1
   

Does Anyone Believe This Statement?

 
 
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 11:09 am
This statement from Gonzales is pure horse **** IMO. You are not allowed to be in the bush administration unless your first loyalty, ABOVE your loyalty to the USA and it's citizens, is bush and his agendas.

Requirement number one...place your head so far up bush's ass that if he turns a sharp corner your neck will break. I'm sure there are those who agree and disagree, but I just felt like stating my opinion when I read this steaming pile of crap.

I will also post the link to the full article...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales vowed on Thursday to abide by international treaties on prisoner treatment if confirmed, but Senate critics asserted that policies he supported led to the torture of terrorism detainees and protested his closeness to President Bush.

"You know there are going to be times when the attorney general of the United States has to enforce the law of the United States. He can't be worried about friends or colleagues at the White House. His duty is to all Americans," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gonzales responded tersely in his opening statement to the panel. "I will no longer represent only the White House. I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050106/D87EM93O1.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,750 • Replies: 59
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 11:12 am
I don't know anything about the man other than the fact that it was his legal opinion that paved the way for Abu Ghraib. That's enough for me to not want him as attorney general. I'm sure others will disagree.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 06:34 pm
I don't much care for him either, BPB, but your assertion is flawed. He was the White House legal counsel - his job was to represent only the White House.
0 Replies
 
RfromP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 07:05 pm
It looks to me he's paying lip service to beat any criticism to the punch. A pre-emptive strike if you will. It seems about right.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 10:42 pm
The people at the Department of Justice did everything they could to make Alberto Gonzales feel welcome. They knew they had accomplished their goal when they saw the look on his face after the curtain which hid the Spirit of Justice statue was removed. Their last-minute addition had made all the difference:

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/iq.jpg
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 12:21 am
They're not "prisoners" argument
Gonzales vows to follow prisoner treaties?

What difference does it make if he vows to adhere to our laws and our treaty obligations when he is already on record supporting the position that our laws and treaties with respect to "prisoners" do not apply to "suspected terrorists" and "enemy combatants"?

If our treaties only apply to our treatment of "prisoners of war," the government can evade its obligations to treat captives humanely by giving our captives a different designation. We just won't call them "prisoners of war." And if we "torture" suspected terrorists or enemy combatants in order to elicit information from them, we just won't call it "torture." We will call it "aggressive interrogation."

Renaming things to avoid the strictures of law is a common government ploy. In 1830, a case was presented to the United States Supreme Court concerning an alleged state violation of the constitutional prohibition that "no state shall emit bills of credit." The state argued that its state-issued "certificates" were not "bills of credit."

Chief Justice Marshall wrote

"Had they been termed 'bills of credit,' instead of 'certificates,' nothing would have been wanting to bring them within the prohibitory words of the constitution.

"And can this make any real difference? Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief, which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so. "

CRAIG v. STATE OF MISSOURI, 29 U.S. 410 (1830)

I am against Gonzales' appointment as the chief law enforcement officer of our nation when his record clearly demonstrates his skill in crafting legal arguments that are specifically designed to evade compliance with the supreme law of the land (the constitution and our treaties).
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 12:55 am
Gonzales
Gonzales spent his eight hours before the committee avoiding answering Senator's questions about most subjects, and was very skillful in avoiding factual response regarding his torture opinion memo. He was very slick and very consistant. The Senators let him get away it with their wimpy questions.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 01:06 am
Re: Gonzales
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Gonzales spent his eight hours before the committee avoiding answering Senator's questions about most subjects, and was very skillful in avoiding factual response regarding his torture opinion memo. He was very slick and very consistant. The Senators let him get away it with their wimpy questions.

BBB


He sounds well-qualified.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 01:11 am
Poppycock. Gonzalez is a strict constructionist, and considers The Law and The Constitution to be as written, not as interpreted conveniently to partisan agenda. That bothers some folks a lot.

BTW ... The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed military and to non-combatant civilians. The isurgents are neither; they are criminals.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 01:31 am
it bothers me
timberlandko wrote:
Poppycock. Gonzalez is a strict constructionist, and considers The Law and The Constitution to be as written, not as interpreted conveniently to partisan agenda. That bothers some folks a lot.

BTW ... The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed military and to non-combatant civilians. The isurgents are neither; they are criminals.


Ah . . . the irony of your statement is that our founding fathers established a government of LIMITED powers. Another irony is that "strict constructionists" desire to narrowly interpret the limitations placed on government power in order to expand government power. Another irony is that expanded government powers demanded by the Bush administration to fight the "war on terror" is a partisan agenda. You have built one irony on top of another on top of another and then have the audacity to say that ironic assumption of unlimited powers by our government "bothers some folks."

