Gonzales vs. Ashcroft: Are we better off?

[Zagadka]

I don’t know much about this Gonzales guy. I can’t imagine how he could be worse than Ashcroft, but he’s a big “unknown,” and I don’t like the way Bush talks about him.

What’s the dope on him? How will he shift policy from Ashcroft’s positions, or will he continue on derailing the train of sanity?

[wonky]

@Zagadka

I don’t know much about this Gonzales guy. I can’t imagine how he could be worse than Ashcroft

I think he is. This is the guy who seems to think that a little torture is a good thing (he has stated that it’s only unacceptable if it’s severe). Someone will be able to provide a cite. I can’t with this lousy dialup connection.

[clairobscur]

@jsgoddess

I think he is. This is the guy who seems to think that a little torture is a good thing (he has stated that it’s only unacceptable if it’s severe). Someone will be able to provide a cite. I can’t with this lousy dialup connection.

From here :

It was a conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy ** in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. These positions were laid out ** in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by the Department of Defense and ** ultimately by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales **, according to copies of the opinions and other internal legal memos obtained by NEWSWEEK.

Or here :

the Post quotes Gonzales as defining torture, in a statement given June 22, as “a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering.” As the Post proceeds to explain, this carefully parsed definition would, in fact, allow for a vast array of abuses that are banned under international law and deemed to constitute torture:

“That narrow definition, according to the administration’s previous reasoning, would allow the infliction of pain short of death or organ failure, and even this would be acceptable if the pain were not the interrogator’s primary purpose.”

I understant that as meaning : Torture is OK as long as it’s not done just for fun.

[aahala]

I’ll tell you, the resignation news scared us here in Missouri. He may be coming back.

[sleeping]

Slate:

Curiously, it was in his role as legal counsel to then-Gov. Bush that Gonzales penned yet another memo pertaining to international law, only in that case his advice was designed not to avoid death sentences, but rather to expedite them on Texas’ heavily populated death row. On June 16, 1997, Gonzales first showcased his proclivity for torturing international law when he sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which he argued that, “Since the State of Texas is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we believe it is inappropriate to ask Texas to determine whether a breach … occurred in connection with the arrest and conviction” of a Mexican national. Or, put another way, he asserted that an international treaty just didn’t apply to Texas.

…

That was not entirely true, however, because Bush and Gonzales apparently believed that international law, as embodied in the Vienna Convention, was somehow inapplicable to Texas. It would be difficult to find an international law expert who agreed with Gonzales’ legal analysis, due in no small part to Article 6 of the Constitution, which states that, “… all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” Supreme Court precedent dating to 1804 establishes that states are bound by U.S. treaties.

Where Gonzales’ analysis of the Geneva Conventions set out to rationalize torture of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, the president’s top attorney had similarly pragmatic considerations in mind back when it came to dodging the Vienna Convention. Gonzales favored ignoring the latter because he knew that Texas police had probably violated the treaty’s reporting requirement in hundreds if not thousands of arrests, and that any concession to international law in the Tristan matter might have unforeseen consequences for other cases. This proved rather prophetic.

…

There were other problems with the Faulder conviction, among them that the state had paid its chief witness more than $10,000 and that Faulder’s prosecutor was literally paid for by the victim’s family—a judicial innovation apparently unique to Texas. In an “execution summary” he prepared for Bush, Gonzales acknowledged the violation of the Vienna Convention, but concluded that it was “harmless error.” Faulder was executed on June 17, 1999.

That was not entirely true, however, because Bush and Gonzales apparently believed that international law, as embodied in the Vienna Convention, was somehow inapplicable to Texas. It would be difficult to find an international law expert who agreed with Gonzales’ legal analysis, due in no small part to Article 6 of the Constitution, which states that, “… all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” Supreme Court precedent dating to 1804 establishes that states are bound by U.S. treaties.

Where Gonzales’ analysis of the Geneva Conventions set out to rationalize torture of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, the president’s top attorney had similarly pragmatic considerations in mind back when it came to dodging the Vienna Convention. Gonzales favored ignoring the latter because he knew that Texas police had probably violated the treaty’s reporting requirement in hundreds if not thousands of arrests, and that any concession to international law in the Tristan matter might have unforeseen consequences for other cases. This proved rather prophetic.

Antiwar.com:

Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president, outlined the pros and cons of the government’s decisions about the treatment of prisoners in the so-called war on terrorism. Gonzales agreed with President George W. Bush that because “the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,” the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War need not be heeded. As Gonzales wrote, “this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions . . . . [It] eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status.” An official presidential determination that the Geneva Convention “does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban,” Gonzales opined, “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).” That statute, he added pointedly, “prohibits the commission of a ‘war crime’ by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. . . . Adhering to your determination that [the Geneva Convention] does not apply would guard effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of [the War Crimes Act]. . .” and thus would serve as “a solid defense to any future prosecution.”

