A worse fucker than Ashcroft to be our next AG

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/ ... index.html

I'm glad the Dems held his feet to the fire, frankly. He of course evaded most of the questions about his infamous memo detailing the "organ failure" criterion for torture, and what role his advice played in leading to the abuses at Guantanamo, and more importantly at Abu Ghraib and other places in Iraq.

But it won't stop his confirmation, unfortunately.

I feel like Bush is punishing us for not liking Ashcroft. "I'll make the liberals LONG for the days of Ashcroft," he said with a grinchy grin!

[davidking]

You mean you dont like the fact that this sitting president has given the first african american female and the first hispanic american male the highest postion in american government history?

I just don't understand you liberals.

[Relbeek Einre]

Mm... yummy trolls.

[Ddrak]

Gonzales has no credibilty. He was basically busted writing documents encouraging torture and now pretends to be against it. At least Ashcroft kept his story straight even if it was completely off track.

Dd

[Rsak]

I hate to break this to you, but that memo is not a recommendation on policy. It is a examination of what is an is not legal or what falles under the anti-torture laws on the books.

One can very easily make an objective determination of what is or is not legal and still be against torture.

[Klast Brell]

There were 2 basic problems that are associated with he memo.

The creation of an extremely narrow definition of what torture is so that you can declare that actions are not torture, and the concept that the president can chose to ignore laws written by congress.

The second point is the scary one. Gonzales in his publicly available work has advised the president that he can decide ion the constitutionality of an action, and let the supreme court overrule him later if it must. This is an extension of the "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" concept. When it comes to violating the Geneva convention (which Gonzales had described as "quaint and antiquated") or the UN convention on torture, the problem with proceeding until being told to stop is that it shames America in the eyes of the world, and most importantly it violates international treaties. Now this man will no longer be the president's personal lawyer, but be the AG of the US with the authority and responsibility to decide on the legality of major national policies. This Laissez-faire attitude will lead to more violations of the constitution, violations of international treaties, and more shame for the USA in the eyes of the world.

[Ddrak]

I hate to break it to you Rsak but the memos (there were more than one) were definitely recommendations in policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

Note the last section which is specifically a recommendation that the President mandate that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to prisoners from both Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

If you're talking specifically about the torture memo then please provide the exact text because the Senate would be interested in seeing it.

Dd

[Rsak]

You are welcome to point out where you see such advocation of policy, but i don't see it.

I see where it sates that the legal opinon of the OLC

The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice has opined that as a matter of international and domestic law,GPW does not apply to the conflict with al queda. OLC has further opined that you have the authority to determine that GPW does nto apply to the Taliban.

That is a statement on the laws on the books not policy.

The memo then goes on to offer the positive and negative benifits of such treatment.

It even goes to talk about arguments for applying GPW to the al queda and Taliban. The only opinion offered in this section is the view that these arguments are not persuasive enough to trump the laws on the books.

In conclusion it makes abundantly clear that regardless of the law giving the GWP rights to these prisoners the President has the authority to grant them if he so wishes.

[Ddrak]

Bingo Rsak.

You spotted the opinion in it, which does exactly what I said it did.

Dd

[superwalrus]

lol...

its funny watching Ted Kennedy question Gonzales. If I am ever questioned by Ted Kennedy I'm going to stand up and say "why is a fucking murderer daring to ask me any questions?"

Walrus

[davidking]

haha.. Ted Kennedy.. someone tell me why he hasn't been shot ot blown up yet.

[Rsak]

But that does not advocate a policy Ddrak. It mearly gives the opinion of whether these arguments are enough to override the laws of prisoner treatment and the GPW based upon other laws from a legal point of view. Akin to whether law A takes presidence over law B.

I disagree strongly that there is anything opinion on policy in the entire memo from anyone other then a legal and objective view point which is their job.

[Burz]

haha.. Ted Kennedy.. someone tell me why he hasn't been shot ot blown up yet.

/bottle motion

[vaulos]

I actually have no problem with believing that Gonzalez was trying to explain the law, and not his own personal opinion on what is morally permissable. My problem is that Gonzalez is wrong on the law. I believe that yesterday's panel on the judiciary committee was very good in illistrating that. They presented two Law school deans (one a former JAG general and the other the law-dean from Yale). Both agreed that Gonzalez was horridly wrong on the law. Not specifically because of the torture business, but rather his reasoning about how the current interpretation of the law would hinder questioning on the battle field.

