|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 9, 2005 0:05:49 GMT -6
So why is Big Al Gonzales having trouble with his confirmation hearinigs for Attorney General? Is it really because he is a torturing sadist? Or is it just that the Democrats don't want to be aced out and beaten to the punch in being the first ones to appoint a Hispanic AG?.....Jake
|
|
|
Post by Captain Gary on Jan 9, 2005 7:39:12 GMT -6
What they are really trying to do is get all his views and opinions on record for the *REAL* confirmation...Supreme Court Justice.
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Jan 9, 2005 9:54:48 GMT -6
Gary is correct. So far, not that I have looked deeply into it...I doesn't have a big prolem with him...yet...butt still looking ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 11, 2005 17:05:17 GMT -6
These instances "could" be where the issues are coming from
Hopefully this isn't too big to post, is credited to: Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.big to post.
Monday 10 January 2005
Dear Mr. Gonzales,
You have been rewarded for your unflinching loyalty to George W. Bush with a nomination for Attorney General of the United States. As White House Counsel, you have walked in lockstep with the President. As Attorney General, you will be charged with representing all the people of the United States. Your performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday verified that you will continue to be a yes-man for Bush once you are confirmed.
In the face of interrogation by members of the Committee, you waffled, equivocated, lied, feigned lack of memory, and even remained silent, in the face of the most probing questions. Your refusals to answer prompted Senator Patrick Leahy to say, "Mr. Gonzales, I'd almost think that you'd served in the Senate, you've learned how to filibuster so well."
Even though the Department of Justice retracted the August 2002 torture memo, and replaced it with a new one on the eve of your confirmation hearing, you still refuse to denounce the old memo's narrow and illegal definition of torture. You permitted that definition to remain as government policy for 2 1/2 years, which enabled the torture of countless prisoners in U.S. custody.
You continually evaded inquiries about your responsibility for drafting the now-repudiated memo by portraying yourself as a mere conduit for legal opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. This puzzled Senator Russ Feingold, who said, "If you were my lawyer, I'd sure want to know your opinion about something like that."
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told you, "I think we've dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on the slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law, because it's come back to bite us." Indeed, 12 retired professional military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces wrote to the Judiciary Committee, expressing "deep concern" about your nomination because detention and interrogation operations which you appeared to have "played a significant role in shaping" have "undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world."
When Senator Graham, an Air Force judge advocate, asked you if you agreed with a professional military lawyer's opinion that the August memo may have put our troops in jeopardy, you were tongue tied. You said nothing for several embarrassing seconds, until Senator Graham suggested you think it over and respond later.
When Senator Richard Durbin asked "Do you believe there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel?" you again sat mute for several seconds, and then asked to respond later.
It is alarming, Mr. Gonzales, that a lawyer with your pedigree would be stumped into silence by these questions.
You have taken the unprecedented step of advising the President that the Geneva Conventions have become "obsolete." You testified that since "we are fighting a new type of enemy and a new type of war," you "think it is appropriate to revisit whether or not Geneva should be revisited." You admitted preliminary discussions are already underway.
The 12 former military leaders wrote, "Repeatedly in our past, the United States has confronted foes that, at the time they emerged, posed threats of a scope or nature unlike any we had previously faced. But we have been far more steadfast in the past in keeping faith with our national commitment to the rule of law."
Mr. Gonzales, you have concurred in, even commissioned, advice that led to the following:
Sodomy with a broomstick, chemical light, metal object Severe beatings
Water boarding (simulated drowning)
Electric shock
Attaching electrodes to private parts
Forced masturbation
Pulling out fingernails
Pushing lit cigarettes into ears
Chaining hand and foot in fetal position without food or water
Forced standing on one leg in the sun
Feigned suffocation
Gagging with duct tape
Tormenting with loud music and strobe lights
Sleep deprivation
Hooding
Subjecting to freezing/sweltering temperatures
"Dietary manipulation"
Repeated, prolonged rectal exams
Hanging by arms from hooks
Permitting serious dog bites
Bending back fingers
Intense isolation for more than 3 months
Grabbing genitals
Severe burning
Stacking of naked prisoners in pyramids
Injecting with drugs
Leaving bullet in body of wounded prisoner
Taping naked prisoner to board
Shooting into containers with men inside
Keeping prisoners in small, outdoor cages
Pepper spraying in face
Forcing heads into toilets and flushing
Threatening live burial, drowning, electrocution, rape and death
Beating prisoners to death
Killing wounded prisoners
Throwing off bridge into river and drowning
Rape
Murder
Saddam Hussein would be proud of you, Mr. Gonzales.
