OK, you’re right.
Do councils to the president usually inform them about how much they can tortue foreign prisoners?
Because… ya know… that’s not what I’d want from MY president. Apparently there are a few thousand more of you than me though.
Had you read the thread I referenced, you would have learned that he was not “chief counsel for Enron.” Gonzalez was a partner in Vinson & Elkins, the law firm that did much of Enron’s legal work, but he left V&E in 1995 to work for Bush in the governor’s office, long before the malfeasance began at Enron.
Wrong. And if you continue to believe that your assertion is correct, I ask you to quote the relevant Supreme Court opinion which so states.
Wrong again. If one is not a “POW” as defined by the Geneva Convention, then one is not a POW at all and is not entitled to POW status under said Convention. That does not in any way imply that non-POWs are not entitled to humane treatment, of course, but it does mean that certain “POW” privileges are not encumbent upon such persons.
I have no persoanl knowlege, but I concur wholeheartedly with your third-party assessment. But I also take that as a given for nearly anybody Bush might nominate to the USAG position. The issue, for me, is what the AG may do that is within the discretion afforded to him by El Presidente, and I am reasonably comfortable that Gonzales’ personal tendencies are not frightening. This is not a guy who will order the round-up of swarthy-skinned foreigners on his own accord, even if he will do so upon the instructions of his patron. Again, that’s not based on any kind of personal knowledge or experience.
Trust me, confidence is not what I’m talking about here. As I said in the other thread, I am quite sure that I will disagree strongly with any number of policies that Gonzales is going to implement in the next four years. My point is merely that between him and Ashcroft (or a whole hell of a lot of other wingnuts) I’ll take Al any day.
First post so if I break rules, beat me. There’s a memo somewhere … 
I agree with Minty about the memos themselves, but my slant is still a little different.
The January memo that was authored by Gonzales directly tackles why the President should characterize the GITMO detainees as NOT subject to the Geneva Conventions in connection with possible future prosecutions under the War Crimes Act. So, while the memo does not specifically refer to torturing anyone it does (i) seek a way to avoid prosecution for doing things that would be labelled war crimes under the War Crimes Act; and (ii) invent a way to claim that the Conventions (and the things that the Conventions prevent a Country from doing to pows) are not applicable to GITMO.
So while I agree it is technically correct to say he did not mention torture in that memo, IMO it is disingenous to say a discussion of the avoidance of war crimes and the restrictions of the Conventions has, at it’s base, a concern over whether the Government could throw Detainees a birthday party without ice cream. The purpose for the memo on how to escape jurisdiction of the Conventions and the War Crimes Act already presupposes you are going to be doing things that would not be allowed under the Conventions.
BTW - if I have figured this out - following are links to Gonzales Memo and to Powell’s comments/concerns on the prior version of that Memo.
Gonzales memo to President (pdf)
As to the Bybee memo, it was not written by Gonzales, but it was directed to Gonzales. Which would normally imply that Gonzales asked for the memo. So it would seem he was the initiator and solicitor of the memo on torture, if not its author. As counsel for the President, he does have a duty to investigate items as requested. IF the request is to “see if it is legal to …” or “see if we can …” then he should really give a pretty unbiased annalysis. If he is asked to “come up with some kind of argument that might justify …” then he might have to stretch beyond what he believes is a proper interpretation. But he should at least alert to flaws in the arguments.
I think it is interesting to look at what he has said he was asked to do in his response to interviews.
If that was the case, and not a lie, then he was being directed to determine the most defensible position, not to “make the best case” for a predetermined plan of action. IMO, you would further need to question his analytic capacity in light of the recent U. S. Supreme Court case on the detainees a/k/a the “Gonzales you are full of Horse Pucky” decision. 
Something in his favor, though, is that he was able to unify Rhenquist, Scalia and Ginsburg — quite a feat — in their determination of his puckifullness. (just a joke)
IMO one of the interesting things about the Torture Memo that was written to Gonzales is that it was a document Ashcroft REFUSED to give to Congress. Congress - we’d like a copy. Ashcroft - you’re entitled to ask. Congress - uh, yeah, so when will we get our copy. Ashcroft - not ever from me.
I think this should be a great issue for questions. Congress to Gonzales - So, should Ashcroft have given the memo to us? If yes, then what do you think about Contempt of Congress vis a vis Ashcroft? If no, then are you telling us that as the President’s selection for Attorney General, you are in favor of refusing to provide Congress with documents it requests?
