You Tell Me!

I know the obvious is that I'm setting up a contrast here, but oh my God what a contrast!!!

And now here's Holder:

I'm just saying

Hillary In, Republicans Out

This week is turning out to be one of the best weeks I've had in a long time. Tuesday-swearing in Obama as the 44th president of the United States, Bush heads back to Texas, Wednesday-confirming Hillary Clinton as Secretray of State, and oh what will Thursday and Friday bring? Candy from heaven?

Hold Your Horses on Holder

The nomination of Eric H. Holder Jr. for attorney general is likely to be delayed as Senate Judiciary Republicans want to slow the reins on Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt, who many Republicans feel is pushing the nomination through too quickly. Furthermore, Congressional Quarterly reports that Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas, among others, "want Holder to answer follow-up questions they posed after his Jan. 15confirmation hearing before the committee." However, the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim postulates specifically that Cornyn wants Holder to answer whether or not he will prosecute intelligence officials who may have tortured, but were acting in "good faith, based upon their understanding of what the law was."

I'm sure Cornyn has a point, but there is not a debate on whether or not waterboarding is torture or legal. That's a false debate the Bush admin tried to set up in 2007 when it was exposed that CIA officials were using the technique on extrajudicial prisoners. In fact, the United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of the practice in the past. So, what the hell is Cornyn talking about?

That Senate Republicans turned blind eyes to the complete incompetence of the likes of Bush's nominees, Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, Leahy wants to know, "Why the double standard for this person above all others?" Good point - yes?

No Executive Orders Yet

If you go to the White House Briefing Room website today, you'll see something that only happens every four years or so, a site free of Executive orders. However, the Washington Post reports today that:

the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration.

A "clear break" yes, but far from closing Guantanamo and easing the world's frustration with it. In fact, the Post posits that such a move is merely a legal maneuver:

designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.

I'm assuming that whatever the Obama administration decides to do with the facility and its processing of prisoners, it will be light years better than what the Bush admin had in place. However, anything other than closing Guantanamo is still not good enough.