Perhaps most alarming was your response to Senator Durbin's question, "Can U.S. personnel legally engage in torture under any circumstances?" You answered, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that." You failed to give a categorical "no" answer. You surely know, Mr. Gonzales, that the Convention Against Torture prohibits torture at any time. That treaty, ratified by the United States and therefore part of the Supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Mr. Gonzales, based on your record and your performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have critical concerns about your appointment as Attorney General. I believe you would stand mute if George W. Bush told you he planned to collapse the three branches of government into one, destroying the Constitutional separation of powers. Even though Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives only Congress the authority "to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," you refused to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that the President is not above the law. You think the President has the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. You would rationalize the torture of prisoners.
Where even the strident John Ashcroft thought prisoners in United States custody are entitled to due process, you designed the military tribunals to deny it to them.
As counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, you wrote abbreviated clemency memos in capital cases omitting crucial defenses such as ineffective assistance of counsel, even evidence of factual innocence. Your counsel led Bush to deny pardons in 56 of 57 death penalty cases.
You sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people for seven hours with a smug grin on your face, lying to us, knowing you will be confirmed.
Your testimony led the New York Times to opine, "Mr. Bush had made the wrong choice when he rewarded Mr. Gonzales for his loyalty," and the conservative Washington Post to say, "The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no ch-ch-change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world." The Post concluded, "Those senators who are able to reach clear conclusions about torture and whether the United States should engage in it have reason for grave reservations about Mr. Gonzales."
You will have the distinction of being the first Latino Attorney General of the United States. You come from humble roots in Humble, Texas. You should understand the struggles of people of color, yet you have turned your back on them. As overseer of the policies that led to the torture of myriad people of color in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, you have betrayed your roots.
Your actions have shamed us in the eyes of the world and endangered our fighting men and women.
You do not deserve to be our country's top prosecutor, head of the Department of Justice, charged with protecting our civil rights.
Mr. Gonzales, you should be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 11, 2005 17:53:47 GMT -6
First of all I personally don't give a shit who the next AG is. But bullshit is bullshit. And this article qualifies.
This whole thing comes down to the torture of prisoners of war and the fact that the Republicans are trying to appoint the first minority AG in the history of our country and that really kicks them(the Demos) in the balls.
What Marjorie Cohn has forgotten about is the Poor Americans that were tortured then kill then burned and hung from a bridge. Or the others that where kidnapped and then decapitated. That okay with her and with her liberal friends. Go for if the more the merrier.
But put a hand on some prisoner of war and oh my God you are fucking creep.
I seen Senator Lindsay Graham on Hardball last week prior to the hearings and he said he was going to ask that question. But no matter the answer he was still going to vote for him.
I don't know about Durbin or his intentions he is a friggen Demo.
What a bag of shit article written by a real bag of wind.
Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 12, 2005 9:30:40 GMT -6
You think I have issue with Alberto being Hispanic? O how funny! I hate to say it, but I could give a shit less what nationality he is. I will be glad when the rest of the US catches up and quits worrying about what color someone’s skin is and just look to the person. That is just muddying the point.
No one is forgetting about the poor Americans who were killed and tortured. I worry about them all every day. I know people that are in Iraq at this moment who I just hope make it home alive and in one piece. What our soldiers are going thru is always in the forefront of my mind.
HOWEVER, torturing the detainees with no proof that they have performed any atrocities against fellow Americans is wrong and not what I feel we should be about. These prisoners we are abusing DID NOT do those particular crimes. If they did, then do the same damn things back to them. But you don’t just torture them because they look like the ones who did it. Is like this: A blonde haired Swedish man came and robbed me, raped and beat me up, I go for retribution, While hunting him down, I come across a bunch of other blonde haired Swedish men, and by god, they must be like the one who did that to me, so I shoot them all.
