Questions for Eric Holder's Town Hall: Why Have You Turned Justice Upside Down?

Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to speak at the University of Minnesota and Augsburg College in Minneapolis this Friday, May 27. Many of us with concerns about the state of justice are glad to have the opportunity to attend his Town Hall and ask him some questions:

Since when are torture, warrantless monitoring, indefinite detention and targeted assassinations legal? Why does Holder’s DOJ repeatedly file motions claiming “state secrecy” prevents any hearing, even for well-established cases of US torture? Why did Holder’s DOJ overrule its own Office of Professional Responsibility who decided ethics action should be taken against lawyers who wrote memos that provided cover for torturers?

How did the Attorney General come to change his mind after publicly advocating for due process and rule of law before he became AG?

Why does Holder prosecute government whistleblowers instead of protecting them, as the Administration pledged before election? Why does he target government whistleblowers instead of those committing government fraud and abuse? Is Holder willing to stretch the law to find a way to prosecute WikiLeaks for exposing war crimes?

How is it that the Department of Justice totally ignores the financial “Inside Job” of those who committed massive bank and securities fraud? Does Holder think “Too Big to Fail” mean too big to prosecute?

Why does Holder’s Department of Justice state that “leaking” government secrets, including about war crimes, to the American public is worse than spying for a foreign country?

Why does Holder target anti-war activists and myriad other non-violent advocacy groups by allowing the FBI to infiltrate these groups without any level of suspicion? What’s happened to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

Is there any HOPE of Eric Holder turning his prosecutorial priorities around so he goes after the real criminals instead of citizens who merely dissent from the US Government and its corporate partners’ unethical and illegal actions?

Given the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, intended to be “aspirational”, only led to his launching of more unconstitutional wars, is it a good idea to give awards to someone who has turned justice upside-down?