Eric Holder

  • June 23, 2011

    Attorney General Eric Holder’s address at the ACS Tenth Anniversary National Convention championing the use of the civilian court system for terror-related trials has precipitated a public debate with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who responded to Holder’s speech with a disparaging op-ed in The Washington Post.

    In the op-ed, Senator McConnell reiterated an argument he had made before Holder’s speech that two Iraqis arrested in the U.S. in April should be tried at Guantanamo because they don’t deserve “all the rights” that Americans have.

    He also accused Holder of insulting “those who have served on the front lines” by praising civilian courts as a terror-fighting weapons.

    Department of Justice Spokesman Matthew Miller responded to the op-ed by lamenting that McConnell had "selectively lifting words from the Attorney General's speech to the American Constitution Society and using them out of context distorts their meaning and obscures reality,” TPM reports.

     “As the Attorney General has said on repeated occasions, we are at war, and we must use every weapon available - military, diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement - to defeat a determined enemy,” Miller said. “Taking one of those weapons off the table would endanger our national security. That would be the real insult to the thousands of men and women who have fought to defeat Al Qaeda."

    See more coverage of the ongoing debate in Politico, The National Journal and Main Justice and watch Holder’s address here.

  • May 20, 2011

    Department of State Legal Adviser Harold Koh will deliver a featured address at the American Constitution Society’s Tenth Anniversary National Convention, “Constitution at the Crossroads: Progress Imperiled?”, ACS has announced.

    The three-day event brings together lawyers, law students, policymakers, judges, scholars and others interested in law and policy issues to learn, debate, strategize, and network. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be the featured speaker on the evening of Thursday, June 16 and Koh will deliver a lunchtime address on Friday, June 17.

    A host of other leading experts will participate in panel discussions on topics ranging from constitutional interpretation and the legacy of the Roberts Court, to immigration reform, health care, corporate accountability and reproductive freedom.

    See the Convention schedule here for all panels and participants, and check back frequently for updates.

  • March 11, 2010
    Pushback continues over conservatives' attacks on Department of Justice attorneys who represented military detainees accused of terrorism before entering government service. The New York Times "Room for Debate Blog" includes comment from across the political spectrum supportive and critical of the attacks. In a post dubbed "Aiding the Enemy," National Review Legal Affairs Editor Andrew C. McCarthy took aim at lawyers who represented detainees accused of terrorism, writing, "Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime. Lawyers not only demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship, but they insist that you admire them, or, at the very least, regard them as above criticism for volunteering their services to those trying to kill Americans."

    McCarthy's post triggered a sharp rebuke from George Washington University law school professor Orin Kerr, a former recipient of a prestigious Federalist Society award. On the conservative legal theory blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, Kerr blasted McCarthy's arguments as "ridiculous."

    Taking on McCarthy's "basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees ‘aided the enemy in wartime,' and should normally be guilty of treason," Kerr wrote:

    If that's true, isn't the federal judiciary, and aren't the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren't the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to "hurt the war effort"? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn't actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It's up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they're only minor players: It's the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they're the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be "indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime"?

    As noted by The New York Times, the controversy, which has been fueled by Sen. Charles Grassley's demands that Attorney General Eric Holder (above, left) release names and information of DOJ attorneys who have represented detained terrorism suspects, and Liz Cheney's group Keep American Safe, which produced an inflammatory YouTube video referring to the DOJ attorneys as the "Al Qaeda Seven," has revealed a split among conservatives. 

  • February 16, 2010
    In an article for The American Prospect, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., asserting his Department's independence from political elements of the administration, tells Dayo Olopade, "I'm not the secretary of justice. I'm the attorney general of the United States." The article is one of three recent stories exploring ramifications of some decisions made during Holder's tenure as Attorney General.

    The New York Times reported yesterday that Holder, a former member of the ACS Board of Directors, "has switched from resisting what he had considered encroachment by White House officials to seeking their guidance." According to The Times a catalyst was the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has said he plotted the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes, and four co-conspirators, in federal court instead of a military tribunal. Indeed, Holder told The Times that political attacks on that decision were "starting to constrain my ability to function as attorney general."

    In an article for The New Yorker, Jane Mayer explores tensions between some in the White House and the Justice Department, especially over the decision on Mohammed. Explaining some of his reasoning, Holder said that the administration should not rely on the controversial interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration to bring justice to the alleged Sept. 11 conspirators. "We are not going to use the products of interrogation techniques that this President has banned," Holder said.