Should Eric Holder Resign? (Held in Contempt!)

[stahrgazer]

I mean, sheesh, Obama wants to enhance our infrastructure with things like high-speed trains. How ridiculous that he wants to 1) employ Americans to do the work 2) help alleviate our reliance on foreign oil by helping Americans get out of their autos and into public transit... and my Florida (Republican) governor can't see why a high speed train to help alleviate traffic on the (two, count them, TWO - I-95 and Turnpike) major arteries that lead north/south in Florida and help tourists get around the major vaca spots here that would also employ Floridians (who still have a very high unemployment rate) would be a good thing so he refused the money?

When Amtrak can exist on its own without government subsidies, we'll allow the government to build high-speed rails.

I see. You prefer to pay unemployment benefits than subsidize jobs. Smart of you (not). Thing is, Amtrak might be able to exist on its own without subsidies if it was built up enough to benefit the people.

And if you don't think governments have ever subsidized businesses to get them started, you fail to consider how the space program (which later became satellite launches which enable your cellphones and wireless internet) got started. Gov't subidies, what!!?? Tang, too, was a by-product of subsidies, aka, gov't investment where private industries didn't want or couldn't afford to take the risk.

For that matter, the trucking industry thrives on a gigantic "subsidy" - you see, unlike Amtrack, trucking companies aren't expected to build their own roads. Counties, States, the Feds, build their "track' for them.

For that matter, Delta, Boeing, People, American Airlines.. name some more.. they built their own airports in every city, right?

So if you exclude trains from this, you're saying, "It's okay for the gov't to help trucking, airlines, and space.. just not trains..." and you're saying it despite trains being a fairly effective method for mass transit for common folk; one that could help every day people get to work without use of an auto (subway systems in several cities show this) if they were faster/more reliable... which again, helps reduce our dependence on oil.

[patches70]

Incorrect. They absolutely are not military combatants. If they were, they would be wearing a readily-identifiable military uniform of that nation's keeping.

What? So that means that a US special forces soldier, during a covert operation, wearing Afghan garb, is no longer a military combatant? That is bunk.

One does not have to be uniformed to be a military combatant. In fact, there are many types of military combatants recognized that are not uniformed and rules to deal with each type.

The underwear bomber could be considered a spy captured while conducting espionage and/or sabotage. The punishment for that is execution.

[Night Strike]

I see. You prefer to pay unemployment benefits than subsidize jobs. Smart of you (not). Thing is, Amtrak might be able to exist on its own without subsidies if it was built up enough to benefit the people.

Too many unemployment "benefits" are being paid out anyway. The fact a person can get paid by the government for 2 years for doing nothing is insane.

And if you don't think governments have ever subsidized businesses to get them started, you fail to consider how the space program (which later became satellite launches which enable your cellphones and wireless internet) got started. Gov't subidies, what!!?? Tang, too, was a by-product of subsidies, aka, gov't investment where private industries didn't want or couldn't afford to take the risk.

So almost 40 years of being a "business" still counts as just starting up?

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States.

[patches70]

On topic, the case against holder, the Justice Department, which is headed by the AG Eric Holder, oversaw the ATF operation known as "Fast and Furious". The ATF was allowing guns purchased in the United States by agents of the drug cartels, to be shipped across the border to Mexico. Some in the ATF wanted to move in and arrest these cartel agents and remove the weapons but were ordered by the Justice Department to allow the weapons to continue on.

On December 14, 2010, border agent Brian Terry was killed in a shoot out on the border. Two weapons were recovered. Both weapons serial numbers matched those of weapons that the ATF had tracked and allowed to be moved into Mexico.

The number of weapons that were purchased, while the ATF watched (and video taped many of the buys), is staggering. Also the types of weapons is disturbing. 50 caliber Barrett rifles along with the AK's and other military type weapons. One e-mail obtained by the press stated that 359 weapons were purchased in March alone, and all those weapons made it safely back to Mexico, despite that the ATF was not only aware, but were tracking the weapons while in the US.

With the killing of Terry, the ATF finally moved in and arrested some of the people they were tracking, but over 2,500 weapons had already made it into Mexico.

The Justice department's reasoning to allow the weapons to walk was to gain intelligence on the cartels. However, no cartel has actually be brought down by the investigation, only a few low level gun buyers.

The Justice department issued a statement denying that on their orders weapons were allowed to flow into Mexico from the US.

With Brian Terry's death, it seems the Justice Department and the ATF have conflicting stories.

I will let you be the judge-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/ ... 9031.shtml

[Phatscotty]

wow. really? I caught a joint press conference between Obama and Calderon today and they mentioned this, but I guess I should have watched the whole thing. PS Obama said he strongly supported the Second amendment. He said "The second amendment is part of our constitution, and as president I am bound to that constitution. Americans own guns for defense of themselves and their families, for hunting, and many other legitimate reasons"

[Woodruff]

Incorrect. They absolutely are not military combatants. If they were, they would be wearing a readily-identifiable military uniform of that nation's keeping.

