Attorney General Holder on CSPAN right now

By GottaLaff

I've adjusted the blog title to reflect that this is now on CSPAN, not CSPAN 3 any more.

Liveblogging:

He's in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee as we speak.

UPDATE:
Sanctions for lawyer's role in torture program questions are coming up.

What will your policy be for prosecution and/or sanctions?

When will review be completed?

Will you proactively pursue investigations of individuals involved?

New policies on rendition, etc?

(He went fast, that was paraphrased)

Task forces: Will make determine, individually, fates of detainees.

Also, interrogation policies are being looked at, finding the best ones that are effective, but within the law (my words). Determinations to be made by July.

Who makes the determinations? CIA, DoD, State, National Intel director, NSC, and one more that I missed.

Republican Frank Wolf: Chilling effects on future officials. Take our in country backwards direction... Will you prosecute? True that there are more memos that show torture worked?

A: I'll reiterate: Those intel officials who acted in good faith are not going to be prosecuted.... And I will not permit criminalization of policy differences. But it is my duty to enforce the law. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, I'll pursue. I will make tough, fair decisions... But those in intel who acted in good faith, we won't prosecute.

Other memos: There are other OLC memos. As we go on, we can release them. Make OLC more transparent, consistent with national security... I'm not familiar with memos that say torture worked. I haven't seen them. We'll make available OLC memos, generally (Office of Legal Counsel).

Q: If there are, they'll be released? Not necessarily OLC memos. In fairness, once you released some, you should release all. (Keeps pushing, he wants to exonerate BushCo in the worst way)

A: I don't control some of the memos you may be talking about. I'm the A.G. If they originated in DoJ, I can do that.

Q: Just 'cause they're in another building... It's the responsiblity of president of U.S... the buck stops there.

A: It's the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek.. to try to advance a political agenda. There has been much said about the effectiveness of these techniques. I've seen that they were not effective. We can debate. This administration wants the info out there, for a healthy debate.

Adam Schiff is expressing his dismay about DoJ under Gonzales. Now for Q and A:
Q: People are tortured, but no one is responsible. I hope we investigate... before we decide about prosecuting. But re: the attorneys who wrote memos, a law degree shouldn't matter. (paraphrasing) They should not be held immune from prosecution. The last administration felt the president's authority overrode everything else. Justice couldn't prosecute. We can violate criminal laws, they said, as long as it's pursuant to authority as Commander in Chief. Same argument for surveillance.
A: President's power is greatest when he's consistent with congressional authorization. FISA: It's incumbent for president to conform to statute unless the statute is unconstitutional. FISA statute wasn't unconstitutional. Congress passed it.
Q: Truer with interrogation. Torture can't be disregarded, according to the law.
A: Prior admin's expansive view is one we won't embrace. That's why I'm in charge of detention policy group. We'll come up with techniques that are supported by Congress, values...

Culberson: If they didn't act in good faith, they're open to prosecution?
A: There is reasonable discretion. I'll apply law and facts as best I can.
Q: You work with DHS closely to I.D. potential threats. Agree or disagree with the intel assessment that DHS put out... right wing extremists who reject federal authority in favor of state authority. Do you agree that is a r/w extremist?
A: There's a full spectrum in that category. Some disagree with tax policies, and others who don't recognize our federal system.
Q: They even classify returning veterans as problems. People who purchase high volumes of ammunition. Veterans! Those who oppose the administration are extremists? Does this go too far? How do you classify returning vets? That's appalling.
A: When you cast too broad a net, you end up with ineffective law enforcement. Want to focus on true threats. Returning vets: Clearly that's wrong, but wasn't the intention. Should have been more exact, Napolitano will walk back from it if it's inexact.
Q: Is there a list?
A: No. That would not be our policy as long as I'm A.G.

Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland:
Q: Torture: The front line goes to all these different countries, get info. But they're subjected to orders from the top. Will you come up with strict guidelines so this never happens again? Plus: There's always change with a new administration, new policies, etc. In this situation, the role of political appointees needs to be examined. Were political appointees involved in making orders? Torture doesn't get us more info. My point: Strict guidelines that everyone can understand.
A: Good point. I hope the outcome of two task forces (detention and interrogation) is to find out what we have to do to get good info. Good interrogation techniques that can be supported by the nation. And set limits, can't go beyond those.

Holder is now saying they won't be soft on the bad guys, but act according to the Constitution.

Schiff: Courts martial is the best way to deal with most detainees. We should give the same due process to terrorists that we give to our own troops, good to show the world that. Will you rely on the status determination that was made under the previous flawed regime? Threshold question. The prior proceedings were so flawed that they need to be redone.
A: We're making new determinations. Looking at all Gitmo detainees, even those who BushCo said could be releasesd (paraphrased, of course).
Q: In those cases that they won't be sent elsewhere and will be tried, are they an unlawful militia? Will you adopt what Bush tribunals conclusion was?
A: We'll make individual determinations where they should be tried. The tribunals could be different from previous ones, as well as other venues. (paraphrased)
Q: But are they unprivileged belligerents? They can be prosecuted. Are they unlawful combatants? Do you accept any of the Bush determinations? I advocate that you don't. Then figure out WHERE they can be prosecuted.
A: I agree. We'll be making new determinations about what courts to be tried in and what their status is. No more "enemy combatant" label. A fresh look based on evidence.

Republican Wolf again: I want to stay on this... Where you hold these people is important. Al Qaeda communicates while in custody... Tell us precisely... I wasn't impressed with some of your team. They didn't know stuff... (paraphrased)
A: No decision has been made yet on where the trials will be. We're not naive. You raise good points. We know they want to do us harm. We'd try to ensure that steps would minimize the chances of a prisoner having any impact. Take into account the danger the person presented, his role, and come up with a way we'd try them that is safe. We'll be asking ourselves the same questions you asked. This is a primary concern.