. OK if done by Chiquita Brands.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[bigtree]

166. of course that's your independent verdict

. . . which isn't supported by anything the court ultimately did.

[EFerrari]

170. You keep repeating this same legalistic argument as if it was anything more

than an appeal to authority and as if you shouldn't be able to come to a conclusion yourself, in the privacy of your own mind and from your own sense of ethics.

[bigtree]

175. I can make stuff up too

Or I can rely on the verdict of those who overheard the case.

[EFerrari]

177. Arriving at an informed conclusion is not "making stuff up", it's critical thinking.

A skill that can come in very handy.

[bigtree]

179. I would assume that the court is the most unbiased source

. . . and I'd use that as a guide when evaluating the opposing views and sources.

There's one view which isn't fully represented here: Holder's.

[EFerrari]

187. It's a good thing to keep an open mind. But if you keep it open too wide,

you're in danger of losing your frontal lobes.

Chiquita makes Black Water look like crude amateurs. And it would be interesting to see if Mr. Holder could explain why he quacks and walks like a duck.

[readmoreoften]

191. One case supporting the right of corporations to use right-wing paramilitary death squads

against workers negates an entire career as far as I'm concerned. It's one of those things. It's like supporting the AFA, donating to Yes on 8, or betting on contestants in a baby-eating competition. You may not have eaten the baby, but you're still a sick fuck and no one should want to be seen with you.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

194. Damn, that's a great analogy!

Well said!


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[readmoreoften]

167. I have no loyalty to anyone but the working class. So much as Obama represents us he has my support.

And that includes the LGBT working class as well as the poor who are indistinguishable from the working class in that the poor are generally either working or looking for work and the working class is generally poor these days.

[EFerrari]

172. That would have to exclude the working class in Colombia, the one Obama

said deserved not to die at the hands of their goverment or their government's collaborators, i.e., Chiquita.

[readmoreoften]

180. Why would that exclude the working class of any nation, let alone Colombia?

I said I support Obama so long as he supports the working class. If he is standing up for the working class, I support him. If he stops, so does my support.

[EFerrari]

183. That's the crux of this thread, right there. Is Obama still supporting the working class

if he hires Eric Holder?

[readmoreoften]

186. My bad! Yes, Holder's defense of Chiquita and its right-wing paramilitary death squad

would put Obama in the "not-supporting the working class" column of my ledger if this moves forward. Frankly, I have never had any expectation that Obama will do anything but uphold the historical arc of US foreign policy: right-wing death squads to protect multinational profit.

[EFerrari]

189. I'm a little reactive about this right now because the really dirty stuff

has started back up again in Latin America after some years of respite while Bush was killing people in the Middle East.

Also, Obama objected to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement expressly on the grounds of human rights abuses, which was great but also now, problematic in view of this choice of Holder.

I don't know what it all adds up to. But the covert stuff is getting bad again. :(

[readmoreoften]

192. No worries. I spent time in Mexico and Nicaragua. I know very well what we do there.

When I was in Nicaragua, I met a Sandinista nurse who survived by diving in a pit of water filled with the bodies of her comrades and hiding by putting a severed head on top of her own. I'm sad to hear it's going on again. PM me with a link if you have specific info. My guess is that Obama is going to talk out of both sides of his neck. I think it's up to us to call his bluffs and pin him down.

[EFerrari]

196. So, you really do know what I mean.

I'm very worried about the people in Colombia. Uribe was Bush's ho and now that's going to hell. There will be even more death there now. The left leaning countries are being attacked in the press, in their elections, in the physical safety of their liders. I expect our government to fight hard against the left winning in El Salvador -- with all that may mean.

There are so many false fronting groups of ours in Latin America that one of my worries is that Obama will buy into those fronts -- he probably will. We'll see soon enough.

[fujiyama]

197. With regards to the Justice Department

the main thing we need is someone that won't politicize the position to the extent of the "hackism" it was during this administration.

I trust Leahy's initial judgment on this - he has given praise to the nomination.

I think it is good to argue about Holder and his past clients, views, and positions on issues. And I sure hope they come out during the hearing as well. I am disturbed about the Chiquita case, though I think you will often get some truly scummy clients when you go to work at a high end corporate law firm. This sounds like a particularly bad example. I definitely don't agree on his past stance on marijuana (I hope he has evolved on this issue and follows Obama's own saner views on this), and his OK to pardon Mark Rich (sorry I still don't get this).

But that's what the hearings are for. This isn't necessarily whom I would have chosen for this position, but he sounds fully capable of being independent enough to run the DOJ in a way that steers clear of the way it was run the last several years (especially by Gonzales) yet able to take direction and follow through on Obama's own legal priorities. He sounds like he understands the Department of Justice thoroughly, which I think will be especially important to know where the damage was done to the rule of law.

The DOJ is a unique organization in many ways and I think it was understandable to get someone that really knows it top down. I'm willing to have a wait and see attitude and give the benefit of the doubt with regards to Obama's judgment. I know others are more skeptical and that is fine.

[lame54]

204. That's you bar? - to be better than Gonzales?...

shoot for the moon

[JuniperLea]

209. And he WILL... future... get it... when he takes the job...

You have no idea how these people will behave under his leadership.