Eric Holder: the more things change . . .

As is often the case, it looks as if Glenn Greenwald has it nailed. Obama AG Eric Holder is appointing a special prosecutor to look into interrogation excesses by the CIA, but the initial impression is that this will be another Abu Ghraib. They'll nail a few lower-level interrogators and leave upper-level officials who argued for torture, pleaded for torture, justified torture in legal briefs that read like what a Mafia lawyer would prepare for a Don who wanted to stay out of jail while committing endless crimes.

The most troubling thing about Holder's approach is that it seems to accept the "torture memos" done by the DOJ -- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, et. al. -- as the new standard for what is or isn't torture. CIA interrogators who stayed within the latitudinarian lines will apparently be protected from prosecution if they believed the DOJ memos defined what was legal and stayed within their guidelines. Only those who went beyond -- there are stories of threatening the death of a family, threatening with a gun and power drill, watching one's mother being raped -- would seem to face prosecution.

But the memos are outrageous, authorizing techniques that are clearly beyond the pale, some clearly torture -- and all ineffective. You know if there had been real attacks thwarted or bad guys captured through "enhanced interrogation," the stories would have been leaked aggressively. But none of the tales told by torture advocates have held up.

Theoretically, of course, a special prosecutor could go after the lawyers who wrote the memos justifying torture with tortured reasoning, or even Cheney or Bush. But one doubts it. Higher-ups are immune, a few lower-echelon folks get nailed to create the illusion of accuntability.

Prosecutorial misconduct all too common

It was almost serendipity that various interests came together in a way that led to former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens having his corruption convictions set aside. Besides the FBI agents (there are some decent ones) deciding to snitch on the prosecutors, whose conduct does look (pending further investigation) intentional and beyond the pale, Eric Holder had motive as well. He obviously wants to let the Justice Dept. know there's a new sheriff in town, and by doing it in a way that sets aside the conviction of a senator from the other party, he creates the impression of integrity.

Of course Ted Stevens, who would likely have narrowly won reelection without the conviction a few days earlier, is out his senate seat, but the corrupt SOB (the worst corruption in politics is that which is open and legal and this guy was an unabashed porker who bragged about it) deserved it. When I was in Washington in the 1970s a friend of mine went to work for him and he used to tell me stories about just how shamelessly Stevens went after federal money back then for any project that could enhance his standing and career in Alaska.

As this Register editorial notes, however, prosecutorial misconduct is much more common than we ever know about. Prosecutors are judged by their wins, and they cut corners all the time. Not sure I have a solution, except perhaps to go after them personally (which almost never happens even when it's uncovered and disbar them or charge them criminally. But the "justice" system is such an inbred fraternity that seems unlikely too unless somebody has more to gain by looking honest, as Holder did in this instance.

DEA raids another medical cannabis dispensary

I suppose we shouldn't expect the drug warriors, whose salaries depend on keeping the thing going, to go away. But it's especially appalling to note that the DEA raided another medical marijuana dispensary Wednesday night -- a week after Attorney Gen. Eric Holder confirmed that Obama administration policy would be not to go after patients and providers in states with medical marijuana laws. The DEA thug in charge of the raid of Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic in San Francisco claimed they have evidence the clinic was violating state law as well as federal law, which would put it out of Holder's halo of protection. But of course the info is sealed and they can't discuss any of it in detail. The fact that it has a provisional license from the city govt. makes that claim unlikely, but it's possible I suppose. The fact that no local or state police agency participated in the raid makes it even less likely, however.

This emphasizes that the request from the judge in the Charles Lynch case for written clarification of the new policy from the Justice Dept. is very important. Until there's a written directive, there's the danger of rogue DEA agents continuing to try to undermine state medical marijuana law on the pretext that dispensaries are just fronts for recreational sales are are operating in violation of state law. After all, these guys are confirmed rug warriors, nd a lot of them sincerely believe that hard-nosed enforcement is the only thing saving the country from dire peril. I've noted previously that there have been far fewer prosecutions than there have been raids, which suggests strongly that the raids are more like domestic terrorism than legitimate law enforcement (not that the federal laws prohibiting (some) drugs are constitutionally legitimate, but that's another story.).

