Gonzales: unfit for duty

[St.James]

By MARK DANNER

In the next few days we are likely to hear how Mr. Gonzales recommended strongly, against the arguments of the secretary of state and military lawyers, that prisoners in Afghanistan be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

We are also likely to hear how, under Mr. Gonzales’s urging, lawyers in the Department of Justice contrived - when confronted with the obstacle that the United States had undertaken, by treaty and statute, to make torture illegal - simply to redefine the word to mean procedures that would produce pain “of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.”

By this act of verbal legerdemain, interrogation techniques like water-boarding that plainly constituted torture suddenly became something less than that.

But what we are unlikely to hear, given the balance of votes in the Senate, are many voices making the obvious argument that with this record, Mr. Gonzales is unfit to serve as attorney general.

So let me make it: Mr. Gonzales is unfit because the slow river of litigation is certain to bring before the next attorney general a raft of torture cases that challenge the very policies that he personally helped devise and put into practice.

He is unfit because, while the attorney general is charged with upholding the law, the documents show that as White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales, in the matter of torture, helped his client to concoct strategies to circumvent it.

And he is unfit, finally, because he has rightly become the symbol of the United States’ fateful departure from a body of settled international law and human rights practice for which the country claims to stand.

Full Article:

informationclearinghouse.info/article7634.htm

 

[Norwich]

Ouch!!!

 

[4_marks]

Yes, he is unfit for duty. He voted to allow a teenager to obtain an abortion without parental consent. As Attorney General he is not likely to stand up for the rights of the pre-born and against legalized induced abortion on demand.

Once again, President Bush has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment as Commander in Chief in order to gain further political clout among Hispanics.

Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats in this country are not producing candidates for political office with a high degree of integrity and the willingness to stand up for the most helpless among us, the pre-born, who are unable to speak in their own behalf.

 

[Nichevo]

In the next few days we are likely to hear how Mr. Gonzales recommended strongly, against the arguments of the secretary of state and military lawyers, that prisoners in Afghanistan be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Which we were correct in doing, the Geneva Conventions apply only to soldiers belonging to the organized armed forces of a Nation-State identifiable by at minimum, a uniform. the assorted wahabbists of many nationalities, Taliban loyalists, and bandits (many of the Taliban’s fighters were no more than bandits with no strong religious beliefs, they were simply out to protect the profits made from the Opium trade. Afghanistan has a long history of banditry going back to the time of alexander that we know of through documentation.) The Taliban government did not have recognition as the legitimate government. therefore, any actions it took (including waging an undeclared war as part and proxy of the terrorist organization it harbored) were the acts of a criminal enterprise, not a government. International Law does not apply (save for our right to defend ourselves) and nor do the Geneva conventions.

We are also likely to hear how, under Mr. Gonzales’s urging, lawyers in the Department of Justice contrived - when confronted with the obstacle that the United States had undertaken, by treaty and statute, to make torture illegal - simply to redefine the word to mean procedures that would produce pain “of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.”

The author expects us to believe that one lawyer in the DOJ was able to hijack our entire legal system in order to facilitate a ruling that actually meant very little. Do I have to remind the author of the fact that, during the Reagan administration, the left refused to believe (and correctly) that one Marine Lieutenant Colonel could use the National Security Council as a means to wage his own private war in central America. Gonzales is being scapegoated like North for reasons I’ll discuss momentarily. The ruling actually meant little as any interrogator will tell you. physical torture accomplishes nothing and can actually adversely affect the intelligence gathering mission. In addition, there were several countries nearby (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.), where prisoners could be (and most likely were) interrogated using negative reinforcement. U.S. forces would not have had to use physical interrogation as there were other nations ready and willing to do so.

Continued

 

[Nichevo]

By this act of verbal legerdemain, interrogation techniques like water-boarding that plainly constituted torture suddenly became something less than that.

Does the author actually understand what waterboarding is?

But what we are unlikely to hear, given the balance of votes in the Senate, are many voices making the obvious argument that with this record, Mr. Gonzales is unfit to serve as attorney general.

So here’s the stalwart, pure, and true defenders of all that is right and good (as long as it fits the left’s agenda) in the media who are going to tell us all about “Lobo” Gonzales. Remember the smear campaign they launched against Ashcroft when he was nominated? The left really hates when someone actually decides to enforce the laws on the books rather than reinterpreting them in a more relativist fashion.

So let me make it: Mr. Gonzales is unfit because the slow river of litigation is certain to bring before the next attorney general a raft of torture cases that challenge the very policies that he personally helped devise and put into practice.