What? So that means that a US special forces soldier, during a covert operation, wearing Afghan garb, is no longer a military combatant? That is bunk.

That absolutely is not bunk, per international rules and the Geneva Convention Articles. That US Special Forces soldier would actually be an illegal combatant.

One does not have to be uniformed to be a military combatant. In fact, there are many types of military combatants recognized that are not uniformed and rules to deal with each type.

Perhaps you could detail them for us here.

[patches70]

wow. really? I caught a joint press conference between Obama and Calderon today and they mentioned this, but I guess I should have watched the whole thing. PS Obama said he strongly supported the Second amendment. He said "The second amendment is part of our constitution, and as president I am bound to that constitution. Americans own guns for defense of themselves and their families, for hunting, and many other legitimate reasons"

Mexico is really pissed off that all these weapons were allowed to be moved under the watchful eye of the ATF under orders from the Justice Department.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2976/

The Mexican's have a captured a ton of those weapons, many of them the very weapons that will be shown to have been tracked by the ATF, from purchase until when they crossed the border.

Some ATF agents begged their superiors to be allowed to stop it but were ordered to stand down, claimed to have been ordered straight from the Justice department.

Since the "Fast and Furious" operation began, many of those weapons have been seized in the Mexico, often after some fatal shootings. The number of people killed by the very weapons that the ATF and the Justice department allowed to be moved, is well over 400 people killed. Until Brian Terry was killed, no action was taken. When Brian Terry was killed, the ATF was ordered to finally move in on who they could. A case of too little too late.

It was a bad plan. The Justice Department is going to cover this up and put the blame squarely on the ATF. The ATF is claiming that they were following the orders of the Justice Department and that their hands were tied.

And it is Eric Holder who is responsible for this FUBAR situation.

This might end up being the straw that broke the camels back for good ole Holder. I want to see how they spin their way out of this one.


The really bad thing is, that some of the gun sellers wanted to stop the sales themselves, but were ordered by the ATF to allow the sales to proceed. Some of the gun merchants were doing their job and suspected that certain people were just straw men who were lying about the circumstances of their gun purchases. If a gun merchant believes that weapons are being purchased for reasons such as they are going to be shipped to drug cartels, then they are supposed to not sell the weapons. They tried but the ATF ordered them to sell anyway. They will get a fair share of the blame as well, even though they tried to do the right thing but were not allowed to.

[patches70]

Perhaps you could detail them for us here.

An illegal or unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status if captured. The following are people who do qualify for POW status if captured-

Partisans. They won't be uniformed. Partisans are often labeled as spies and summarily executed. Partisans are considered uniformed members of the invaded country's armed forces, though they often have no uniforms. They are irregular forces and non-uniformed legal combatants.

Also, civilians who spontaneously take up arms against an occupying force are legal combatants and afforded POW protections if captured. They won't be uniformed, but people are allowed to defend their country, even if they are not in the military. They won't be uniformed. And they qualify for POW status, thus are legal combatants.

Militias and volunteer corps, are all legal combatants and may not be uniformed.

Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps you could detail them for us here.

An illegal or unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status if captured. The following are people who do qualify for POW status if captured-

Partisans. They won't be uniformed. Partisans are often labeled as spies and summarily executed. Partisans are considered uniformed members of the invaded country's armed forces, though they often have no uniforms. They are irregular forces and non-uniformed legal combatants.

Also, civilians who spontaneously take up arms against an occupying force are legal combatants and afforded POW protections if captured. They won't be uniformed, but people are allowed to defend their country, even if they are not in the military. They won't be uniformed. And they qualify for POW status, thus are legal combatants.

Militias and volunteer corps, are all legal combatants and may not be uniformed.

Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

And yet your example, the Special Forces troop wearing the garb of a native of Afghanistan, would absolutely not qualify for POW status if captured. In addition, the original example stated by BigBallinStalin of the terrorist "underwear bomber" would also not qualify for POW status. Or was this just a big distraction on your part?

[patches70]

And yet your example, the Special Forces troop wearing the garb of a native of Afghanistan, would absolutely not qualify for POW status if captured.

Umm, yeah, that is what I said!

That US Special Forces soldier would actually be an illegal combatant.

You reasoned that since someone is not uniformed they absolutely can't be a military combatant, that is not correct. Your words-

They absolutely are not military combatants. If they were, they would be wearing a readily-identifiable military uniform of that nation's keeping.

The US special forces soldier in my example may be an illegal combatant, but he is still certainly a military combatant. The fact of if he is uniformed is not the determining factor of if someone is a military combatant, only if they are legal or illegal.

