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)

Hopefully a constructive suggestion

See also: Intelligence interrogation, U.S., review

I don't think I'm the first Citizen, commenting on political events, who has suggested the media is not the best starting point for encyclopedia-quality articles. Might I suggest that when you feel media is covering a valid issue, bring it up first on a talk page, or, if a new subject, even in a forum or mailing list?

The idea, for example, of an Attorney General not following a President's ruling is arguably a lower-level check and balance, not a fault. So as not to make a Republican-Democrat thing of it, consider when Richard Nixon told Elliot Richardson to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Cox, and Richardson resigned rather than do it, as did Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus. Solicitor General Bork, according to Richardson and Ruckelshaus, was prepared to resign as well, but they told him the point had been made and someone had to run the Department.

There are various legal authorities granted to the Attorney General for special surveillance, as in the Communications Act of 1934. In other words, there is precedent for some autonomy.

I have not completed my analysis of the latest declassified CIA report, but there is an abundant amount of information that came out since 2004; also see intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration.

I just don't see a point, in an encyclopedia rather than a blog, of covering the latest announcements, without context, of politicians of either party. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Howard, for the record, I do NOT disagree with you on the substance of your comments. I do not dispute Holder's authority, even his duty to examine whether there is actionable evidence in this case, especially in light of new reports and reviews that have become available since 2004. Also, I agree that media-driven writing is almost per definition bad writing (unless, perhaps, it is about the media, but even then...).

And yet, perhaps I am reading the wrong sources, but I do think that there is legitimate cause to at least include the media perspective in a discussion of this case, even if only to point out why any public perception of the matter, driven by the media's covering of it, is incorrect, flawed, incomplete, or flat-out wrong. Whether you like it or not, you have to take the media seriously in discussing political topics, because in our society media and politics are inseparable. I am especially afraid that if we make a principled decision to disallow media views to be included in the discussion--because we consider them inherently misleading, naive, simplified, mendacious, untrustworthy, unscientific, imprecise, etc.--the article will end up being so technical as to be incomprehensible to all but a few experts. Your suggestion to refrain from including media views until this has been discussed on the talk page seems to me an unnecessarily restrictive approach to writing. There are only a few people writing anything about politics on CZ and I do not think we would ever get enough input from others to come to any agreeable conclusion. I suggest we simply keep writing and rewriting, editing and re-editing, adding and removing, as the article (and the topic as a whole, covered by related articles) grows. Until we have more material and more context, it is hard to make judgments about what is superfluous and what is lacking. It is something that requires hindsight.

All this is to say that I do not disagree with your comment that we ought not include every comment spouted by every politician. The objections of a number of senators and of some former CIA officials (but they may well be fearing personal reprisals) to investigating EITs within intelligence interrogations by CIA agents may well turn out to be completely irrelevant in a few years' time (when indictments are filed or, alternatively, the special prosecutor concludes there is nothing left to do). At the moment, the Republican senators' objections at least illustrate an alternative opinion to the legality/constitutionality of this investigation.Michel van der Hoek 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at "erroneous edit"

After you corrected my reference to Jennifer Rubin, I became a bit curious, and researched both her and Pajamas Media. Interesting. Blogger and collection of blogs, which we at CZ usually don't take as authoritative without confirmation, and a news article isn't confirmation. Rubin and Pajamas are hardly neutral sources.

The Weekly Standard is a real journal that doesn't make any argument about being conservative.

As far as your comment,

I suggest we simply keep writing and rewriting, editing and re-editing, adding and removing, as the article (and the topic as a whole, covered by related articles) grows. Until we have more material and more context, it is hard to make judgments about what is superfluous and what is lacking. It is something that requires hindsight.

I could not disagree more. CZ is not a political debating society nor a place to float news balloons. When I do use news reports, I make every effort to cross-check them (and source) opposing journalistic views, and, as happened many times with interrogation, replaced or supplemented with primary sources when they became available. "Writing and rewriting" based on rapidly evolving content, when it comes exclusively from provocative partisan sources, is not a way to approach encyclopedic quality. So far, it comes across as attack-Democrats. Seriously, do you really think that 5-year-old investigations of a current subject are worthy of notice, when there are reams of more recent material?

Please put back the references to Jennifer Rubin and Pajamas Media; that, and Commentary, are her affiliations. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Constable comment

I've asked politics editor, User:Roger Lohmann, to stop in and take a look to see if he can help with some direction here. Please be patient. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)