Relief for medical marijuana patients

I've discussed this before, but this Register editorial makes the case a little more comprehensively. Attorney General Eric Holder (who may or may not be personally enthusiastic) has announced that the DEA will stop doing raids on medical marijuana patients in states that have medical marijuana laws. This is only sensible in that the government has limited resources and going after sick people and those who provide them their medicine is a huge misprioritization (is that a word?) of resources.

The next step we should hope for (indeed, demand) is "rescheduling" of marijuana so doctors nationwide can prescribe it legally. Marijuana does not meet any of the criteria required to put a drug or substance on Schedule I, the most restrictive schedule under the (unconstitutional) Controlled Substances Act, so keeping it there is actually a violation of that law. (In fact a strong scientific case can be made that it shouldn't be part of the CSA at all, but I'll take whatever tiny piece of reform we can get.) Keeping an efficacious medicine from sick people who could benefit from using it is incredibly cruel. The whole War on (some) Drugs is cruel, of course, but punishing sick people is downright vicious.

Mexicans dying in our drug war

College students have officially been warned now that it would be dangerous to celebrate (if that's the right word) Spring Break south of the border in Mexico, because the level of violence is so alarming. The reason is that thr Mexican government, largely at the behest of the U.S. government (and with partial funding from U.S. taxpayers), has decided to get really serious about the Holy War on Drugs and really go after those producers, traffickers and dealers. While this has disrupted a few of the cartels, leading to struggles for power -- which are settled by gun battle rather than quiet negotiations among honchos and lawyers, as would be the case with legal substances -- it has also led many traffickers to shoot back and target police, mayors and other officials. Of course innocents and children are getting caught in the crossfire.

The best way to quell the violence, of course, would be to end the drug war by respecting the right of adults to decide what substances to put in their own bodies. As far as I know, only my colleague Steven Greenhut at the Register, Ted Carpenter at Cato, and I, in my most recent column for Antiwar.com, have put forward this eminently sensible and just approach. I look forward to somebody challenging us on the merits, but I don't expect it; the merits are simply too obvious. But I also don't expect common sense to prevail. On this issue, differently from medical marijuana raids in states with medical marijuana laws (about which Obama made a verifiable campaign promise several times) I expect Eric Holder's inner drug warrior to prevail.

Holder: medical marijuana raids to end

I did this post for the Register's Orange Punch blog and am cross-posting it here because it says most of what I wanted to say. I'm still skeptical to some extent, given Holder's past as an unthinking drug warrior. The logical next step, of course, is to take marijuana off Schedule I of the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act so doctors can prescribe it nationwide. If the politicians really followed public sentiment, this would have been done at least a decade ago. But the Drug Abuse Industrial Complex may still be too powerful.

"He didn’t sound very enthusiastic about it which might not be amazing considering his record as something of a mindless drug warrior when he was US Attorney for DC in the ’90s, but US Atty. Gen. Eric Holder affirmed Wednesday, in response to a question, that his department will keep Obama’s campaign promise and stop medical marijuana raids in California and other states with medical marijuana laws. That was the second time in a week an administration spokesman had affirmed that the raids will stop. “The president’s my boss” is less than gung-ho, but I’ll take it.
"The raids conducted just after the inauguration seem to have been the last hurrah of Bush holdovers who figured policy might change and this was the last chance to demonstrate their commitment to persecuting patients in the name of an unconstitutional (my view, but I’m not sure I’d trust a current court to adjudicate it) law. Now we need to pay attention to whom Obama appoints to head the DEA. His “drug czar,” Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowseke, looks a lot less worse than any of the Bushies. Perhaps the best signal would be a willingness to revisit keeping marijuana on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, which the science and any common-sense understanding of the law as written would seem to dictate."

