Why Gonzales is Bad for America
But the Cons are trying to confirm him, anyway
While the right is spewing hate and red herrings about Democrats being "racist" in opposing the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales (since he would be the first Latino at such a high office), there are real reasons that progressives (and democracy-lovers in general) oppose him.
The GOP spinsters would have people believe that Democrats and others are opposing Gonzales for racist reasons--which is about the most absurd thing since Karl Rove talking about humility as he did in a post-election interview. But don't for a moment doubt that being able to call Democrats racists, while themselves pandering on all cylinders to the Latino community in a patronizing and racist manner, is one of the main reasons the GOP leadership chose Gonzales in the first place.
Below is a summary from the Center for American Progress on Gonzales. It's good reading and has links to hard facts about the man.
BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT CAN LEGALLY AUTHORIZE TORTURE: In March 2003, Gonzales approved a now-infamous memo which contended the president "wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department." Once the memo – which goes directly against the United Nations Convention Against Torture -- was made public, Gonzales backtracked, saying the memo was merely "unnecessary, over-broad discussions" about "abstract legal theories." During his hearing, Gonzales repeatedly dodged questions about whether he believes the president has the power to disregard U.S. law and order torture. Pressed to answer, he finally admitted: "I guess I would have to say that hypothetically that authority may exist." Asked whether U.S. personnel could engage in torture under "any circumstances," he again refused to take a stand, saying, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that."
EXPANDS LEGAL ABUSE: In August 2002, Gonzales vetted a memo which more narrowly defined torture by saying the pain caused by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions." Yesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) grilled Gonzales on whether he agreed with that new interpretation. Instead of rejecting the new, torture-friendly definition, Gonzales admitted, "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached."
REFUSED TO CONDEMN TORTURE TECHNIQUES: In July 2002, Gonzales held a secret meeting to discuss just how far the U.S. could go in interrogating suspects. Among the techniques discussed: "Waterboarding," or making a suspect think he's drowning; mock burials; and "open-handed slapping," hailed for its slim chance of bone or tissue damage. Gonzales and the lawyers "discussed in great detail how to legally justify such methods." Far from urging restraint, Gonzales was aggressive, wondering if in fact they were going far enough. During the hearing yesterday, Gonzales was given the opportunity to stand up and publicly denounce torture techniques. Instead, he demurred, saying only, "It is not my job" to decide if these practices were okay.
BLAMING THE TROOPS: The abuse has been shocking and widespread, taking place in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI reports cases of abuse going back to 2002; there is also evidence the abuse has continued well after being exposed in graphic photos early last year. Gonzales refused to acknowledge the extensive, systemic problem was brought about by the string of memos and judgments muddying the U.S. stance on torture, saying, "those do not relate to confusion about policies." Instead, he abdicated all responsibility and blamed it on "a failure of training and oversight," saying, "This was simply people who were morally bankrupt having fun, and I condemn that.'' He refused to say any more, contending his answers had to be limited to avoid prejudging cases. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) dismissed that excuse as "pure malarkey."
PUTTING U.S. TROOPS IN DANGER: One of the real dangers of stepping away from international law is that it puts the treatment and lives of U.S. troops in danger. Gonzales had the opportunity to promise that the U.S. will abide by international law. Instead, he waffled, saying the U.S. will follow the Geneva Conventions "whenever they apply."
Send this article to a friend Printer-Friendly Version
More articles by this author, Guest Columnist
