You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Bush nominee criticised on abuse claims
2005-01-07
US attorney-general nominee Alberto Gonzales faced blistering criticism today for his role in shaping administration policies blamed for the torture of terrorist suspects. Democrats said the policies had put Americans at greater risk. "Those abuses serve as recruiting posters for the terrorists," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said at a Senate confirmation hearing for Gonzales, President George W. Bush's White House counsel. "America's troops and citizens are at greater risk because of those actions," the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, Sen Leahy, said.
Let me guess: someone had a camera on?
"The searing photographs from Abu Ghraib (prison in Iraq) have made it harder to create and maintain the alliances we need to prevail." At issue are a memo Mr Gonzales approved that said only the most severe types of torture were not permissible under US and international agreements, and another he wrote that described parts of the half-century-old Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war as "obsolete" or "quaint." At the packed hearing, Mr Gonzales denounced torture and vowed if confirmed as attorney general to abide by international treaties. "I want to make very clear that I am deeply committed to the rule of law," Mr Gonzales said.

Republicans were quick to come to Mr Gonzales' defence, though some voiced concerns about the treatment of prisoners and the memos. But even Democrats conceded he had the votes to be confirmed as the first Hispanic-American to serve as the nation's top lawman. Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, praised Mr Gonzales and asked:
"Do you approve of torture?"

"Absolutely not," Mr Gonzales said.

"Do you condemn the interrogators' techniques at Abu Ghraib shown on the widely published photographs?" Senator Specter asked.

"Let me say senator that as a human being I am sickened and outraged by those photos," Mr Gonzales said.
Many of the questions focused on Mr Gonzales' January 2002 memo on how the Geneva Conventions should not apply to Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners captured during the Afghanistan conflict. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, introduced Mr Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, at the hearing, saying: "Now, I hate to ruin a good story for the president's political opponents. But there is one important problem with this criticism: Judge Gonzales is right."

Mr Gonzales was questioned about an August 2002 memo he approved — which was recently withdrawn and replaced — that outlined how to avoid violating US and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners. The memo was behind many of the harsh techniques inflicted on detainees at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba and other locations. "The issue of your commitment to the rule of law is what most concerns us," Massachusetts Democrat Senator Edward Bagogas Kennedy said. "With the consent of the Senate, I will no longer represent only the White House," Mr Gonzales said. "I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the differences. In the former, I have been privileged to advise the president and his staff; in the latter, I would have a far broader responsibility — to pursue justice for all the people of our great nation."
This one is done. 80 - 20 in the full Senate vote.
Posted by:Anon5607

#31  So Hubby's stance is a visceral dislike? Surely Skeery didn't score well, either, there is much to feel queasy about with him... He must've been torn, Nucular MonkeyBoy vs. Lurch the Windvane. Had actions and gumption be in the equation, it would've been a no-brainer. Your patience must've been sorely tried, heh.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 11:41:47 PM  

#30  .com, I don't get it, either. 'Twas Mr. Wife that taught me not to believe what I see, hear and read as, based on his own experience doing plant start-ups around the world (all except sub-Saharan Africa, China and Australia), US domestic news sources tell no more than the partial truth -- slanted -- and often not even that much. And yet, he believes Jon Stewart implicitly, and everything he sees on CNBC. I think it must be because he dislikes GWB's smirky fratboy attitude, as he sees it, so very much, and chooses to believe the worst of everyone associated with him. *Sigh*
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-07 11:35:06 PM  

#29  Nah, I'm just gonna stand my ground, right here.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-07 11:13:24 PM  

#28  How did the AARP Guadalajara article look to you, heh?

Here's one of those zines that covers the topic at length...
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 11:02:18 PM  

#27  Yeah, it is skeery, and I'm not at all sure we're gonna make it. I'm really not.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-07 10:59:25 PM  

#26  Lol - you have the weight of evidence for 48% of American voters on your side, lol! That is a skeery number, too. Heavy sigh.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 10:57:46 PM  

#25  Healthy skepticism is all but dead, PD. Most people don't have the time which skepticism demands-- or I should say they're not willing to devote the time. You and I, and likely most of the other people who frequent Rantburg, are current-events junkies: to us, keeping up with what's going on in the world, and trying to figure out what's "really" happening, is our drug of choice.

