George Bush has nominated Alberto Gonzales, the attorney who wrote the brief justifying the torture of US prisoners claiming that the Geneva convention does not apply to us.
Is there any way this man should be confirmed?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, if we want the Gitmo tribunals to speed right along, this should help.
[ November 11, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
*disapproves*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Somewhat less than kneejerk response: I don't know. He's closer to Mr. Bush than I'd like and has already aided in crafting some dangerous precedents. But he's also apparently not much of a go-getter and is unlikely to be nearly the figure of eeeevil that Ashcroft was so good at achieving.
On his own merits? I'd probably vote against. Compared to many other candidates Bush could be submitting? Not sure.
[ November 11, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If ya tap a lawyer and say "Find me some legal precedents that would allow me to do <this>", he either will, or will have proven himself to be incompetent. Few laws have a complete lack of sine quibis non which allows an exception to what the law otherwise forbids. Setting a lawyer to find a precedent is similar to using Google to find a favorite actress: odds are that you are eventually gonna tumble over some x-rated material that you really have no interest in using. But finding a precedent doesn't mean that the lawyer would advise testing the law in that manner. You and I have no idea what Gonzales advised as a human rather than discovered as a searchengine.
A Cabinet Officer is a servant of the President. While it is desireable that the Officer presents the People's best interest to the President, that Officer must first&foremost have the trust of the President in order to be effective.
In other words, unless there is strong evidence of malfeasance or gross incompetence, a causus belli justifying partisan warfare, it would be reckless to expend political ammunition to block the President's choice of personal servant. A Cabinet Office is not a lifetime appointment; at most, it lasts for one Presidential term with a single option to renew. And there is quite probably a current need to build&hoard political capital now for future use in blocking some ill-chosen permanent appointees and some ill-advised changes to the Law.
[ November 12, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Or as Dennis Miller put it last night: (paraphrasing heavily)
While everything has been going on with the Democrats, Bush has been bringing in larger and larger support from Blacks and Latinos and is actively making them part of his administration, like Gonzales for Attorney General. He'll probably put the marriage ammendment before Congress, but we know it won't survive. He can appease the evangelicals and still be building the big tent. And it looks like the Democrats are going for a smaller tent, or no tent at all. (paraphrased)
There is something to be said for that. Bush gained greatly in the Hispanic vote this time around (jumping like 9 % over the previous election).
I just think that Democrats have pushed so heavily on pro-choice and gay rights that they may be pushing away minorities, which have traditionally been one of the party's strongest bases. Do you think church-going Hispanics and African-Americans are as a group in support of the pro-choice or gay rights groups?
What about African-Americans and Hispanics in the South? Do they really latch on to Union approval of the Democrats? Labor Unions aren't strong in the South so those endorsements aren't pulling voters.
And celebrity endorsements? They don't really sway that many folks, except for maybe the most shallow. Not too mention the sheer numbers of has-beens that came out as "celebrity" supporters.
If the Democrats want to win, what I feel they need is:
A candidate who grew up poor, but made their own success in the world. Someone with a fair record of public service, but not a lifetime political career. Someone who is charismatic but a regular person at the same time. They need someone who can explain, on the common level, why we need liberal programs in this country. Someone who can explain protection of the environment in ways that connect with the average person. Someone who can show why it is important to keep college assistance viable. Someone who can truly say, we need to maintain Welfare and Social Security because the programs really do mean life and death to real people. And we have to know that the candidate, as president, will cry along with us when a 9/11 incident happens, and who will bring the perpetrators to justice without sacrificing the liberties and values that we hold dear.
Or they could try again to put forward a career politician, born into wealth and married into more, who couldn't kick back and play a game of poker with his constituents, and will try to play "Republican-light" to pander to votes.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I like what I'm hearing about Gonzales' Background . He grew up as dirt poor as a kid can be, and went on to achieve great things -- also spent time in the Air Force -- in other words, he wasn't born with any silver spoon, and should be able to relate cross-culture and cross-social/economic classes.
Farmgirl
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I think that Miller hit it on the head.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He grew up as dirt poor as a kid can be, and went on to achieve great things -- also spent time in the Air Force -- in other words, he wasn't born with any silver spoon, and should be able to relate cross-culture and cross-social/economic classes."
Does that matter much in an attorney general?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
It tells me that he doesn't let obstacles (perceptual or real) or the lack of advantages hold him back.
I always respect someone who had to make his way to 'the top' more than someone who had it handed to them by virtue of family status/wealth. It tells me they have proven themselves competent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:looks around shadily:
So. . . amka. You'd prefer Hitler to say. . . George Washington?