Torture by its definition is wrong, and to keep doing it perpetuates the vicious cycle. Two wrongs will never make a right. Do you not think this torture makes it that much more dangerous for every soldier/civilian that is trying to do what is right?
I'm sad to hear that people dismiss things outright just because of political parties. Right and wrong has no boundaries.
Deborah
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Jan 12, 2005 10:55:40 GMT -6
I still don't have a HUGE problem with Alberto. He is being asked for moral judgments about his LEGAL opinions. Gotta seperate the two.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 12, 2005 11:01:07 GMT -6
I am fine with his moral opinions (well all have 'em-they are all different) as long as they don't overcome legal issues. All too often these days though, moral opinions and judgements are becoming rules and laws.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 12, 2005 11:06:42 GMT -6
Besides, what good is a discussion without a little dissension? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Jan 12, 2005 11:09:37 GMT -6
Of course I yam with you...butt just haven't seen anything about Al that is any different than you'd get with any other candidate.....is he really going to be worse than Ashcroft? I think not. Besides.....
[glow=red,2,300]BUSH FULL THROTTLE [/glow] ahead
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 12, 2005 12:44:52 GMT -6
Okay Deborah lets get this right.
1. You and I don't give a flying hoot what nationality our next AG is, but in Washington they do care. With a Hispanic going to take that position that just slap the Demos up long side their head with their constant cry on Bush not having enough minorities in important positions. Also it makes a Republican President the first person to appoint a minority to such and important position. Another big slap in the head to the Demos since the minorties are their 90% of their fan base. So they do care about race.
2. Maybe you and I didn't forget about the poor Americans but I will bet you that Cohn has.
3. You need info to keep the country safe, get it by what ever means possible. I don't really care how they do it. With the possibility that we could be attacked any day we need to play hard ass.
4 . You guys on the left need to stop believing everything printed or report by these fruit cakes like Cohn. They only see their side as being right and can care less about anyones else opinions. She can spin her crap in the article but see gives no reference to anything to prove it.
Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 12, 2005 13:30:02 GMT -6
1. I do believe you’re right on the basis that there are some Dems who are up in arms because they didn’t get there first. Stupidity knows no boundaries, and god knows that most politicians fall into the stupid bracket. 2. I agree also that we need to do what we can to keep our country and our personnel in Iraq safe, but feel that the torture that we have done to these folks will make us a lot less safe. I think it puts our troops in more and more danger as the Iraqi’s see us in the same light as Sadam. Torture is torture is torture, no matter who is doing it. As we continuously fail in our ability for the Iraqi’s to see us as their rescuers, our kids and family (here and there) are at more risk. 3. Of course there is spin on the article . But with the thread lagging with no good reason for opposition, this gives a least a bit more info. You have to pick out and research what you want out of the article to get what is real. If you don’t see ALL sides, you can’t make an intelligent decision. And please believe I don’t believe it all, but without seeing it all, reading it all, researching it all, how do you make up your mind? Also, you're correct, there is nothing in this article that proves what is said...but no one has disproven it either!
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 12, 2005 13:36:02 GMT -6
Also, you're correct, there is nothing in this article that proves what is said...but no one has disproven it either! No argument on that point from me. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Jan 12, 2005 14:29:54 GMT -6
Right-O jd, just as soon as you "conservatives" out Rush for the bag of bullshit he is.....
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 12, 2005 17:06:24 GMT -6
Right-O jd, just as soon as you "conservatives" out Rush for the bag of bullshit he is..... Read my other post. You will never ever see me quote or use anything Rush uses. He kind of reminds me of Rather sometimes. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Jan 12, 2005 17:55:37 GMT -6
You think I have issue with Alberto being Hispanic? O how funny! I hate to say it, but I could give a shit less what nationality he is. NO NO NO!!! Didn't we clear this up on Denny's??? I guess not. You meant to say, "I could NOT give a shit less . . . "
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Jan 12, 2005 21:01:07 GMT -6
Damn Bob...you are SOOOOOOO right, I knew something wasn't right bout that post!
|
|