And then you prove my point that Gonzales will not adhere to our treaties that prohibit the inhumane treatment of captives through the application of name games by claiming our treaties apply only to those who wear uniforms or non-combatant civilians. Therefore, according to your strict construction of our treaties there exists a large segment of people -- those who do not wear uniforms -- the combatants whose military has been wiped out by our invasion -- the ones who are still fighting against our armed occupation of their country -- who are simply people in limbo. According to you, there are no laws applicable to them nor any laws to protect them from inhumane treatment -- and as such, the United States government can do anything it wants to them -- imprison them for life, torture them, execute them . . . .

Yes, your "strict construction" of our laws that gives unlimited power and unaccountability to government officials bothers a lot of folks.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 01:51 am
All sorts of sanctimonious flatulence flow from the Bush Haters.

Gonzales is the choice of Bush and therefore must be EVIL!

What I've found amusing with the hearings is the way Democrat Senators are falling over themselves to assure Gonzales that they have the utmost admiration for his rise from hispanic rags to riches, all the while they contend that he is a torture loving monster.

Except Teddy the Sybarite, of course, in MA, he's an institution and there aren't enough latinos to make a difference to his reelection...for now.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 02:28 am
Debra
I don't see how you can call the intel bill a partisan agenda...bad agenda with some stupid holes in it, yes, but it seems to be pretty much in favor with both sides of the aisle.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll544.xml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140859,00.html
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 02:50 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
All sorts of sanctimonious flatulence flow from the Bush Haters.


Bush Haters? I don't hate Bush. I simply do not approve of a government of unlimited powers.

Our government was established as a government of LIMITED powers to secure individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our constitution and our laws must be broadly construed to that end. When strict constructionists interpret the constitution so narrowly as to minimize individual rights and to maximize government powers, they are acting contrary to the intent of our founding fathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The constitution establishes a government of limited powers with built-in checks and balances to protect the people from oppression and tyranny.

When strict constructionists approve government oppression and tyranny in whatever form it takes so long as THEY interpret the supreme law of the land to say that particular form of oppression or tyranny is not "specifically" prohibited by the constitution, they are creating a government of unlimited powers and they ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an all-inclusive list.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A government of unlimited powers is an evil thing. The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good people to remain silent. When good people speak out, you can call it "sanctimonious flatulence" if you want, but history has proven that their voices serve to protect basic human dignities that you currently take for granted and would be lost forever in their absence.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:07 am
intel bill
tommrr wrote:
Debra
I don't see how you can call the intel bill a partisan agenda...bad agenda with some stupid holes in it, yes, but it seems to be pretty much in favor with both sides of the aisle.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll544.xml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140859,00.html


We are not discussing the "intel bill" described in your links. We are discussing the appointment of Gonzales's appointment as Attorney General for the United States of America.

I responded to another poster's statement that Gonzales was a strict constructionist and his accusation that any opposition to his appointment is part of a partisan agenda. I merely pointed out the irony of his accusation. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to the intel bill and any statements I may have made with respect to Gonzales.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:38 am
Yes, I know exactly what we are discussing here. I was refering to a part of your post that stated
Quote:
Ah . . . the irony of your statement is that our founding fathers established a government of LIMITED powers. Another irony is that "strict constructionists" desire to narrowly interpret the limitations placed on government power in order to expand government power. Another irony is that expanded government powers demanded by the Bush administration to fight the "war on terror" is a partisan agenda. You have built one irony on top of another on top of another and then have the audacity to say that ironic assumption of unlimited powers by our government "bothers some folks."

I was merely responding to your insertion of the thought that Bush and his appointees are the only ones behind this attempt to expand the government's power.
If the people that are opposing him were so serious about it, the why was he able to dance around the questions?
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:39 am
Now that we have that little misundersanding out of the way, I have to say I'm not really comfortable with Gonzales as AG either. After reading everything I could find on his career, he seems to be right in step with Ashcroft in his legal views. I'm sure that there must be others more suited for the job, but because of the Senate blowhards, we are going to get him. As they say, to the victor goes the spoils. And this is not the opinion of a liberal just wanting to bash someone because Bush wants him. It is a conservative who isn't real pleased with some of the actions of this adminstration.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:10 am
I imagine the howlin' has just begun - nothin' quite so vituperous as a Democrat disempowered, unless perhaps it might be a disempowered Democrat who's favorite entitlement has just been reigned in. Hang on folks, there's plenty of entertainment to come. Its takin' a while, but we're on the road to recovery followin' the mis-stewardship - foreign and domestic - of The Previous Administration.

