Talk:Eric Holder

Holder confirmation

I have found no evidence that any Democrat was willing to entertain the issues raised by Republicans. The closest one could come to such a statement is: (1) if you include Charles Schumer's condemnation of Holder's actions back in 2001, or (2) if you count Arlen Specter as a Democrat avant la lettre. But Chuck did not repeat his criticism of 2001 when Holder was nominated and instead called him an outstanding pick. What prominent Democrats made a big deal out of it? I have not yet found any name of Democrats who complained but I've only searched around for less than an hour.

An additional problem with the phrase "some senators" is that it excludes Representatives in the House and all other Republicans who raised the issue. Since a good many Republicans did not object to Holder's appointment (including Orrin Hatch, for instance) "some Republicans" is perhaps the better way to phrase this. I do not disagree that the issue was a legitimate one to raise but it became, unfortunately, a partisan issue. Smoothing over that aspect in CZ just because one has a distaste for partisanship is not doing anyone a favor. Michel van der Hoek 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can live with "some Republicans", but I do believe that "smoothing" over generalizations about Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, is quite appropriate. Partisanship has its place, but not simply to throw about as a sound bite.

It would, for example, not be inappropriate to discuss how Holder's nomination was specifically made a partisan issue. That can be documented. Simply saying undifferentiated Republicans disliked it, however, does not add substance to the article.

As you say, not all Republicans objected, so whether or not any Democrats made a "big deal of it" isn't especially relevant. Believe it or not, the United States is not a parliamentary democracy and not everything happens on party lines, much as that might disappoint Karl Rove, James Carville, and Mary Matalin. Not every disagreement is treason, regardless of what Ann Coulter might have to say; I prefer the opinions of Theodore Roosevelt on dissent. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Surprising?

Why was the dismissal surprising? To whom? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization; considering significance

Let me begin by questioning if it was editorially wise to move Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. to the end under "other". I'll be the first to agree that the specific case, and even the broader state secrets privilege, is a specialist matter. It has real significance, however, in that it was a case where the Obama administration made a preliminary determination to continue some George W. Bush Administration policies regarding terror suspects, which has been reversed on appeal.

In other words, national security actions are not purely Republican-Democratic, yet I find the article seems to be framing them in such terms. The question of investigating the CIA is very complex, and I've tried to keep up with it in intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration. A very major report has just been declassified in 2009 and there were a number of declassifications before that; to say the Republicans are objecting due to a 2004 report is missing about 5 years of extensive discussion. Indeed, a 2004 report precedes both legislation and Supreme court decisions on the matter.

It's fair to talk about the matter, but it's being greatly oversimplified, and gives me a sense that the article is being written from a Republican viewpoint -- or of some Republican viewpoints. Cheney, for example, is out of step with a significant number of Republicans who indeed don't wan't a full Justice Department investigation — I'm not personally convinced that is a good idea — but there is a wide range of opinions on a very complex matter.

If it is going to be brought up briefly in a Holder article, at least mention the opinions are not consistent and link to the detailed discussion. Now, over there, I have not written up the most recent input, and political discussions, that came from the latest 145-page report, which I'm still studying. Perhaps a subarticle about investigations is called for; I've never liked the subheading of "reform." Howard C. Berkowitz 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than argue what I consider to be great oversimplification of Holder's actions regarding the CIA and senior officials, see the new intelligence interrogation, U.S., review. It's a work in progress, but certainly should help establish I'm not picking on Republicans. Frankly, I find it hard to know what to say about senators complaining about a matter being settled in 2004, when there have been five additional years of declassifications, legislation, and court decisions; there's also an apparently lack of knowledge that double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutorial investigation. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Copied here from the talk page on George W. Bush by Michel van der Hoek 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Howard, why don't you just amend and add what you think is missing or inaccurate? As far as I am concerned, the article now accurately presents the situation as it has played out in the media, albeit only on a superficial level. Presenting the media view of this situation is an important viewpoint of the way this or any issue develops in society, but it is only the beginning. Rather than complain about bias and oversimplification, you could supply those facets that were distorted or ignored in the common presentations of this topic. Add links to other articles. Put the material in context. As you have shown here and in other CZ article and talk pages beyond a shred of doubt, you know this subject matter. So go ahead and change this article. Nobody owns this article. Michel van der Hoek 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I don't tend to regard as the mass media view of a subject as a good starting point for complex coverage. For whatever reason, the Republican criticism seems here just to defend Republican positions. It shouldn't be obscure that using 2004 material for an evolving situation is, on their part, silly.

To put it in a fair context, I started the new article. I'd get rid of this completely or link. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a link to this new article? Michel van der Hoek 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)