Scandal: Attorney General Once Had PrinciplesS

Are you ready for a what will become the most enraging and omnipresent pseudoscandal of the next, say, year? Attorney General Eric Holder once acknowledged that we cannot be completely safe as long as we remain an open democracy.

In 2004, then-private attorney Eric Holder, along with Janet Reno and other Clinton vets, signed on to an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court arguing the absurd position that U.S. citizens cannot be held indefinitely without charge.

Holder et al argued that we could both protect ourselves from terrorist threats, observe the rule of law, and respect the fundamental tenets of justice that this nation was founded on—all at the same time!

But there was a caveat that will soon become 100 times more popular to misquote than "wise Latina":

"It is conceivable that, in some hypothetical situation, despite the array of powers described above, the government might be unable to detain a dangerous terrorist or to interrogate him or her effectively," the 2004 brief states. "But this is an inherent consequence of the limitation of Executive power. No doubt many other steps could be taken that would increase our security, and could enable us to prevent terrorist attacks that might otherwise occur. But our Nation has always been prepared to accept some risk as the price of guaranteeing that the Executive does not have arbitrary power to imprison citizens."

Now, to you that may sound like a very obvious and uncontroversial acknowledgement that a free society will never be able to ensure its "security" as effectively as a police state. But to Dana Perino and Bill Burck, that is proof that "Mirandizing terrorists" will lead to the fiery violent death of literally everyone in America.

They have tracked down and highlighted this crazy radical brief in order to advance their view that in the defense of a completely intangible sense of "security" we must never, ever stop a President from doing literally anything he wants to literally anyone, citizen or no.

They are advocating for an actual totalitarian state, in which the commandant is just replaced every four to eight years. This is a very reasonable position that serious people take in Washington, DC, and neither of them will be laughed out of a television studio any time soon.

[Pic: AP]