Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points
George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes
Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush
The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
The Trouble With Eric Holder
By John Nichols, The Nation
Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law and at a point when the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, argued that dissenters should not be tolerated?
Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?
John Ashcroft? No.
Alberto Gonzales? No.
It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.
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.
Much will be made of Holder's role as a deputy attorney general in helping former President Clinton arrange for the last-minute pardon of fugitive/Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich. (Holder said he gave Clinton a "neutral, leaning towards favorable" opinion of the proposed pardon.) And it will also be noted that Holder, as a corporate lawyer in private practice after leaving the Clinton team, played a key role in negotiating an agreement with the Justice Department that got Chiquita Brands International executives off the hook for paying protection money to right-wing death squads in Colombia.
But the first questions for Holder should go to the issue of his attitude toward the role of the attorney general in defending the Constitution. Holder's defenders will point to some eloquent speeches he has given, including one he delivered in June to the American Constitutional Society. In that speech, the former deputy attorney general condemned the Bush administration's "disastrous course" set by the Bush administration on issues such as torture and the practice of rendition.
"Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe," Holder said, correctly. "For the sake of our safety and 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."
That's a good message, to be sure.
But it must be huxtaposed against past statements made by Holder, such as this one: "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."
What we need to know is this: How close would Holder, as attorney general, get to obeying his oath to defend the Constitution?
The place for that to happen is in a very serious, very aggressive confirmation process that should not simply presume that Holder will "get it" when questions about the Constitution arise.
www.VelvetRevolution.us
Attorney General
Obama has huge problems left by the bushies. If this guy is a jerk, there are enough democrats to reject him in the appointment process. In the meantime, lets give Obama a chance. McCain/Mindless Palin would have been a nightmare.
We have had eight years of political hell. Yes, there are more Clinton people showing up than I would like, but I'm not cleaning up the mess. Give Obama some room, we are in a terrible economic meltdown. People equate it to the Great Depression, I say it is worse. In 1929, our money was backed with gold, today it is nothing but paper.
Obama didn't junp on Clinton or McCain enough in the election according to many, but still won by wide margins. He is approaching things in a different manner, he actually has some brains. He is the first candidate I have seen in more years than I can count that actually gives me some hope.
Cut him some slack.
Marilyn Gjerdrum
No Slack
We are all struggling with the leaked names of possible cabinet appointees, but to imagine that Democrats in the Senate would not vote for an Obama nominee because he is too much like a neocon is beyond belief. They wouldn't even vote against Bush's nominees.
The last thing we should be doing is cutting Obama slack. We need to tell him what we want. He asked us to; remember he wants to hear from the grassroots. He certainly has been hearing from the entrenched Washington establishment, it won't hurt to hear from a few citizens that are unhappy with our criminal government.
Agreed. No slack.
Obama has seen fit to totally ignore the People in his appointments. Everyone chosen is dirty. The Left needs to be thrown a bone soon. We don't expect some sort of purity, but is only Washington's criminal class worthy of sitting near Obama at cabinet meetings? That's the message I'm receiving.
There are two kinds of Democrats: apologists and insurgents. You can't be both. Choose your side now, if you haven't.
Slack is one half a pair of dress pants!
Anyone who voted for this guy with an expectation of "change" was on an under-the-counter drug. There is little difference here. As long as millionaires are all we are "permitted" to vote for every fourth November, HOW can there be REAL change to the needs of the working class?! By the way, Mr. Obama, repeat after me: W-O-R-K-I-N-G- C-L-A-S-S!!!!! IF I HEAR "MIDDLE" CLASS RESCUE COMING FROM HIS FUCKING LIPS AGAIN, I'LL...!
REAL "CHANGE"? http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html
Nader fights against your cynicism
"As long as millionaires are all we are "permitted" to vote for every fourth November, HOW can there be REAL change to the needs of the working class?!", you say.
You had the opportunity to vote for others. You chose not to vote for a candidate like Nader, despite his working his ass off to get the vote of cynics like you, because, I guess "it wouldn't have made any difference" you would maintain.
If the millions like you weren't so defeated by the system, we just might have a chance....