Oh, and Ms Law, the insurgents are not "Protected Parties", but rather are "Spies and Saboteurs", as well as being themselves by their manner of belligerence in violation of the protections accorded either recognized military or unarmed non-combatant civilian populations - they are criminals; I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions, The Hague Protocols, and the commentaries thereon delivered by Sir Henry S. Maine. Its all googleable, but for your convenience, I offer to you what amounts to a central repository, Yale Law School's Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:32 am
I don't care what term those that were abused while under protection fall under.

The facts are these:

These detainees were under our protection. Even Powell said that the abuses that happened should not have happened because they were under our protection.

Half of them or more it turned were not even guilty of the crimes or whatever of which they were detained for.

We were loosing against the insurgency.

So, Bush (or pentagon or someone in the administration, they all think and say the same thing) decided to gitmotize it to try and get a handle on the insurgency problem by abusing those in detention.

So, Bush, decided to get his eggs in a row if they ever caught at it by having that guy Gonzales spin a legal argument to cover their butts.

Gonzales did as he was told.

Gonzales now says that he will abide by better standards (or whatever words to that effect.)

By his admission he is acknowledging that there was something wrong with their previous policy of which he was part of creating.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:49 am
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17273&c=206

New Documents Suggest Government Reluctance to Investigate Guantanamo Abuses
January 5, 2005

Quote:
NEW YORK - Documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union show that an FBI investigation into the use of "aggressive" interrogation techniques at Guantanamo was sharply scaled back, and that records related to the FBI's investigation are still being withheld.

ACLU Says Key Documents Are Being Withheld

NEW YORK - Documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union show that an FBI investigation into the use of "aggressive" interrogation techniques at Guantanamo was sharply scaled back, and that records related to the FBI's investigation are still being withheld.

"Shameful as it is, the full story of our government's sanctioned torture and abuse of detainees must see the light of day if we are to ever restore our reputation as a nation dedicated to the rule of law," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

These latest documents were released on the eve of the confirmation hearings of Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales, author of the infamous memorandum that provided legal justifications for the use of torture and described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete." Mr. Gonzales bears much of the responsibility for creating the legal framework and permissive atmosphere that led to the torture and abuse at Guantanamo and elsewhere," Romero said.

The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Other FBI documents released today include an e-mail dated December 9, 2002 referring to the "military's Interview plan" along with the comment, "You won't believe it!"

Another heavily redacted document refers to an investigation captioned "Corruption Federal Public Official - Executive Branch," which appears to have been referred to the FBI because of a "conflict of interest." Accompanying the document is an FBI summary of "potentially relevant criminal statutes." The statutes pertain to war crimes, torture, aggravated sexual abuse, and sexual abuse of a minor or ward, which the ACLU said raises the question of why the FBI considered them "relevant."

Documents released today reveal that many of the FBI's earlier descriptions of abuses came in response to a specific request dated July 9, 2004 from Steve McCraw, the Assistant Director of the FBI's Office for Intelligence. The e-mail asked more than 500 agents who had been stationed at Guantanamo Naval Base to report whether they had observed "aggressive treatment, interrogations or interview techniques" that violated FBI guidelines.

According to subsequent e-mails noting the status of the "special inquiry," 478 responded and 26 reported observations of detainee mistreatment by personnel of other agencies. The 26 summaries were reviewed by FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni, who determined 17 to pertain to "approved DOD techniques."

For unknown reasons, Caproni declined further investigation of the abuses that she considered to follow approved DOD interrogation techniques. Instead, she focused only on those abuses that were not approved by even the DOD's permissive rules. As a result, only nine reported incidents were tagged for follow-up investigation.. The ACLU has received no information about the follow-up investigation, and a final FBI report about the matter is apparently being withheld.

"These documents raise more questions than they answer," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. "Why did the FBI narrow its investigation? Did the FBI ever conduct follow-up interviews? Did the FBI provide a formal summary of its findings to the Defense Department? If so, why hasn't the FBI released a copy of this report?"

The ACLU's review of the documents also shows that other critical records have not been released. For instance, the FBI has withheld a copy of a May 30, 2003 "electronic communication" in which the FBI formally complained to the Defense Department about the treatment of detainees.

"Key pieces of this grim puzzle are still missing," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. "Unfortunately, it appears increasingly likely that we'll have to return to court to ensure that relevant documents are released."

On December 20, a federal court ordered the CIA immediately to conduct a search of files that have been provided to the CIA's Inspector General in connection with an ongoing investigation into possible wrongdoing by CIA agents in Iraq. The CIA had previously insisted that it should not be required to conduct the search until the Inspector General's investigation was complete. To date, the ACLU has received and disseminated more than 9,000 pages from agencies including the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice.

The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

For a copy of the new documents released today, go to: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_010505.html.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:49 am
The fact is this Gonzales or anyone associated will be a rubber stamp for bush...period. That's why they're there. Period. If not, they don't last. Period.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does Anyone Believe This Statement?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 05:19:10