Bob Barr on Eric Holder

I had a long talk with former Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, mostly concerned with the timeline and high/low-lights of the campaign, but near the end I asked what he thought of attorney general-designate Eric Holder, who has come in for some criticism on this blog.

I have no problem with Eric Holder. I know him. I disagreed with him on some issues when he was with the Clinton administration and I was in the Congress… but, to me, Eric is somewhat different than the Clinton administration holdovers getting some of the other big posts. Being a lawyer and working at the Department of Justice—he's not a Clintonista policy type. Yes, he was associated with the Clinton administration as the U.S. attorney here in D.C, and then as deputy attorney general, but I wouldn't call him a Clintonista.

This is striking because Barr was one of the congressmen grilling Holder over the Marc Rich pardon in early 2001. Fast forward to 1:49 in this video.

Barr has largely moved on from that, and is even more positive about Holder than the leaders of the Drug Policy Alliance and Marijuana Policy Project. Barr was more concerned and surprised at Obama's apparent selection of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. "I think that is a lose-lose for Obama," Barr said. "I do not understand why he's doing that unless there's something going on behind the scenes."

Comments

[Mike]

Bob Barr defending holder says much more about Bob Barr than it does about holder.

Ick. Don't do this again, LP.

[P Brooks]

"I do not understand why he's doing that unless there's something going on behind the scenes."

Now I get it- Barr suffered some sort of severe head injury that he managed to keep off the record.

[Episiarch]

Yes, he was associated with the Clinton administration as the U.S. attorney here in D.C, and then as deputy attorney general, but I wouldn't call him a Clintonista

Well, what would you call him, Bob?

[Warren]

This is why Barr was totally unsuited to top the ticket. He sees everything in political terms. Principal is only there to server political ambition and can be redefined as desired.

Who gives a shit if Holder is a "Clintonista". Bobarr does. Doesn't matter if he wants to lock up every dying cancer patient that puffed on a dubbie. All that counts is what team he's playing for.

[John]

"Eric Holder (Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General), on the question of whether unlawful combatants captured in the war on terror are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. From an interview on CNN, January 2002:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731301791449521.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

I am surprised Reason hasn't blogged this already. It is a lot more interesting than anything Bob Barr has to say.

[R C Dean]

I actually think Eric Holder as AG is a good fit with the ethically inert Barack Obama.

Seriously, they both appear to be insensitive/apathetic to even the appearance of unethical activity.

Bodes real well for the top prosecutor in the country, no?

[Dave]

Eric Holder is an excellent choice, and this administration needs to use some people from the Clinton era, because that was the last Democratic administration, so they have alot of experience.

Free Minds... not so free Markets

[Aaron Krowne]

I agree with the first commenter.

The Real News has a great piece on the Holder pick.

One is left wondering whether Holder even knows what's in the Constitution, or what it's about, or even cares.