DescentBB

Republicans no need to note the "Washington post bias" here. I am just surprised about some of Gonzalez's involvement in the torture stuff...you'd think they would want the torture stuff to die out.
------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Jan5.html

The Gonzales Record
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A18


THE SENATE JUDICIARY Committee begins confirmation hearings today for Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's choice to head the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is in some respects an attractive nominee: His life story is compelling, his views on some issues are comparatively moderate and his calm demeanor would be a reassuring change from that of his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft. Yet senators must scrutinize Mr. Gonzales's record. The man who has served as White House counsel these past four years must not become attorney general without clarifying his role in decisions that helped lead to the prisoner abuse scandal and to restrictions of civil liberties. More broadly, the Senate should ask whether Mr. Gonzales is capable of giving Mr. Bush dispassionate legal advice, rather than -- as he seems to have done so often in the past -- telling the president what he wants to hear.

The concerns about Mr. Gonzales begin with his having urged Mr. Bush to deny that the Geneva Conventions apply in Afghanistan. The "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism, reads a January 2002 draft memorandum written in his name, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Mr. Gonzales's aggressive advice was directly counter to that of both the State Department and the military brass. And while Mr. Bush eventually declared that the conventions did apply, he followed Mr. Gonzales's advice not to fully comply with them. Rather, he took the unnecessary step of declaring all detainees "unlawful combatants," and therefore beyond the conventions' protection, without complying with the process international law contemplates for that judgment. This move proved fateful when the headquarters of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, citing the president's position on "unlawful combatants," approved such interrogation techniques in Iraq as hooding, forcing prisoners into "stress positions" and menacing detainees with dogs.

Mr. Gonzales commissioned the now-infamous torture memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The memo followed a meeting in his office regarding the interrogation of a key al Qaeda detainee, in which participants discussed such methods as "waterboarding," mock burial and slapping.

Mr. Gonzales played a key role in the formation of military commissions, a system that, three years after detainees began arriving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has yet to produce a single trial. The military commissions are now the subject of litigation, with one judge having already declared them illegal. Last year the Supreme Court rejected other Bush administration policies in the war on terrorism as well: its contention that American citizens like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi could be indefinitely detained without access to attorneys and the notion that Guantanamo could operate without judicial supervision.

Across a range of areas, in short, Mr. Gonzales appears to have given the president legal advice that may have empowered him in the short term -- to lock up people he deemed dangerous, to try detainees using a system untested for decades, even to torture -- but that have a great disservice to the president and the country in the long run. Positions he has advocated have damaged U.S. prestige, courted judicial rebuke and greatly complicated the long-term goal of establishing legal regimes that will stand over the course of a long war.

When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Gonzales as his chief counsel gave him only the most cursory briefings on upcoming executions, omitting important facts and mitigating circumstances, according to a 2003 article in the Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps this was what Mr. Bush wanted. But the attorney general's job is not to give the president what he wants.

Senators should with great care ask Mr. Gonzales to fill in the aspects of his record that are not known and to explain how he justifies those decisions that appear to have harmed the nation. The country needs an attorney general capable and confident enough to stand up for the law and deliver arm's-length legal advice. Before voting to confirm, senators need to satisfy themselves that -- notwithstanding his history -- Mr. Gonzales can and will deliver such advice.
----------------------

"new paradigm" of the war on terrorism, reads a January 2002 draft memorandum written in his name, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."

The problem here is...terrorist are not part of any national govt. An "enemy" here-to-for was an opposing force structure where-by participants were clearly known by the uniforms that they wore. Terrorist wear no uniforms and thus do not come under the Geneve regulatory strictures. It is wise to remember that under the Geneva guidelines, shooting of non-uniform wearing combatants was legal and such actions were done on a regular basis. So maybe we should just execute all the detainee's per the old guidelines?

"Mr. Gonzales commissioned the now-infamous torture memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel."

I guess what is needed is a true definition of torture. Under Mr. Gonzales's definition, the interrogation technicues would be laughable in most of the middle east and elsewhere. Perhaps we should have torture defined by those who have headed up the UN human rights commission such as Libya. Better yet lets have a NGO go and inspect all the worlds prisons and use some sort of a averaging system to define what "Torture" really is.
I just don't see where hooding a violent prisoner whose only desire is to die for Allah and take you along for the ride, is a form of torture.

What I see here is another Latino being disabused by the liberal leaders of the judiciary committee. The same people who's party is for minority empowerment yet at every turn try to keep the migrants from a place in power.

woodchip wrote: I just don't see where hooding a violent prisoner whose only desire is to die for Allah and take you along for the ride, is a form of torture.