BWAAAAAHAAAAA-HAAAHAAA!
I'M THE THREAD KILLA!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Tom -- I think having a broader picture of the world and understanding the reality of the poorer working class is a plus in any job. This just goes without saying in almost anything, I would think -- the more knowledge you have from a wider range of experiences, the more well-rounded you are in thoughts and reasoning.
I would probably say the same thing about a person who has been a world-traveler, or some such. Just a person who has broke out of their own little "niche" of the small circle around them and experienced many different aspects of life.
Farmgirl
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Throws an orange cream pie at Scott R.
I am by no means saying the people born into riches or power are automatically worse leaders or administrators. I'm saying that someone who starts from nothing has proven their worth simply by getting to the top. It takes a little more proof for someone who had mom and dad make it easy for them.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And what if Gonzales said to the president,
"No, sir; in good faith I cannot and will not seek out ways to justify our government's violation of the Geneva Convention. As a Christian, I cannot and will not assist in the creation of a precedent that will permit our government to torture other human beings, or hand them other to other governments to be tortured."
Well, he wouldn't have been recommended for Attorney General now, would he?
To quote George W. Bush, "It's a little thing we call integrity."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm saying that someone who starts from nothing has proven their worth simply by getting to the top.
But Amka, that is exactly what Hitler did.
Or to pick a possibley less inflammatory example -- it's exactly what Bill Clinton did.
Working your way up from the bottom is a sign that some has drive, works hard, and has exploited their own talent and every opportunity that came their way. But those character traits are only virtuous if they are used toward virtuous ends.
Gonzales had the opportunity to make a moral stand against torture and supporting the Geneva convention. Instead, he called the Geneva convention "quaint" and justified the US torturing of prisoners.
The brief he wrote destroyed any moral authority that the US had left in the world. To confirm this man as attorney general will confirm that this administration embraces the values he imployed when he wrote that brief. Those values ARE NOT American values. He should never ever be confirmed.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
As a guy who grew up in all of the wrong statistical catagories, I'll take the old money billionaire with the moral compass over the guy who grew up poor and through the sweat of his brow, has a big house, a belief in personal reponsibility and torture.
quote:Working your way up from the bottom is a sign that some has drive, works hard, and has exploited their own talent and every opportunity that came their way. But those character traits are only virtuous if they are used toward virtuous ends.
I just don't see the virtue at all in working your way from the bottom. It's a tough road to hoe. Virtue lies in doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason. All of which are completely independent of your starting place.
quote: I'm saying that someone who starts from nothing has proven their worth simply by getting to the top.
The biggest and most pervasive problem is the question: "How does getting to the top prove your worth?" It proves that you got to the top. That's it. At the heart is the reason why national politics is flooded with rich people who are moral amateurs. It's this deeply ingrained belief that ones success in life is measured buy the breadth of ones monetary achievements, especially if they acquired their stuff by the sweat of their own brow.
It's disturbing and not a little bit shameful that this is where our moral system resides.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I can't help contrasting Alberto Gonzales with Michael Powell. M. Powell actually did work his way to the top of the FCC. It had very little to do with his family connection.
Do I still think he's a jerk and respect his father more? Yup.
If Gonzales actually authored the memos that they say he did about Gitmo, I don't think that he's a good choice.
A question: How often does a President appoint his attorney general to the Supreme Court? If he was attorney general would it actually hinder his supreme court nomination?
AJ
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is an article from today's Inter Press Service the release of a 19 page UN study on torture and terror. full article
The part I think is most relevant to the discussion is below.
quote:According to Francis A Boyle, who teaches international law at the University of Illinois, ''As White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales originated, authorized, approved and aided and abetted grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are serious war crimes.”
''In other words, Gonzales is a prima facie war criminal. He must be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act,'' Boyle told IPS.
In any event, the U.S. Senate must reject his nomination, because, as a presumptive war criminal, Gonzales is not fit to be attorney general of the United States, he continued.
''Should Gonzales travel around the world in that capacity, human rights lawyers such as myself will attempt to get him prosecuted along the lines of what happened to (former Chilean dictator) General (Pinochet,'' said Boyle, author of 'Destroying World Order'.
I never thought I would live to see the day when leading Americans were seen as war criminals by the rest of the world. It's even worse to imagine that the US would appoint someone who is ostencibly guilty of war crimes to the top justice position in the US. This is not my Amerca -- is it yours?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I never thought I would live to see the day when leading Americans were seen as war criminals by the rest of the world.