DEA still persecuting patients

As I and many others have pointed out, when he was a candidate Barack Obama repeatedly promised that he would respect federalism and order the DEA not to conduct raids on patients and providers in states that have authorized the medical use of marijuana. Since his inauguration, however, at least a half-down raids have been conducted -- a dispensary in Lake Tahoe, a couple of medical grows in Colorado, and just last week four dispensaries in Los Angeles and environs. These are obviously Bushies who are still running the place, and they have conducted their raids in an unusually in-your-face fashion -- the day after the inauguration and then the day Eric Holder was sworn in as attorney general.

To be sure, administration spokespeople say they'll get around to doing the right thing. The Register today editorialized to the effect that Eric Holder has full authority to end the raids tomorrow and fire the people responsible for them, notably acting administrator Michele Leonhart. The DEA is also on the verge of denying a UMass researcher as a final decision the authority to grow his own research-grade marijuana, continuing its course of throwing roadblocks in front of scientific research at every opportunity. Not surprising, I guess, since the DEA attitude is rooted in ignorance of recent research and contempt for scientific endeavor in general.

Showdown coming on medical marijuana?

During the presidential campaign Barack Obama was asked on several occasions, and each time he said he would end federal DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in states that have medical marijuana laws (Hillary did too, as did Ron Paul). However, at this point the DEA is still polluted with Bush holdovers, and whether it's a last dying gasp, an in-your-face kind of giving the finger, or perhaps a hope that they'll set a precedent Obama might not have the gumption to overturn, they have already several times done what Obama promised he would end. The day after the inauguration, a dispensary in Lake Tahoe and a couple of medical grows in Colorado were raided by DEA thugs. Then last Tuesday, the day Eric Holder was sworn in as attorney general, they raided four dispensaries in the Los Angeles area.

At least a White House spokesman, Nick Shapiro, has said that it will be the Obama administration's policy not to try to undermine state medical laws, and that as people are appointed they will be asked to keep this in mind as they are reviewing policies, or something equally wishy-washy. Garbage! The DEA is part of the Justice Dept. and Eric Holder has full authority to order the raids to stop and to fire those who ordered them. Immediately.

Of course, as I and a few others have pointed out, Eric Holder's record on drug-war issues is less than sterling from a reformer's perspective, and of course nobody asked about his retrograde views during confirmation hearings.

Eric Holder: bad on guns and grass

Eric Holder is almost sure to be confirmed as Obama's attorney general some time this week, but my doubts about him are growing. As this Register editorial outlines, he signed on to a "no individual right to keep and bear arms" amicue curiae before the Suptreme Court's Heller decision, and at least in 1996-97 he was a militant drug warrior who sought a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was questioned briefly about guns during confirmation hearings, but although the Marijuana Policy Project and NORML have expressed concern, nobody questioned him about his retrograde views on the war on (some) drugs.

All this is germane because during the campaign Obama promised he would stop the DEA from conducting raids on atients and providers in states with medical marijuana laws (though the DEA conducted raids in California and Colorado last Thursday, after the inauguration. But the DEA is part of the Justice Department. Will Eric Holder implement Obama's promises or drag his feet?

Holder not too bad but terrible on drug war

Considering the universe of politically feasible possibilities, Barack Obama didn't do too badly in picking Eric Holder for attorney general. He doesn't seem like a complete Obama lackey, so he might be able to make the Justice Department a little less politicized and a tad more independent. Sure, he's an old Clintonite, but he doesn't seem to have a lust for injustice. Here's the Register's editorial on his pending appointment. However, as I have noted elsewhere, and as Reason has explored, he is terrible on the drug war. He has favored mandatory minimums in the past, and harsh sentences for marijuana dealers. Obama himself has promised not to keep sending the feds after patients in states with medical marijuana laws, and if he has the gumption to carry it through it should prove to be a popular move. But one doubts if drug law reformers will have a friend in Eric Holder.