I am not so concerned about Gonzalez's ethics, but I am very concerned about his understanding of the law.

[Partha]

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): . . . My question to you is, would you not also concede that your decision and the decision of the president to call into question the definition of torture, the need to comply with the Geneva Conventions, at least opened up a permissive environment for conduct which had been ruled as totally unacceptable by presidents of both public -- both parties for decades? . . . Then let's go to specific questions. Can U.S. personnel legally engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under any circumstances?

MR. GONZALES: Absolutely not. I mean, our policy is we do not engage in torture.

SEN. DURBIN: Good. Glad that you stated that for the record. Do you believe there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel? (Pause.)

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I don't believe that that would be the case. But I would like the opportunity -- I know I want to be very candid with you and obviously thorough in my response to that question. It is sort of a legal conclusion, and I would like to have the opportunity to get back to you on that.

SEN. DURBIN: I'll give you that chance. In your August memo, you created the possibility that the president could invoke his authority as commander in chief not only to suspend the Geneva Convention but the application of other laws. Do you stand by that position?

MR. GONZALES: I believe that I said in response to an earlier question that I do believe it is possible, theoretically possible, for the Congress to pass a law that would be viewed as unconstitutional by a president of the United States. And that is not just the position of this president. That's been the position of presidents on both sides of the aisle. In my judgment, making that kind of conclusion is one that requires a great deal of care and consideration. But if you're asking me if it's theoretically possible that Congress could pass a statute that we view as unconstitutional, I'd have to say -- concede, sir, that that's -- I believe that that's theoretically possible.

SEN. DURBIN: But you believe he has that authority; he could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this president or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, again, you're asking me where the -- hypothetically, does that authority exist? And I guess I would have to say that hypothetically that authority may exist. But let me also just say that we certainly understand and recognize the role of the courts in our system of government. We have to deal with some very difficult issues here, very, very complicated. Sometimes the answers are not so clear. The president's position on this is that ultimately the judges, the courts will make the decision as to whether or not we've drawn the right balance here. And in certain circumstance the courts have agreed with the administration positions; in certain circumstances, the courts have disagreed. And we will respect those decisions.

SEN. DURBIN: Fifty-two years ago, a president named Harry Truman decided to test that premise -- Youngstown Sheet and Tube versus the Supreme Court -- or in the Supreme Court -- versus Sawyer in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, as you know, "President Truman, you're wrong. You don't have the authority to decide what's constitutional, what laws you like and don't like." I'm troubled that you would think, as our incoming attorney general, that a president can pick or choose the laws that he thinks are unconstitutional and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he's going to comply with the law.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, you asked me whether or not it was theoretically possible that the Congress could pass a law that we would view as unconstitutional. My response was -- is that obviously we would take that very, very seriously, look at that very carefully. But I suppose it is theoretically possible that that would happen. Let me just add one final point. We in the executive branch, of course, understand that there are limits upon presidential power; very, very mindful of Justice O'Connor's statement in the Hamdi decision that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president of the United States" with respect the rights of American citizens. I understand that, and I agree with that.

Quite frankly, any lawyer who would attempt to tell the President of the United States that it is alright to break the laws of the land does not deserve the job of Attorney General.

[Rsak]

There was nothing in that memo that said the President could break the law. He said he could follow the law and this is what the law says. Or the president could expand the law and grant more rights.

[Partha]

Except that it is NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT TO EXPAND OR CREATE LAW, you insane little troll.

[Rsak]

But is the job of the President to Expand or Create policy which is what we are talking about.

The congress rights the laws that we must obey at a minimum or maximum. The President creates the policy for how they actually work within those laws.

If you could get your head out of your ass you would be able to join the conversation rather then proving your continued inability to read basic english.

[Partha]

Clearly, your time under Pinochet has changed the way you view the US Constitution.

[vaulos]

Actually, Rsak is correct in part. The role of the Executive is to put flesh to the bones which the law creates. And through doing that, the President tends to have a good range of options which can all be argued to be lawful. It is the Judicial's role to determine whether the Executive's actions are indeed in line with the law. In other words, Congress makes the law, the Executive executes the law, and the Judiciary determines whether that action is indeed lawful.

Does the executive make law? No. But it does give life to it. And in our topsy-turvy political environment, when the judiciary agrees with the executive it can have the affect of making law, no matter what law is on the books. As one Harvard Law professor once famously told one of his students, "I don't care what the law says; tell me what the court has decided!"