David Kris To Be Nominated to Head National Security Division of DOJ:
According to the Legal Times Blog, President-Elect Obama is planning to nominate David Kris as the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division. If that's true, it's terrific news. Kris is a lawyer's lawyer and one of the world's foremost subject-matter experts in national security law. He literally wrote the book, or at least co-wrote it: His treatise, National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, is an extremely impressive work. Plus, Kris has a great deal of practical experience in the area: He was the Associate Deputy Attorney General from 2000 to 2003, where he supervised the government's implementation of FISA and represented DOJ at the National Security Council. If someone asked me who I thought should head the DOJ's National Security Division, I would probably have named David Kris. Bravo to President-Elect Obama for such an inspired pick.
Any comment on how Kris would view Walker's decision that came out Monday in Al Haramain v. Bush? /att/alharamainorder10509.pdf
1.7.2009 12:14am

I can urge Kris's speedy confirmation, but I cannot channel him.
1.7.2009 1:14am
Far enough. How about *your* opinion on Walker's order?
1.7.2009 7:53am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
I'd keep quiet about it; we wouldn't want MoveOn to have the vapors again.
1.7.2009 10:56am

1.7.2009 12:51pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
So the only legal pick by Obama people are having serious problems with is Eric Holder himself?
1.7.2009 1:29pm
It is not my area of expertise, and I am interested in the opinions of thoughtful people better suited to the task. Seriously... and no smoke is intended for any orifices.

My take was that it seems reasonably well grounded (but again, not my area), but that between the lines he feels the feds are selling BS, and he is a bit tired of it. It seems inescapable that once he officially reviews the document in camera, the plaintiff's case is going to get a huge boost, so the feds should feel the pressure, but either don't or don't care. I'm not one to leap to argue ineptitude on behalf of the feds in such an important case, but are they missing something? Or maybe they counting on a political hail Mary to make it go away, like the phone companies.
1.7.2009 2:25pm
but that between the lines he feels the feds are selling BS, and he is a bit tired of it.

Yes, I think Judge Walker was more than "a bit" tired! But I don't know enough about the context of that proceeding to have a very informed opinion about it, unfortunately.
1.7.2009 2:59pm
Enlargement (mail) (www):
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
1.16.2009 1:09am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.