I just would like to see that lightening round myself.
I also believe the Gonzales drafted the Presidential order on using military tribunals (if, after the restrictions set forth, you could even call them tribunals as opposed to something more descriptive like star chambers) with regard to the detainees. I also think he is the primary architect of Cheney’s plane of action to keep his (Cheney’s) Energy Task Force meeting information secret. Possibly also the actions to lengthen seals on presidential records??? Not positive on those, but I that’s what I am remembering.
The fun fact for the day, IMO, is the whispered reasoning that Gonzales is getting the AG appointment bc some of the President’s backers feel his is not conservative enough for the Supreme Court appointment. Just a rumour, but showing up in several print articles so you wonder about the source.
Oh well. I would like to see Congress question him on enforcement actions the AGs office might take re: some of the States efforts to bring creationism teachings back into the classroom. There was a Supreme Court case penned by Brennan in the late 80s that seemed, at that time at least, to put to rest a lot of these issues. But now some States seem to be making another pass at it. A Supreme Court case that the administration chooses to disregard and not enforce is not worth much. That is one of the pitfalls of the separation of powers - if the Executive Branch chooses to blow raspberries no one else (Congress or the Supreme Court) really has much in the way of an enforcment mechanism. SO what will the AG’s office do under Gonzales?
How about the Ghost Detainees (that would make a 4th memo I guess). What is Gonzales going to do? What about the fact that they are not in compliance right now with the COurt’s Ruling? How is he, as AG, going to force Rumsfeld et al to comply and come clean on Ghost Detainees . How about lifting the gag order on Sibel Edmonds?
Oh - I’d love to be able to ask some of the questions.
Wow, nice first post O_o Welcome.
Zagadka said:
But isn’t that where you keep your interns?..
Lucky Strikes - Means Fine Tobacco? (taste?)
Now that I’ve read more posts, I can see that I might get nailed by Minty or others if I stay so lax on the Supreme Court case references. No there was no “Horse Pucky” decision and which justices lined up where depend on the decisions you reference.
Here is a link to what is, IMO, a pretty readable description of the cases affecting detainee situations that have been presented to the COurt and the outcomes.
You had 3 main sets of situations. I’m guessing I’ll be corrected on anything I get wrong, but here’s the thumbnail sketch. The first was a US citizen, Padilla, picked up as he arrived on a flight from Pakhistan and held briefly in NY, then shipped to South Carolina. His attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus in New York, thinking he was still there, but he was not. He was kept without charges or access to counsel for about 2 years, mostly in solitary confinement. Padilla went to the Supreme Court with the question - can the President imprison a US Citizen, taken into custody on US soil, and keep them indefinitely without charges or access to counsel and without being subject to the writ.
The answer — uh, none really. The majorit of the court determined the writ was filed in the wrong place so it was a do-over.
THen there was the Hamdi case, which involved a US citizen taken into custody in Afghanistan, transported to GIMO, where it was determined he was a citizen. THen he was sent to South Carolina. The question - could the President imprison a US Citizen taken into custody not in the US and keep them indefinitely without charges, access to counsel or being subject to the writ. Some of the Justices said - heck no. This was the Scalia contingent and they believed the whole history of the writ of habeas corpus is to protect the citizen from unwarranted imprisonment by the sovereign. O’Connor, writing for four justices said, well - kinda/sorta. The President probably can or should be allowed to round up “bad people” citizens, but on the other hand, they ought to at least have some kind of trial opportunity to show that they aren’t really bad people. Thomas said (in a monotone, staring glassy eyed at the wall in front of him — ok, I’m making all that up) Whatever my King uh, I mean President wants.
To come out with a decision for the Court (a majority) a couple of the Justices who seemed to buy the YOU MUST CHARGE OR RELEASE ON HABEAS WRIT for an American citizen argument (the Scalia Argument) also joined in the O’Connor - give them a hearing - opinion for a plurality. Unfortunately for Hamdi, the big winner - he gets shipped to Saudi Arabia so it ends up being moot.