Whoa. I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic here.

It smacks of an attitude I've been hearing since 9/11 which really disturbs me. I've heard people rationalize all kinds of abuses using the "they hate us and they'd do the same to us" argument. Do we really want to stoop to that level? Do we really want to become the thing we despise?

The problem is, relative to the conditions they can expect from jails in their own culture, or even the conditions normally live in, being locked up U.S.A. Style with cable TV, 3 square meals, librarys, exercise equipment, free medical, conjugal visitation rights, free legal aid, book deals, movie of the week deals...etc. etc...

Well, you can see that it might be hard to coerce someone into talking if you are threatening them with a severe lifestyle upgrade as the alternative to not cooperating!

Granted, the U.S. penal system is much more humane than some others around the world. And, yes, for some international prisoners, it may seem preferable to the treatment they'd get in their own country.

But, please tell me you're not using that simple observation as an argument to rationalize ignoring the Geneva Conventions (which were held with the intention of preventing the kinds of atrocities we saw in WWI / WWII) and torturing prisoners for information...

Kind of reminds me of the rationale for the Japanese-American Internment during World War II.

It's not so much rationalizing torture. It's that we've rationalized so much we've forgotten that blindfolding/putting a hood on someone's head is not torture.

According to dictionary.com:

1.
A. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
B. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

I do not see anywhere that putting a hood on someone's head would torture them. Heck, we do it in games (blindman's bluff, pinatas, pin the tail on the donkey, etc) all the time; it's just voluntary instead of coerced. Still, the concept is the same: you don't want the person to see what is going on. I don't see much difference; if our kids do it every day for fun, these hardened killers probably aren't being horribly injured by it.

Americans have gotten so soft they can't even tell what torture is. Torture isn't getting your toe stubbed in a doorway. Torture isn't being kept awake for 2-3 days in a row. Torture is the rack, hanging, being drug by horses, crucifixion, being roasted over a fire, having body parts cut off.

I'm not for blatent atrocity as standard policy but the 'Geneva Convention' doesn't apply to combatants who hide among civilians and don't wear a uniform.

If you want to go to the rules and protocol outlined by the 'Geneva Convention' then they should all be shot as spys without any consideration to trial or human rights!

So obviously some adjustments need to be made....
Did the Bush team make all the right choices? I don't know but I'm not prepared to dismiss their efforts as purely barbaric and not warranted just because some of us cling to the false belief that war should be warm and fuzzy or not fought at all.

IIRC the administration (I donâ??t recall which part) did seek a definition of torture from the Supreme Court. They were told that (and I am paraphrasing here), torture is the application of pain that is equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying
serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. Anything short of that would not be considered torture.

So you can see that there was authorization to do much more that put a hood over someoneâ??s head.

For your infotainment, the torture memos.

1/22/02

1/25/02

3/6/03

12/30/04

Old news.

Insert 3 pages of partisan debate here.

woodchip wrote:The problem here is...terrorist are not part of any national govt.

Not really. Anyone can and will be declared a "terrorist" if it is convinient..

Grendel wrote:

woodchip wrote:The problem here is...terrorist are not part of any national govt.

Not really. Anyone can and will be declared a "terrorist" if it is convinient..

There is always that possibility though I have not seen such egregious behavior from the Bush administration. Under Clintons tenure and his Atty. General Janet Reno, without any threat from "terrorists" we saw abuses as you fear at Ruby ridge and Waco. So spare me "the possiblity" contex for a argument.

On another matter regarding the hearings regarding confirmations of Judge Gonzales, one Senator (Durbin I think) was discussing memoranda from the DOD and the Navies JAG dept. Durbin suggested to Gonzales, that if confirmed, would he work with the senate and the House to ratify such memoranda...to which Gonzales agreed he would. Excuse me, but something as important as defining torture as a legality should have been enacted as law and not as a policy if everyone thinks it is such a important issue. Sounds to me that perhaps the judiciary committee itself may have dropped the ball on the torture policy and is trying to shift blame somewhere other than where this pidgeon should really come home to roost.

I actually think the whole torture thing is totally overblown--after all this is war, what the hell did everyone expect?

I just saw it as a very surprising political choice in the wake of the AbuG scandal. With so many potential candidates you'd think he'd pick something less contriversial. Well, maybe not--it's Bush after all. He does what he wants, damn the politcal consequences ;p

Birdseye wrote:He does what he wants, damn the politcal consequences

You act like that's a bad thing... heh

Woodchip wrote:Under Clintons tenure and his Atty. General Janet Reno, without any threat from "terrorists" we saw abuses as you fear at Ruby ridge and Waco.

