(Note: you'll need to view an ad if you're not a subscriber.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First reaction: I think the article jumps to some conclusions which may or may not be substantiated by the evidence it presents, but the principal thrust of the criticism is sound. I've never been a fan of Texas's death penalty system, and this confirms everything I don't like about it.
This also bothers me far more than the torture memos. Were I in the Senate, I'd want specific answers to the questions raised, and I'd want my own staffer to confirm Salon's findings in the archive. If those findings were confirmed, I would not vote to approve Gonzalez.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting serious outrage fatique. This is the guy Bush wants, and unless they catch Gonzales with "a dead woman or a live boy" this is the guy Bush will get. This is what enough of America voted for. Get used to it.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I hate it when I can't read the article. There's no free pass and bugmenot doesn't have a login.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You should be able to just watch an ad - that's what I did.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I would have tried, but the ad part was gray and I couldn't click on it.
Yes, but with enough information to actually form an opinion on the subject. Especially the Chris's link.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I've said before, I think who Bush keeps around and who Bush finds to replace those who have departed will reveal what sort of administration Bush wants to run.
edit: Oh, and one interesting thing is that a lot of the particularly egregious problems are things like not mentioning the results of an Special Master's investigation into the person's judicial experience, even though the existence of the Special Master is mentioned. That's not only awful, regardless of what the Special Master decided, that should be something an intelligent reader should notice and question. There are several instances of that type of thing throughout.
[ January 15, 2005, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, Tom, you brought this to my attention (thanks for that, by the way). Any comments of your own on it? I think I can predict what you'd say, but I'd like to hear it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think that Bush should be ashamed. He apparently has purposefully found a man worse than John Ashcroft to serve as Attorney General.
I can't believe people think that Bush is a moral man, let alone "God chosen" to lead.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
All I have to say to the possibility that Gonzalez is "worse" than his predecessor is that I told you so in the Ashcroft resignation celebration thread.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
nfl...I just didn't think it was possible.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Do you think that Gonzalez was just lazy and careless? Or was he maliciously trying to ensure that no sentences were commuted? If the latter, what could possibly be the justification for doing so? If this is true and Bush knows it, why isn't he disturbed that one of his underlings was not giving him all the information he needed to make a correct decision (actually, I can see this being somewhat in character with Bush's tendency to surround himself with loyal people who will tell him what he wants to hear. But it's still a stupid thing to have employees who try to bias your decisions.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think there were two things working:
1.) Laziness. Or inattention to a task he didn't think worth doing; and
2.) Client-wish fulfillment. He knew or thought he knew what Bush wanted, and shaded his memos in that direction.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I really wish our host would weigh in on this issue. He is on record as saying Bush is a moral man.
I've never seen it that way, but I'd sure like to see how one can make the case in his favor given things like this.
Part of being a moral person, it seems to me, would be to take ones responsibilities seriously, especially if they have life-or-death consequences.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My guess would be that Gonzalez is a "tough on crime" hardliner who takes it as a given, unless actively shown otherwise, that anyone on death row deserves to be there.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
Living in Illinois, we recently went through the administration of Gov George Ryan, a man with a name synonymous with corruption and the further destruction of the Republican Party in Illinois. The state has seen a series of Death Row inmates who turned out to be innocent. While there is no doubt in my mind Ryan is scum, he did accomplish one thing which alleviates a bit of what he has done. I can't recall the name of the movie, but Ryan cited that viewing a film that illuminated some of the issues with the death penalty and court system changed his mind. Supposedly, he was so moved by it that he suspended any use of the death penalty in Illinois.
I'm hoping that instead of trying to deflect attention from the various scandals he was involved with, he realized that death is final and any process that will inflict it should be extremely thourogh and error-free. I wish other administrators across the country would realize the numerous problems in the system before allowing sentences to be taken all the way to death.
[ January 15, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Heffaji ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think that Mr. Bush rewards those who support his decisions, simple as that.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
That's possible. Which, while not making Bush an immoral person, would indicate that he has no idea what advisors are actually for. I guess I'd like to think that a person can't make it to the Presidency without ever realizing that it's absolutely necessary to have people who disagree with you sometimes. If not to save you from your stupid decisions, then at least to keep you humble.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If he didn't notice the sorts of ommissions this article talks about, that would make him a very bad analytical thinker, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A clarification. I think Mr. Bush has a dream. I think he has a goal in mind for the United States, one in which we are powerful and safe and everyone takes responsibility for their actions and where the economy rewards those willing to work hard. A goal where marriage is sacred and children are educated and everyone works towards building a strong society. I believe he honestly works towards this and is proud of what he's already accomplished.
Unfortunately, I also believe that he's going about it in a short-sighted, ends-justify-the-means manner based on what those around him have told him will work, and he is dismantling any checks or balances that might interfere with accomplishing what he already has in mind.
I think that his plans towards improving the economy by strengthening the power and lessening the culpabilities for corporations and businesses are fine in theory, but fall apart when he fails to take into account the criminal actions of many corporate heads. Which is easy to do, since the regulatory boards for such crimes have been weakened.
I think his plans for strengthening the country's stand on terrorists ignores the human rights of those accused as well as the likely response from people who take American soldiers and civilians as prisoners and have been shown that the Geneva Convention is no longer relevant.
This is, of course, not something to lay solely at his feet. I think the people surrounding him, and some of the people holding power in both parties, are encouraging the same behavior.
I think that the practice of redistricting is allowing politicians to run unopposed and hold power forever, giving corrupt leaders a way to stay in office regardless of the actual will of the people they purport to represent.
I think that people in charge of setting the legislative agenda are bending it to their own needs -- hardly a new thing -- and that the current system of lobbyist-written bills and unrelated riders is crippling any attempt at legislation that benefits anyone other than those writing the checks.
I believe Mr. Bush's mind runs like this: "I am building a better, stronger America. People who are condemning me must not want that to happen, but I think the country wants what I want." This sincere belief is what allows him to look politely puzzled when he is questioned about his policies. Don't we all want a better country? Then why don't we just sit back and let him handle it?
I think Mr. Bush is on his way into becoming a well-meaning dictator, and I sincerely hope that he doesn't manage to do anything irretrievable.
[ January 16, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I agree Chris.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Excellent post.
I don't think it's laziness or a will to deceive. Or telling Bush what he wanted to hear, exactly.
Rather, they were both in agreement that the people on death row deserved to and should die, and so the briefs were merely a formality.