Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (33456)	3/11/2010 1:41:24 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

'In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.' By: Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner After not responding to NRO for comment, the Department of Justice did respond to Fox News yesterday about our Burck/Perino piece on Eric Holder's non-disclosure of his Jose Padilla amicus briefs during his confirmation hearings. It's not like these were dental records Eric Holder left out. It's a little more than "unfortunate." It's disingenuous. And it just happens to be about our national security. And he just happens to be attorney general now. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (33456)	3/11/2010 1:49:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Re: 'In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.' By: Andy McCarthy The Corner K-Lo, I think this crusade against the Attorney General that you and Bill and Dana are on is just shameful, and if I were a GOP Beltway Barrister, why I'd be pulling the gang together this very minute for a group preen, a quick letter, and maybe a few guest spots on MSNBC's "Countdown" -- you know, to raise the tone of our public discourse. Look, I don't know if John Adams ever accidentally forgot to remember one of his briefs in the Boston Massacre case, but Mr. Holder was clearly acting in the proud tradition of lawyers who zealously represent their unpopular clients themselves by accidentally, mistakenly omitting, inadvertently of course, to include, er, unpopular information in response to a document demand. And what's the big whup anyway? Padilla was an obscure case -- it's not like anyone in the country was talking about an American citizen dispatched by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to carry out a second-wave of post-9/11 mass-murder attacks on U.S. soil. It's not as if Holder's predecessor as Attorney General had written a 100-page legal opinion as a district judge presiding over Padilla's case. And it's not as though we're in a situation where, only two months ago, the Attorney General's memory might have been jogged by, say, writing a 5-page letter discussing the Padilla case at length and in a manner strikingly similar to the arguments in the missing brief -- and it's certainly not as if such a letter was prompted by the fact that the Attorney General had ordered that the Christmas bomber be Mirandized and charged in the criminal justice system ... just like he argued in the brief should have happened to Padilla. Furthermore, you know full well that if this sort of inadvertent accidental totally innocent oversight had happened to, say, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales or Michael Mukasey, the Senate Judiciary Committee would have completely understood that these very unfortunate accidental honest mistakes happen all the time. You guys need to get with the program. So the Attorney General, while he was in private practice at a firm that openly bragged about its "pro bono" representation of numerous Girmo detainees, chose during our war with al Qaeda to file a brief on behalf of an al Qaeda operative who tried to kill lots of Americans. So he argued that such people ought to be treated as criminal defendants swaddled in the Bill of Rights rather than enemy combatants detained for interrogation and war crimes commissions. So what? What, are you, like, saying that the positions Holder voluntarily took as a private lawyer zealously representing unpopular clients might shed some light on the policies he would implement in the completely unrelated role of top Justice Department official. That's the most shameful, over the top, outrageous, and, frankly, disgusting thing I've ever heard. Somebody call Keith Olbermann! corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (33456)	3/11/2010 1:50:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Sessions 'Deeply Concerned' Over Holder Oversight By: Daniel Foster The Corner Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the news of Attorney General Eric Holder's non-disclosure: <<< I am deeply concerned by Attorney General Holder’s failure to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee his third-party brief in support of Jose Padilla’s Supreme Court case. Not only was the Attorney General required to provide the brief as part of his confirmation, but the opinions expressed in it go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security. This is an extremely serious matter and the Attorney General will have to address it immediately. It is essential that we have full confidence, and receive full candor, from the official leading the Department of Justice. >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (33456)	3/11/2010 2:14:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Sticks and Stones Bill Burck & Dana Perino The Corner We’ve been called war criminals by left-wing bloggers because we worked in the Bush administration and believe that President’s Bush’s national security policies kept the nation safe after 9/11. We don’t think we are, and we hope our friends and family don’t either, but we’re grownups and can handle name-calling. We’ve chosen to enter the political realm and the public debate, so that kind of thing sort of comes with the territory. That’s one reason why we are having a hard time sympathizing with the lawyers at Justice who represented Guantanamo detainees or other suspected terrorists. They are not in cahoots with al-Qaeda. They should be allowed to work at the Department of Justice and advise Attorney General Eric Holder on detainee issues, assuming they comply with their ethical obligations to avoid conflicts of interest. But they are political appointees hired in large measure because of their political viewpoints and policy preferences; they are not career officials for whom such considerations would be prohibited. So, forgive us if we think they should have a bit thicker skin. Like us, they chose to enter the fray. They are trained advocates who can defend themselves, and we are sure they are more than capable of withstanding a little bit of political heat. Not to mention that many of them were more than happy to be identified by name in more friendly settings. Go online and you can find numerous press releases from their law firms, law schools, and advocacy centers celebrating the lawyers for their work on behalf of detainees. Congress is entirely within its rights to know who advises the attorney general on matters of national security — not so these people can be driven out of government or to shut them up, but so the public knows who is helping shape policy. What legitimate grounds could there be in a democracy to hide from the public the identities or responsibilities of political appointees? Because Keep America Safe might put up another ad? Please. We wrote a piece yesterday about Supreme Court briefs Holder signed onto in 2004 and 2005 supporting Jose Padilla. Holder failed to disclose these briefs as he was required to during his confirmation hearings, and the Department of Justice has admitted this. As we discussed, the briefs provide a roadmap to many of Holder’s current policies, but one of them is also notable for admitting there might be trade-offs between protecting the individual rights of suspected terrorists and protecting national security, which Holder denies (as does the president) now that he’s atop the Justice Department. We expect most people would agree that Holder’s policy views are very relevant to how he operates as a public official. So are those of the political appointees he chooses to surround himself with. We suspect many of them believe, as Holder did in his brief, that there is some level of risk we should be willing to bear to protect the rights of suspected terrorists. There’s no reason to think that this is anything other than an honestly held view. But how much risk they are willing to take is a legitimate topic for public debate. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (33456)	3/11/2010 2:17:07 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Eric Holder vs. John Adams Marc Thiessen The Corner I have a piece up for the Washington Post explaining why the al-Qaeda lawyers are wrong to wrap themselves in the mantle of John Adams. Thanks to the spade work of Bill Burck and Dana Perino, we now know why Holder was stonewalling on the identities of the “Al Qaeda 7” — he was one of them! If Holder and co. are simply carrying on the traditions of John Adams, why were they hiding their roles in seeking the release of enemy combatants? If they are proud of their work, why don’t they stand up and say so? corner.nationalreview.com