Wood, refresh my memory. When did Ruby Ridge happen?

Vander wrote:

Woodchip wrote:Under Clintons tenure and his Atty. General Janet Reno, without any threat from "terrorists" we saw abuses as you fear at Ruby ridge and Waco.

Wood, refresh my memory. When did Ruby Ridge happen?

Aug. 21, 1992...8 months after Clinton was sworn in. Nice try though

http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm

well, i don't think putting a hood on prisoners is abuse, but i'd have to say that choking them until they pass out, killing them, and doing the stuff that wasn't publicly passed out could be considered torture. but that's not what bothers me about Gonzalez. He bothers me because of what he did in Texas.

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/de ... m?id=13986

In the chance that site will be quickly rebuffed by Bush fans, here's a couple more. I hope they aren't all left wing fanatical liberal nazi sites.

Ack, damn registration sites. Anyways, I don't trust the guy that seems to be stuck to Bush's pocket in serving everyone's interests, and not just the administrations.

Zuruck I don't see anything wrong there. The governors office isn't supposed to try the case, he has the option to grant clemancy if he has a reason. Do you have any reason to believe he had a good reason and ignored it?
By the way, then President Clinton also had the option to grant clemancy to those same convicted killers, is he also guilty of some unspoken, un-substantiated crime?

Wood, such a nice try, I guess, that I apparently went over your head.

Clinton was elected in November 1992, and sworn in in January 1993. Ruby Ridge happened in August 1992.

Maybe you should spread the word about this new revelation at your next militia meeting?

Anyways, back to the topic.

ok here is a better site with info i'm talking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0702-04.htm

i think omitting information that may possibly change the sentence of death is pretty big. i'm just a liberal i guess, but this isnt' a slap on the hand, it's the death of someone else. it shouldn't be a 15 minute review. 29 deaths in first 28 months.

Personally I'm against the death penalty so I'm not going to try and defend the process because the glaring failure of process, in every state, is the main reason I think we shouldn't use it except in extreme federal cases as 'worse than worse' penalty like the Oklahoma City bombing for example. We use it so routinely though that the 'worse than worse' effect I'd like the death penalty to have wouldn't really manifest itself for a few generations.

Back to the accusation aimed at Gonzalez, that was certainly a biased piece you posted but assuming he gave little credence to the consideration of the retarded guys case maybe if you knew the prosecutions side of the argument you wouldn't think he had much to consider...
The article states that the defense didn't find a professional witness to testify to the guys mental incompetance. Maybe because there was no good evidence he didn't know right from wrong! Just because he communicates at a 7th grade level doesn't mean he doesn't know right from wrong, most people in america that communicate at that level do.

I doubt the Bush/Gonzalez clemancy process is very different from any other pro death penalty administration. It really sounds more like someone wants to hang the blame for the whole stinking screwed up process on a couple of guys who only played a part in it for a few years!

The concerns you raise, or at least the actual substance you base them on, are founded in suspicions not actual evil deeds done by Gonzalez.
He could have recommended clemancy in every case if he had reason but was it really his place to become the judge, jury and appeals court all in one, ignore the recommendation of the courts and judges who actually oversaw the cases and recommend clemancy based on suspicion?
It would have been nice for the executed but it isn't what he's supposed to do.

I'm still waiting to see the specific ommision of evidence that would have proven the man was innocent, I know you and the article allude to it but I don't see it so I question the motives of suddenly hanging the blame of the whole system that is flawed on only one man who played a very small part in the whole process.
I guess that's a good enough reason for you to fear him but without something out of the ordinary it's hard for me to see him as any different than all the others who had the same job.

My favorite are the accusations leveled at Bush that as Governor it was his responsibility to grant clemency in every single death penalty conviction, in effect nullifying the entire jury process. Not to mention that Texas is a large and rather lower-class state, which increases the raw number of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty.

Vander wrote:Wood, such a nice try, I guess, that I apparently went over your head.

Clinton was elected in November 1992, and sworn in in January 1993. Ruby Ridge happened in August 1992.

Maybe you should spread the word about this new revelation at your next militia meeting?

Anyways, back to the topic.

O.K., you got me on the date. Perhaps I should have used the internment of american citizens during WW2 (By another dem. pres. ) How ever, my intent still holds true that for all the fear of possible abuse of powers under the patriot act none has occured to date. Far more abuses have occured in American history prior to the inactment of the Patriot Act.

DCrazy wrote:Not to mention that Texas is a large and rather lower-class state, which increases the raw number of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty.