A 2001 interview with Jim Lehrer:

JIM LEHRER: New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was on this program last night and he said the way the order is drafted, some 20 million foreigners living in the United States could be tried under this. Is he right?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, let me just say, Jim, that the order is requiring the president of the United States himself to make a determination that is in the best interests of this country, that a member of al-Qaida or another terrorist from another terrorist group or someone who has harbored a member of al-Qaida, that that person should be subject to the jurisdiction of military commissions. And again, the commission is only going to be entitled to try someone for violations of the law of war.

JIM LEHRER: **But why was it not more specific in terms of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and those folks? **

ALBERTO GONZALES: **To provide maximum flexibility for this president to deal with contingencies unforeseen, Jim. **

JIM LEHRER: So in other words it could apply to people beyond al-Qaida?

ALBERTO GONZALES: **Well, again, we need to wait and see if the regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense. **This is only the first step that’s been taken. The Department of Defense is now in the process of promulgating the rules and regulations by which – which will govern these military commissions.

…

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, they’re both obviously equally important, Jim. Obviously, those who were responsible for the acts of Sept. 11 should be caught and they need to be punished.

But equally important, is to do everything that we can to insure that there are no future attacks on Americans here or overseas.

JIM LEHRER: That’s new, though, is it’s not? Isn’t that a new direction for the FBI and Justice Department?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Jim, I think that has been a priority from day one.

JIM LEHRER: No, I mean day one since Sept. 11. But prior to Sept. 11, wasn’t the FBI primarily a law enforcement agency that investigated crimes that had already been committed, rather than in the business of prevention?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Jim, I don’t feel comfortable answering that question. You’ll have to talk to the Director Mueller. But again I would just repeat that preventing terrorism has been a priority for the FBI, and capturing those who are responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11 remain a priority.

Rumsfeld Speaks to the Armed Services Committee (free subscription required, but also available here):

SEN. CARL LEVIN: … The president’s legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, reportedly wrote in a memorandum that the decision to avoid invoking the Geneva Conventions, quote, “preserves flexibility in the war on terrorism.” …

Antiwar’s Raimondo:

…Newsweek, which published a memo written by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales urging the Bushies to formally discard the Geneva Convention because it “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” The Act provides for penalties for “U.S. officials” that “includes the death penalty” for violations, in part defined as “grave breaches” of the Convention. Since “it was difficult to predict with confidence” just how a future Justice Department might choose to apply and interpret the law, Gonzales warned, the administration had better watch its back.

Gonzales defends himself by claiming that none of this applies to what happened at Abu Ghraib prison – only to the Afghan theater and Guantanamo – that the memo makes no specific mention of Iraq, and the Geneva Convention does apply in Iraq. Yet MSNBC News cites “defense sources” as saying that the memo was utilized as the legal rationale for the “do what thou wilt” strategy in Iraq…

Oh, and guess who’s making a list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

[Malodorous]

So the good news is that with Ashcroft gone, the FBI probably won’t be coming to take away your porn anymore. The bad news is, they may be coming to attach car batteries to your testicles.

Which one is worse is sort of a judgement call.

[Apos]

What’s irritating is that there are plenty of really good, smart, accomplished conservatives who could fill roles like this, but who don’t have such long track records of controversy and extremism. As big a dick as I think Guiliani is, I even would have been happy with him as AG. But this guy, however otherwise qualified he is, has a few giant cowchips on his shoulder. Why not pick someone who’s been LESS in the center of partisan mess over torture and Enron scandals, and so forth? My only guesses are either that: a) Bush wants to piss Democrats and leftists off or b) this is another one of his “I only hire those whom swear in blood to be loyal”

[cmkeller]

aahala:

I’ll tell you, the resignation news scared us here in Missouri. He may be coming back.

Why’s that scary? If a dead man, or a widow with no political experience, could defeat him for electoral office in a statewide election, why be scared that he’ll run again - surely you have enough living politicians who can beat him even better than he was beaten last time.

Honest question, not snarky remark. Why be scared of a guy who can’t beat a ghost?

[Sam_Stone]

You have to remember that in Gonzales’ role as council to the president, it’s his job to present legal arguments to support the President’s case, whether he agrees with them or not. Criticising him for this is like criticizing a lawyer for using all his skills in a legal defense.

But here’s the thing: The Attorney General is always a lightning rod for political opponents. Always has been, always will be. You could put Mother Theresa in that position, and she’d be hated by half the country in a year. So I fully expect that the full wrath of the left will get leveled at Gonzales as soon as he has to support the government in a couple of controversial moves.

John Ashcroft was a square. No doubt about it. A very religious, very uncool guy. But he is a really, really decent person. Honest to a fault. You guys made fun of him when he lost to Carnahan’s widow, but I’ll bet few of you remember the circumstances - when Carnahan died, Ashcroft stopped campaigning out of respect for the dead. And when the Dems pulled a fast one and got his widow on the ticket (an action that has all kinds of legal challenges available to it), Ashcroft refused on the grounds that the poor woman had been through enough. He actually took some heat from the Republicans for not contesting that election, but he stood on principle.