In addition, the original example stated by BigBallinStalin of the terrorist "underwear bomber" would also not qualify for POW status. Or was this just a big distraction on your part?

Of course he wouldn't. If was determined to be a combatant (which he was determined not to be, but rather just a criminal civilian), then he would not qualify for POW status because he would have been an illegal or unlawful combatant.
He wasn't a partisan, he was not conducting operations on his occupied soil.
He wasn't a spontaneous civilian taking up arms against an occupation.
He wasn't an attache of any military.
He wasn't part of any militia or volunteer force, since he was conducting a sabotage operation.

That leaves if he is a spy or just a regular old criminal.


People don't understand, that before 9/11, the rules governing war were designed to be implemented when two nations are at war. Fighting a terrorist organization with no nation or homeland, presented a new circumstance. There were no rules of war in place to fight such enemies.

The rules we then developed to deal with these circumstances.

Since this thread is about the Attorney General of the United States, KSM's case is of relevance.
Obama in his naivety during the election railed against those rules and then learned that those rules indeed were not only valid, but required.

KSM for instance. He can't be tried in a civilian court, even though Mr Obama had originally wanted him to be. Do I need to remind you what the official spokesman, Robert Gibbs, for the White House said? He said-

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed

Gibbs is a fool. KSM is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Not only that, but Gibbs is dead wrong about KSM "meeting justice" through the civilian courts. Not one shred of evidence against him can even be used in civilian court!
Obama realized this and now KSM sits, languishing in prison. In limbo.

We can't let the guy go, he is guilty of so many crimes, that to just up and let him go is not an option. Yet, because Obama has no idea how to proceed with KSM, because he ignores the very rules that were created just for cases like KSM!
Nor does Holder have any idea of how to proceed.

The shoe bomber did not require to be put through those rules and thus was tried, and sentenced to life in prison, where he will stay.

People flip out about Gitmo and Bushes handling, but don't understand that or can even offer up an alternative. Those Gitmo detainees are there because they are all illegal combatants. You won't find an Afghan there, because an Afghan fighting against American troops in Afghanistan is a legal combatant. The people in Gitmo illegal, unlawful combatants, people from other countries captured in the theater of operations outside their own country.

Now, if an Afghan had gone into Iraq to fight American troops, then he would be an illegal combatant.

But your premise that one must be uniformed to be considered a military combatant, is not true.

[Woodruff]

You reasoned that since someone is not uniformed they absolutely can't be a military combatant, that is not correct. Your words-

They absolutely are not military combatants. If they were, they would be wearing a readily-identifiable military uniform of that nation's keeping.

The US special forces soldier in my example may be an illegal combatant, but he is still certainly a military combatant. The fact of if he is uniformed is not the determining factor of if someone is a military combatant, only if they are legal or illegal.

Ok, sure...I thought it was plainly obvious we were speaking of their legality. That's why I didn't bring it up. That was, in fact, my point.

People don't understand, that before 9/11, the rules governing war were designed to be implemented when two nations are at war.

I understand that very well. However, terrorism is not anything new at all, on the international stage. It's just "new" to us here in the United States.

Not only that, but Gibbs is dead wrong about KSM "meeting justice" through the civilian courts. Not one shred of evidence against him can even be used in civilian court!

You don't have to convince me of this - I agree.

People flip out about Gitmo and Bushes handling, but don't understand that or can even offer up an alternative. Those Gitmo detainees are there because they are all illegal combatants. You won't find an Afghan there, because an Afghan fighting against American troops in Afghanistan is a legal combatant. The people in Gitmo illegal, unlawful combatants, people from other countries captured in the theater of operations outside their own country.

No, not all of them. Absolutely, some are...without question. Just as without question are some who were turned over for a cash bounty or just rounded up. Unfortunately, it happened.

[patches70]

No, not all of them. Absolutely, some are...without question. Just as without question are some who were turned over for a cash bounty or just rounded up. Unfortunately, it happened.

True enough I suppose, I don't know any intimate details about the actual detainees, but I would hope that those wrongly placed there get through eventually and are released at some point. Since some have been released, there seems to be some process at work to determine that.

I am curious as to your thoughts on the information that has come to light about the ATF's operation "Fast and Furious".
And,
what, if any, responsibility Eric Holder has in the whole affair.

[Phatscotty]

Committee votes to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/comm ... 46073.html

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress despite a last-minute intervention by President Obama.

By a vote of 23 to 17 after nearly six hours of tense discussion, the bipartisan committee voted for contempt over the Justice Department's decision to withhold documents related to Operation Fast and Furious that were subpoenaed by the committee in their investigation of the failed gunwalking operation.

How about now?

[saxitoxin]

Eric Holder should be in a Mexican prison. Things are beyond resignation.

We know there's a dead CBP agent because of Holder but no one will ever know how many Mexicans have been killed because of Fast & Furious. 50? 100? 1,000?