Hey!!!

Don't Mess with Texas!!!!

Couver_ wrote:Hey!!!

Don't Mess with Texas!!!!

Or....

Lothar said:
You act like that's a bad thing... heh

It's a good quality of a leader, sure, but it doesn't make his policies stink less. What bothers me most about that is that he took it to the extreme with the 'with us or against us' mentality.

Well Will, I guess I'm looking at the fact that most of the death penalty states, mine included, have had more DNA evidenced pardons that deaths in the last decade. But, the only one state that has a continual increase, Texas. From what I read, Gonzalez's torture stance, the amount of killings in Texas, and the shadow of doubt in those memos, I'm going to have to say that Bush / Gonzalez during Gov Bush terms, did not look too far into the cases. How can you not agree? You hear of all these cases across the country with people being pardoned after years on death row, and not a single person in Texas is getting it. In fact, from the article I posted, it seems as if a lot of information that could possibly seed a doubt in one's mind is being passed over. I'm not saying every single person is innocent, and they don't even look at the cases. But it's questionable, and quit being so blindsided Republican on these issues. It's really annoying. I used to think I was for the death penalty, but after seeing so many people being pardoned and given the "sorry, we made a mistake" it's sickening. How many more apparently innocent people have to die so that we sleep better at night knowing "someone" got the heave-ho for some crime? The new governor of Illinois has pardoned 53 people since he's been in office. Now, not all of those are death penalty, but there have been a few. How many did Bush and Gonzalez pardon in their tenure?

It smacks of an attitude I've been hearing since 9/11 which really disturbs me. I've heard people rationalize all kinds of abuses using the "they hate us and they'd do the same to us" argument. Do we really want to stoop to that level? Do we really want to become the thing we despise?

Screw 'em. They're the enemy. A soldier's job is not to die for his own people/cause, it's to make the enemy die for his.

Zuruck, you are measuring the quality of a governor by how many convictions s/he has overturned? There's a jury system in this country for a reason. Right or wrong, it's fair.

I will accept your argument that the death penalty is not fair in that it is irreversible. I will not accept, however, that an official's merit is based solely upon the number of convicted criminals they have released from jail. It is simply illogical.

^ x2

^ x2

DCrazy, I didn't say the governor of Illinois was better because he let more people go, I simply said that since he has been in office 53 people have been pardoned. He hasn't been in office that long, maybe 2-3 years I think. In that short timespan, a lot of people found guilty by "juries" have been set free for various things. Now, how many people did the Alberto Bush team pardon? Unless law in Texas is so good that they catch the guilty person each and every time, it seems as though the process may have broken down. You gotta let go of you devoutness to Bush for one second and look at the bigger picture. Are there more corrupt governors? Sure, look up the previous Illinois governor to see one. Should we expec the system to be perfect? Well, I think Will once said it's not perfect, but it's damn better than most. I'll agree with that, it can't be perfect, but when you're dealing with potentially innocent people's lives, you better damn well get as close to perfection as possible.

Zuruck, the governor of Illinois has decided to use his office to circumvent the process. He's just simply refusing to sign *any* death warrants regardless of the merits of the prosecutions case because he doesn't want to risk executing an innocent person. So you could say he doesn't even give the cases as much review as Bush did! See how the positions can be distorted without even lying

I have to say I admire his backbone and agree with his motives but he's wrong as a governor to abuse his office to impose his will over that of the voters who, at last count, supported the death penalty and didn't elect him to throw a wrench in the works. Or...he's a great governor because he's showing leadership and not just following the whims of public polling...Big grey area there!

Just like I said with the judge in Alabama who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, he has a right to fight for what he believes in but he has no right to abuse his position to sneak his will into the system.

They both are willing to sacrifice their own positions to take a stand so let the chips fall where they may and if they succeed in swaying public opinion then good on them.

Perhaps the people in Ill. should do away with the whole jurisprudence process and give the Gov. all the case work and then let him decide. Be a lot cheaper.
As an aside I'm sure all the dead victims family members think the Ill. Gov. is a real good guy.

well, you people would actually love the previous governor of Illinois. He was indicted recently for his involvment in a commercial license for bribe scam. At the end of his term, he granted blanket commutations for all death row inmates. Every single death row inmate was commuted to life in prison without parole. At first, I thought this was a spit in the face of all the families that have suffered. But in the three years that I lived in Illinois with him as governor, I think 15-20 people on death row were freed because of DNA evidence. Gov said he did it because he couldn't let the possibility of another innocent person being killed.

15-20? Link?