And although much has been made of his covering up those nude statues, he did so in response to what was a rather dirty trick by the media - they set up their cameras in a new position so that when Ashcroft was speaking he’d have a naked breast in the frame with him. The last AG was never shot that way. Ashcroft responded by covering the statue, and then he was ridiculed for that.

He was never the demon you guys made him out to be, and I say that as a civil Libertarian. He applied the law scrupulously.

[aahala]

@cmkeller

aahala:

Why’s that scary? If a dead man, or a widow with no political experience, could defeat him for electoral office in a statewide election, why be scared that he’ll run again - surely you have enough living politicians who can beat him even better than he was beaten last time.

Honest question, not snarky remark. Why be scared of a guy who can’t beat a ghost?

In 2000, there was no assurance Gov. Carnahan, who was pretty popular, would have beaten Ashcroft had he lived. The state has moved from the Democrat to the Republican collumn over the last 30 years and more or more conservative. Not clear off into the deep end as Ashcroft however. I think the last Senator elected not conservative was Eagleton, who was more liberal than the state back then, but his personality made him more acceptable to luke-warm red necks of my state.

[Rashak_Mani]

Can anyone be worse than Ashcroft ?

Newsweek had an article on Gonzales some time ago… seemed a “yes” man but nothing dangerous.

[BobLibDem]

The man wrote justification for the use of torture. That in and of itself should disqualify him from any public service. Do we want a torturer as the nation’s chief attorney?

[Lightnin]

Am I the only one who initially read the title of this thread as “Godzilla vs. Ashcroft: Are we better off?”

My answer to that question would be yes.

[Evil_Captor]

@Apos

What’s irritating is that there are plenty of really good, smart, accomplished conservatives who could fill roles like this, but who don’t have such long track records of controversy and extremism. As big a dick as I think Guiliani is, I even would have been happy with him as AG. But this guy, however otherwise qualified he is, has a few giant cowchips on his shoulder. Why not pick someone who’s been LESS in the center of partisan mess over torture and Enron scandals, and so forth? My only guesses are either that: a) Bush wants to piss Democrats and leftists off or b) this is another one of his “I only hire those whom swear in blood to be loyal”

That “partisan mess over torture” phrase is revealing. Remember: Democrats are AGAINST torture, Republicans are FOR torture. Republicans are the party of torture, and conservatism is the ideology of torture.

I had thought it was a nonpartisan issue, sort of a "sanity’ thing but I see I am wrong.

[Munch]

@BobLibDem

The man wrote justification for the use of torture. That in and of itself should disqualify him from any public service. Do we want a torturer as the nation’s chief attorney?

You’re liable to kick yourself in the face with a knee-jerk reaction like that.

1. How is writing a justification for something equal to actually doing it?
2. Did you ignore the posters above you who mentioned that said written justification was as an exercise as legal counsel to the President, that he was (gasp!) doing his job?

[BobLibDem]

@Munch

You’re liable to kick yourself in the face with a knee-jerk reaction like that.

1. How is writing a justification for something equal to actually doing it?
2. Did you ignore the posters above you who mentioned that said written justification was as an exercise as legal counsel to the President, that he was (gasp!) doing his job?

I don’t buy the Nuremberg derfense. To do any act which enables torture is just as bad as actually doing it.

The man also seems unqualified. He did not try one court case in his life (From Air America today)

[rjung]

@Rashak Mani

Can anyone be worse than Ashcroft ?

If there is, you can fully expect Team Bush to find 'im.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

My wife was pretty excited when Ashcroft resigned. I told her to wait and see, that celebrating before we knew who the replacement might be was like saying, “Yay! We’re out of the frying pan!”

I wish I’d been wrong.
Daniel

[Evil_Captor]

@Apos

What’s irritating is that there are plenty of really good, smart, accomplished conservatives who could fill roles like this, but who don’t have such long track records of controversy and extremism. As big a dick as I think Guiliani is, I even would have been happy with him as AG. But this guy, however otherwise qualified he is, has a few giant cowchips on his shoulder. Why not pick someone who’s been LESS in the center of partisan mess over torture and Enron scandals, and so forth? My only guesses are either that: a) Bush wants to piss Democrats and leftists off or b) this is another one of his “I only hire those whom swear in blood to be loyal”

Actually, the NPR piece that the normal succession for Ashcroft’s job would be promoting the Deputy AG. But the Deputy AG, said NPR, had refused to toe the line on some political requests made by the White House and so he didn’t get the nod.

That’s the Bushes for you. Reward integrity? Not when they’ve got a yes-man who’ll approve torture waiting in the wings.

[Evil_Captor]

@Evil Captor

Actually, the NPR piece that the normal succession for Ashcroft’s job would be promoting the Deputy AG. But the Deputy AG, said NPR, had refused to toe the line on some political requests made by the White House and so he didn’t get the nod.

That’s the Bushes for you. Reward integrity? Not when they’ve got a yes-man who’ll approve torture waiting in the wings.

Make that, “Actually, an NPR piece about Ashcroft’s resignation said that …”