The Justice Department says Attorney General Eric Holder removed himself from a decision to subpoena phone records of The Associated Press.

A Justice Department statement Tuesday says that Holder stepped aside — a procedure known as recusal. The statement says Holder stepped aside because he had been interviewed in a government investigation into who provided information for an AP story that disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen.

Holder has assigned Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole to handle the phone records case.

And from NBC News today:

Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

The phrase your searching for is "credibility gap"....

Now where have I seen a format like the one above before? Oh yeah.....

Attorney General Holder is a bland and unassuming official who is not given to hyperbole. But his actions have been hyperbolic. During the first 92 years of the existence of the Foreign Espionage Act of 1917, three persons were prosecuted. In the first four years of the Holder justice department, six persons have been prosecuted, their good names taken from them, their lives turned upside down. Mark Mazetti among others has noted the predictable and intended result of the Holder prosecutions: government employees have become exceedingly reluctant to speak with reporters about anything the government does. The intimidation has been comparable in its effect to the Palmer Raids of 1918-1921. None of the quarries fits any common definition of a spy; they were trying to warn the American public of what was done behind their backs. Nor have their activities given information to the enemy so much as they have given eyes and ears to Americans. Yet, in keeping with the pattern of misrepresentation, Holder, when he was asked what element of the crime had necessitated the seizure of AP records, said that the leak "put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole."

Based on my almost three decades on Capitol Hill, most of them involved in defense budgeting, I can say authoritatively that military spending evokes an almost mystical reverence among many members of Congress. A $325-billion defense program like the F-35, however technically flawed, typically engenders less floor debate than relatively miniscule domestic programs such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In the Obama administration, however, foreign policy has been set mainly in the White House, which shows little interest in congressional prerogatives; transparency has been less than promised and the role of Congress, in matters like Libya, ignored.

Add drone policy to the list, and that about covers it.

"The Human still has stone age feelings, medieval institutions and god-like technology. That’s what we have to deal with.” – Edward O. Wilson

Earlier this week, we wrote about a significant but often overlooked aspect of the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen: so-called signature strikes, in which the U.S. kills people whose identities aren’t confirmed. While President Obama and administration officials have framed the drone program as targeting particular members of Al Qaeda, attacks against unknown militants reportedly may account for the majority of strikes. The government apparently calls such attacks signature strikes because the targets are identified based on intelligence “signatures” that suggest involvement in terror plots or militant activity.

Bogus use of intel/questionable intel (Gulf of Tonkin incident, NIE 14.3 & playing down numbers you don't like then; downplaying drone strike KIA/collateral deaths now).

"Secret" wars (Cambodia/Laos then, PK/FATA, YE, SO now).

Industrial-scale surveillance of the population (SHAMROCK, COINTELPRO, etc. then, PATRIOT Act, FISA Amendments Act now)

Shutting Out Congress & the public.

But Americans aren’t as certain about targeting U.S. citizens abroad who have become terrorists. A plurality, 49 percent support the program, and 38 percent oppose killing American terrorists. Fifty-eight percent of GOPers back the idea, along with 48 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents. The highest level of opposition to the drone program comes from independents, not Democrats. A quarter of independents oppose the drone war, and 43 percent oppose targeting American citizens.

The Obama administration is continuing the "secret law" model developed by Addington, Yoo and Bybee in the Bush administration: to wit, the law is used as a justification/cover for policy, not something that represents a boundary within which the executive branch must operate. And if they think Congress will oppose the policy--even ineffectually--they will endeavor to keep it secret.

And its not just classified legal opinions on drones that are at issue here, but the endlessly expansive interpretation of 2001 AUMF. LIbya, and now Mali, are examples of direct executive action to commit US forces to combat without any Congressional authorization/justification.

GWOT, PATRIOT Act, FISA Amdts Act, FY12 NDAA indefinite detention provisions, unilateral war making by POTUS--all are symptoms of the same disease...the Imperial Presidency. That mentality can only be combatted effectively, if at all, in the political arena vice the courts--which have over the decades become increasingly deferential to the executive on national security matters (Feres, state secrets privilege, etc.). What that requires is 1) an aroused population ready to challenge those policies and 2) groups and political figures willing to lead the opposition. Instead, we have a public largely content with remote-controlled wars and public officials passively accepting the situation--when they aren't issuing press releases hailing the alleged death of "suspected" Islamic insurgents.