Let you make it? I thought you were a reporter, now you’ve decided to be an acitivist as well? Where’s that whole objectivity thing? Actually no, the detainees are still subject to military tribunals and they will have to be adjudicated there before they can hope to attain the American dream of suing themselves to wealth. The status of detainees and enemy combatants, along with the restructuring of the Domestic intelligence services that fall under DOJ (FBI, DOE, TREAS, etc. all have their own intelligence capability) as part of the restructuring of the intelligence community will be what occupies the Attorney General along with figuring out if Marc Rich’s pardon covers his business dealings with Saddam Hussein.

He is unfit because, while the attorney general is charged with upholding the law, the documents show that as White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales, in the matter of torture, helped his client to concoct strategies to circumvent it.

No, he did what a lawyer is supposed to do, he presented various options to “his client” (how snooty, I guess it pains the author to say “President Bush”) and made recommendations as to which options would best achieve the desired result. What the author is forgetting is the fact that “torture” was only a small part of the entire planning process **the main goal was to protect the citizens of this country from yet another attack and to convert a system that had been primarily reactive into one that was proactive. **

And he is unfit, finally, because he has rightly become the symbol of the United States’ fateful departure from a body of settled international law and human rights practice for which the country claims to stand.

Where is the authors outcry against the blatant violation of International Law by the Taliban (that whole Opium thing) and Human Rights abuses by the Taliban, Pre-Liberation Iraq’s Mukbarhat, and the slaughter of innocent hostages by terrorists in Fallujah? No, the media has made Gonzales that symbol because it infuriates them whenever someone who is a minority decides to follow his principles and not dance to the left’s tune of “We love you and want to give you affirmative action while those mean old white guys (republicans and conservatives) seem to think that you can actually fend for yourselves and succeed.” Look at how the left and the media has villified Miguel Estrada (yet another Hispanic judicial nominee) who happened to have unimpeachable legal credentials, his problem was he was Pro-Life and QED, politically unreliable. Look at how they treated Dr. Condoleeza Rice a woman far more qualified to hold both her previous position and her upcoming one than either of her predecessors in the previous administration. The cartoons that the media and press made of her in ethnic caricature showed a viciousness and hatred that would have made a Klansman blush. Colin Powell has been attacked so many times by the NAACP that The White Power Movement will probably make him their man of the year.

Full Article:

informationclearinghouse.info/article7634.htm

Don’t bother wasting your time, it’s the usual muckraking from a hack with a journalism degree and an agenda. I don’t know what Mr. Danner has been smoking in his pipe but I do hope he brought enough for everyone. I hope that Mr. Danner eventually moves on to a career more in keeping with his journalistic ability. Maybe he can draw coloring books.

 

[Norwich]

Nichevo:

Actually no, the detainees are still subject to military tribunals .

Surely this is the same argument used by the Russians before sending people to Gulags?

 

[Nichevo]

Surely this is the same argument used by the Russians before sending people to Gulags?

Okay first it was the Soviets (recall Russia was a part of USSR not all of it.) who instituted the Gulag system as a means of mass punishment (integral to supporting the Soviet collective system) the use of Siberia under the Russian Czars was child’s play in comparison.

Second, what does that have to do with anything? We’re talking about enemy combatants in Afghanistan, people who were waging Jihad against us. Our military tribunals have as much to do with whatever tangent you just went off on as Ted Kennedy has to do with MADD.

If you want to debate the points I made, please do so with logical, defensible, and for the love of all that is good, **CLEAR **arguments. Trying to engage me with cute little barbs and turns of phrase will do nothing more than bore me. Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Norwich]

OK.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Your Bill, not mine.

 

[dumspirospero]

Norwich…just incase you fail to recognize this, I will clue you in…that amendment pertains to AMERICAN CITIZENS…that means you, and the rest of the world does not fall under that amendment, furthermore, a terrorist does not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention, and it was out of the kindness of our hearts that we allowed the Geneva Convention to be applied to them…in my personal opinion…I don’t believe they should be protected under it. We don’t owe them ****, and we certainly don’t have to afford them any rights…but we still do.
To be honest, they should all hang or face a firing squad if a tribunal finds them guilty.

Norwich:

OK.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Your Bill, not mine.

 

[aimee]

dumspirospero:

Norwich…just incase you fail to recognize this, I will clue you in…that amendment pertains to AMERICAN CITIZENS…that means you, and the rest of the world does not fall under that amendment, furthermore, a terrorist does not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention, and it was out of the kindness of our hearts that we allowed the Geneva Convention to be applied to them…in my personal opinion…I don’t believe they should be protected under it. We don’t owe them ****, and we certainly don’t have to afford them any rights…but we still do.
To be honest, they should all hang or face a firing squad if a tribunal finds them guilty.