*cough* Kissinger *cough*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
All this being said, I think that the congress should either approve him or arrest him. It's kind of like Sharon in Isreal. He is barred from ever serving as Defense Minister, for war crimes he committed while he held that position in the 80s. But it's permissable to elect him Prime Minister.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Congress can arrest people now? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Always has been able to.
*cough*Brzezinski*cough*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Um, Brzezinski was actually arrested by Congress?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, that part was just another *cough* Kissinger *cough* but on the Democrat side. And a perhaps overly subtle warning that insistance on purity, on ideological neutrality in the President's choice of personal servant is a BearTrap which the Democrats don't want to step into. If Democrats oppose the Gonzales nomination, they might win a partisan battle, but will definitely lose a LOT of ground in the long-term political war.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree. The anti-torture people should have their reservations made on public record then take it to a vote. They definitely shouldn't prolong the vote.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Do I dare predict that when the Democrats oppose Gonzales' nomination, they will be cast as racists?
Time will tell.
[edited for spellnig]
[ November 12, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I never thought I would live to see the day when leading Americans were seen as war criminals by the rest of the world. It's even worse to imagine that the US would appoint someone who is ostencibly guilty of war crimes to the top justice position in the US. This is not my Amerca -- is it yours?
The current President of the United States is already, in many ways, guilty of war crimes.
So was the one before him, and before him, and back on through the years. Scratch a world leader, find a war criminal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do I dare predict that when the Democrats oppose Gonzales' nomination, they will be cast as racists?
Time will tell.
Must be agonizing, right? After all, only Democrats are allowed to make claims of racism, subtle or overt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the laws of the land. In writing the Gitmo briefs, he violated the Geneva Convention and US War Crimes Act. The US has ratified the Geneva Convention and so it is US law as well as international law. (Under the consitution, ratified treaties and the Constitution constitute the highest law of the land).
This is not simply a case of " insistance on purity, on ideological neutrality" in the Presidents appointment. The fact that he is suspected by a large fraction of the US and the world of violating the laws of our country would fall in direct conflict with the duties of the office.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Must be agonizing, right? After all, only Democrats are allowed to make claims of racism, subtle or overt.
Or perhaps its agonizing that people are such idiots that they would play the racism card when the issue is war crimes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The US has ratified the Geneva Convention and so it is US law as well as international law.
I agree, and personally I believe that we should either stick to it, or not, and stop pussy-footing around. I also personally believe that Gonzalez should not be appointed for the same reasons you do: he has advocated specific violation of US and international law.
But here's my point: can you name a US leader, who has any involvement with foreign military decisions and has made such, that isn't guilty of a war-crime?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I agree, and personally I believe that we should either stick to it, or not, and stop pussy-footing around.
Treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. What does it take to repeal the ratification of a treaty? Any legal scholars know? Has it ever been done? Would it require a constitutional amendment?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But here's my point: can you name a US leader, who has any involvement with foreign military decisions and has made such, that isn't guilty of a war-crime?
If what you are asserting is true, then they should all be impeached and then tried for war crimes. If war crimes don't constitute "high crimes" then I don't know what would.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Jimmy Carter?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Looking at the law to see what it allows and what it doesn't is not a war crime.
Writing a memo saying X may be legal under Y theory is not a war crime.
It's what lawyers do.
Dagonee
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: Throws an orange cream pie at Scott R.
Mmmm! Can I get pied too? Chocolate cream for me, if it's not too much trouble. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If what you are asserting is true, then they should all be impeached and then tried for war crimes. If war crimes don't constitute "high crimes" then I don't know what would.
Pres. Clinton could certainly be guilty of war crimes. So to W. Bush, and Bush Sr. Pres. Reagan, quite possibly.
As for Jimmy Carter...well, here's a few things (all of which are subject to interpretation and definitely don't fall under everyone's definition of war crimes): Pol Pot support, support for the Shah of Iran, East Timor arming, and involvement in Nicaragua leader Somoza.
Pol Pot and the Shah I knew about (and supporting the Shah is hardly a war crime, but US military and intelligence action that was almost certainly going on in Iran probably is), and the others took about two-and-a-half minutes of a google search.
My point still remains: can you name a US President who hasn't been guilty of war crimes? Or a First World leader who is innocent of such crimes?
I really want to know, because I sure can't-and I don't think you can, either. Which in my opinion lessens the impact of your arguments about 'my American' and incredulity at considering Gonzalez.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)