I am appalled over the recent appointments to attorney general of the United States. President Bush's Alberto Gonzalez was honest but apparently not very smart. Now we have President Obama's Eric Holder, a political rationalist coming across as a befuddled lawyer.
Holder's credentials coming into the job was that, under President Clinton, he had approved the pardon of the convicted Marc Rich in consideration of moneys paid to the Clinton Library. Since becoming attorney general he has waived, without explanation, prosecution of the Black Panthers, who openly violated voters rights laws in the 2008 presidential election. Now he has cancelled the military-court trial of the alleged 9-11 plotters in favor of trying them in federal court in New York City, and without giving coherent reasons.
His only explanation is that he did it because he is sure to win, with a gratuitous comment that losing is not an option. What is he talking about, a stacked trial? In our legal system, wining a jury trial is never ensured. As to losing not being an option, how can he accomplish that? Arrange for a biased jury or an intimidated judge, or both?
In the world we are supposed to be impressing, his words do read like a stacked trial! As to impressions, it is likely that few in the Mideast will be cheering for us, and little of the rest of the rest of the world really even possibly cares. Worldwide, Eric Holder's failure might be cheered.
So the only things we get from all of this is an expanded government dole to pay for security and lawyers, and an assurance that our televisions will be submerged in the endless commentaries and guesstimates of pundits. Oh, for a nonpolitical attorney general and the quiet justice of a military trial.