I see anti-americanism is alive and well…regarding certain posters…

I agree with you D.

 

[dumspirospero]

And I agree with you Aimee…you will always be one of my favorite girls on CA. :bowdown:

aimee:

I see anti-americanism is alive and well…regarding certain posters…

I agree with you D.

 

[Norwich]

If your going to claim that your bill of rights ONLY applies to American citizens and not to anyone else anywhere in the world, what right have you to complain about others. They also ahve their laws that pertain to themselves. Some of us in Europe actually believe a countries laws apply to EVERYONE not just a select few.

 

[gilliam]

Norwich:

If your going to claim that your bill of rights ONLY applies to American citizens and not to anyone else anywhere in the world, what right have you to complain about others. They also ahve their laws that pertain to themselves. Some of us in Europe actually believe a countries laws apply to EVERYONE not just a select few.

Actually, the Bill of Rights does only pertain to American citizens. It is part of the Constitution of the United States.

What pertains to others are the treaties our congress has ratified.

 

[dumspirospero]

Maybe you should take the time to learn about our government and society before you blatantly bash us, because it doesn’t make you look smart…it makes you sound ignorant. I am not making a claim about our bill of rights…I am stating fact. America stands against murder and genocide and other crimes against humanity…and we will intervene to protect those who can not protect themselves…we have guidlines we follow…but we don’t deploy 200,000 troops because some country didn’t hold a fair and speedy trial. We don’t complain about things like that…but we do complain and intervene when mass graves are being filled up by the thousads and genocide is running rampant…or when we have known enemies who want to kill us…and when a terrorist is caught…they have no rights under the GC…when we capture a prisoner from another country…such as a German during WWII…they are protected and treated humanely under the GC…and we negotiate terms of their release…however, they still do not fall under our Bill of Rights and they shall not be tried under our CJ system or UCMJ system.

Norwich:

If your going to claim that your bill of rights ONLY applies to American citizens and not to anyone else anywhere in the world, what right have you to complain about others. They also ahve their laws that pertain to themselves. Some of us in Europe actually believe a countries laws apply to EVERYONE not just a select few.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Gonzalez as a choice only further proves the duplicitous nature of this President that Catholics refuse to acknowledge while the evangelicals DO TOUCH ON, but then turn around and pretend its all gonna go away and get better on its own.

 

[dumspirospero]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing law…not creating it…that is the job of Congress…so please elaborate on the duplicity you refer to.
Faithful 2 Rome:

Gonzalez as a choice only further proves the duplicitous nature of this President that Catholics refuse to acknowledge while the evangelicals DO TOUCH ON, but then turn around and pretend its all gonna go away and get better on its own.

 

[aimee]

dumspirospero:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing law…not creating it…that is the job of Congress…so please elaborate on the duplicity you refer to.

Its just another form/ way of Bushhating…

 

[St.James]

http://www.the-tidings.com/img/shim.gifPope: Torture is ‘intolerable’ violation of human rights By Catholic News Service

Friday, July 2, 2004

Pope John Paul II called for an end to the “intolerable” human rights violation of torture.
After his June 27 Angelus, the pope reminded pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square that June 26 marked the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

He asked that “the shared commitment by individuals and organizations banish completely this intolerable violation of human rights.” Torture is “radically contrary to the dignity of man,” he said.

Full Article:

the-tidings.com/2004/0702/torture.htm

 

[dumspirospero]

Exactly who is getting tortured St. James? Our country does not make it policy to torture anyone…there may be a few bad apples that act improperly and torture someone, but you are making it sound like it is in the FM 33-1. Please show me where it is policy to torture people…otherwise stop slandering our nation.
St. James:

http://www.the-tidings.com/img/shim.gifPope: Torture is ‘intolerable’ violation of human rights By Catholic News Service

Friday, July 2, 2004

Pope John Paul II called for an end to the “intolerable” human rights violation of torture.
After his June 27 Angelus, the pope reminded pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square that June 26 marked the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

He asked that “the shared commitment by individuals and organizations banish completely this intolerable violation of human rights.” Torture is “radically contrary to the dignity of man,” he said.

Full Article:

the-tidings.com/2004/0702/torture.htm

 

[St.James]

Please don’t belittle the intelligence of the Pope, dumspirospero.

The Pope’s statements regarding tortue coincide specifically with the US “war on terror” and were made one week previous to his meeting with G.W. Bush.

If you believe that the pope is “slandering our nation” you can take it up with him.