Lastly there were the Rasul (v. Bush) and Al Odah (v. US) cases, of non-US citizens held at GITMO. The Govt argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction bc they were non - citizens and not on US soil (the whole point of doing Gitmo) Five or Six, depending on how you count them, Justices say - nope, citizens and non-citizens alike are protected by the statute if they are in US Custody and they pretty much find everything about GITMO makes it US Custody and the Federal Government exercises jurisdiction over GITMO - so habeas applies and courts can consider the merits if a case is brought before them (all of this subject to the finding in Hamdi that the hearing is not necessarily for charges to be made or relaease obtained - but more a hearing to see if they are really the bad people after all) Three Justices buy the “Guantanamo is a blackhole were no law of any land may reach” argument. Kind of a Frodo Failed point of view IMO.
In any event, the majority finds that hearings should be held.
Now we have the challenges being made to the types/kinds of hearings being held at GITMO. With the most recent ruling - albeit a first round - that the military tribunal sucks and it doesn’t fulfill the hearing requirments.
ALL OF THE FOREGOING subject to a legal scholar rapping my knuckles and correcting it all.
BC - in the end, we don’t really know what kind of knuckle rapping is ok bc no one ever got around to the Geneva Conventions and whether they do or don’t apply to anyone.
:smack:
Those are all perfectly good descriptions of the cases, MaryP. The question, though, is this: Even assuming Gonzales bears responsibility for the policy decisions rejected by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and Rasul, who do you think Bush might realistically have nominated who would not either bear similar responsibility? Is there someone else on Bush’s radar screen who would have stood up and said “No way, this is illegal and immoral, and we can’t do it”?
So, given that whoever Bush nominates is going to be someone who supports the president’s policies on the detainees, is Gonzales better or worse than the alternatives?
I’d much rather see him nominated for AG than the supreme court.
Why? Who would Bush nominate to the Supreme Court who is more moderate than Gonzales?
NB: I don’t think Gonzales particularly liked being a judge in Texas, so I sort of doubt that he wants to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It seems to me that he acted as a political advisor, not as his personnal lawyer in a criminal or civil case. So, he could resign. This torture issue apparently didn’t bother him enough to do so, not even to refuse publically supporting this position.
I see no mitigating factor, here.
Indeed, it’s even worse thinking that this guy is in charge of the justice system (rather than say, trade or any other position where he wouldn’t be directly involved in the implementation of rules or guidelines related to the use of torture).
I think the USA is going a very, very, very bad way…
Indeed. It’s not close. It’s very significantly worse. Because if the use of torture is the result of an individual action or a low-level decision, one can expect this particular individual will be prosecuted and punished, and that measures will be taken to avoid a similar occurence.
If the policy-makers, at the highest level, are advocating and justifying the use of torture, the situation is much more worrysome. And arguably even more so if, instead of doing it secretly, they do not hesitate to do so publically (though I’m not certain about this last point. There could be argument for and against it being worse).
Honestly, the issue of pregnant teenagers is small potatoes by comparison with the issue of torture. It’s the fundamental liberties and values in a western democracy that are at stakes, here.
You got that right. An official who cannot reach accommodation between his administration’s policies and his own conscience resigns. Gonzales not only did not do so, he energetically found ways to rationalize actions that shock human conscience. In his attempts to find a way around the law of the land, as represented in treaties that trump even the Constitution, he went beyond the needs of the moment to disparage the law as “quaint” and “obsolete”. I don’t see how any of you trying to accommodate yourselves to Gonzales’ qualifications in particular and his administration’s policies and attitudes in general could see him as a good or even acceptable choice for either judge or AG - the attitude toward the law he has revealed is clearly not one of respect for it, and that’s as mildly as I can put it.
Sadly, folks, there are no virgins in this brothel.
Dammit, forgot to turn off the bold tags after Elvis echoed clair’s comments.
Seriously, though will somebody tell me: If not Gonzales, then who? Who else might Bush nominate who is more acceptable than Al Gonzales? Which of the whores in the brothel is the most chaste?
Yeah, you’re right, saddeningly. The best we can get from this madam is an AG who is more timid than Ashcroft about pushing his ideological/religious agenda, or perhaps lacks overarching principles entirely, and maybe Gonzales is that man. That does leave us with an extra obligation to watch his actions, and work against them when necessary, beyond the degree we’d have to with an official burdened by that quaint, obsolete morality and respect for the law stuff.
Also, I will point out yet again – since it seems to have escaped notice – that Gonzales did not write any memo blessing the use of torture, at least so far as we know. He authored a memo stating that al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not POWs within the scope of the Geneva Convention. You may certainly argue whether that legal conclusion is incorrect, but it’s in no way equivalent to a license to break out the cattle prods and fingernail-removers.