About twenty posts or so since we have been on topic.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination last week, Alberto Gonzalez refused to reject the legal advice he gave Bush in 2002: that it's permissable to order torture, and that torturers should be protected from legal recrimination.
According to the Washington Post
, the "2002 ruling made under his direction (said) that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture."
As long as you don't cripple them or kill them, you're good to go.
Instead of repudiating that advice, Gonzalez said, "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached."
OK then ... anything else?
Gonzales repeated his criticisms of the Geneva Conventions, saying they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees," which is, according to the Post, "an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war."
So, nothing to worry about there either.
In fact, even current AG John "I Can See Into Your Bedroom Window From Here" Ashcroft has said that he doesn't believe in torture because it produces no information of value.
So, if I am understanding this all correctly, the Bush administration -- and Democrats in the Senate -- intend that our next attorney general to be a guy who spent several hours last week doing his best to defend the practice of torturing prisoners (or 'detainees', or 'enemy combatants' or whatever TF they wish to call them).
Where are we going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?