Most other people could care less. They devote a few minutes a day, at most, to current events to they end up just swallowing the pre-packaged drivel prepared for them by the liberal MSM without thinking about it very much.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-07 10:39:47 PM  

#24  Okay - but even that (I'll swallow whatever these people tell me) is a suspension of disbelief that begs the question regards what was once called healthy skepticism... Hell the Romans institutionalized the phrase "let the buyer beware"... I accept it for some, but it still boggles, bro.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 10:19:50 PM  

#23  "Anybody have any workable theories regards why people who are, otherwise, functional can go into total suspension of intellect which is required to subscribe to all the LLL conspiracy stuff?"

Well, this doesn't apply to all of them, for sure, but with many people it's simple ignorance: as with my LLL brother, their idea of keeping informed of current events is to plunk their lazy asses down in front of CNN for 30 minutes a day. They truly believe they're being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It doesn't occur to them that most of what they're told is dumbed-down bunk concocted to get them to vote for the nearest Democrat.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-07 9:40:38 PM  

#22  BH - your B-I-L fires off a neural path for me... Anybody have any workable theories regards why people who are, otherwise, functional can go into total suspension of intellect which is required to subscribe to all the LLL conspiracy stuff? I recall a joke where, upon hearing the intro theme music for Entertainment Tonight, the cartoon character unscrews his head and places it on the nightstand, saying, "Well, I won't be needing this for the next hour." Okay, mindless "entertainment". But when did this same abdication of intellectual scrutiny and healthy skepticism start seeping into some of our major tributaries? How? Why? I am boggled - by Zen, for example. What I wouldn't give to understand how people can be seduced into such moonbattery as Gore is the rightful President, etc. What a waste.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 9:11:28 PM  

#21  Glad it was only a hissy fit, then, BH. Save my wise and soothing words for when someone needs them -- we're low on tumeric at this end, and I can't promise I'll ever be this clever again.

Mr. Wife, on the other hand, may wake up one night soon to find himself beaten with a frying pan... as happened to a distant cousin of his once upon a time (Mrs. Cousin was apparently committed shortly thereafter, but that's another story).

I do agree with you lex, but as someone who prefers her discussions to be on a more dispassionate level, I'm finding the process more uncomfortable than I'm comfortable with. *sigh*
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-07 9:00:55 PM  

#20  Actually, after reading the Heather MacDonald article in City Journal, I think that, MSM hysterics aside, it's not such a bad thing for our society to finally have an open debate (such as it is) about terrorism. Sure, there'll be losts of idiocy spoken, but that's easy to shoot down, as BH showed. And we will likely emerge with something closer to consensus, and at a minimum be able to put forward our side's arguments in an open forum. Call me an optimist, but I think that's far better than being on the defensive the next time a frat-house haxing photo hits the tabloids and MSM screamsheets.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-07 4:28:26 PM  

#19  Thanks, tw. Things aren't so bad, it's just annoying. Especially when she gets around her family. Her brother, who I otherwise respect greatly, has quaffed deeply from the Mike al-Moor koolaid.
Posted by: BH   2005-01-07 4:22:43 PM  

#18  My sympathy, BH. Jon Stewart's little spiel last night on the Daily Show didn't help matters any (at least not in my house). Hang tough, my dear, and remember it isn't you she's really mad at. Your life together is here, not over there, so maybe try a little romantic seduction tonight (or tomorrow, if you need a little longer to calm down), to remind you both what's really important.

Good luck. A good marriage is very much more important than differences in politics.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-07 1:17:26 PM  

#17  Was an....ahhhmmmaaaa... Oldsmobile used in... ahhhmmmaaa... this... ahhhhmmmaaaa...water toture?
Posted by: Edward M. Kennedy   2005-01-07 12:37:57 PM  

#16  so true, Dave D. Machiavelli would be so proud.
Posted by: 2b   2005-01-07 12:35:25 PM  

#15  I know...I was teasing...I also know how to get out of them in a couple hours ;-)
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-07 12:33:54 PM  

#14  FG: I never could figure out how to getout of those Chinese Handcuffs™ - those woven tubes that constrict on your fingers as you try to pull them out....been stuck for days at a time

To my knowledge, that's another one of those made-up references - the Chinese used steel manacles like everyone else.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-01-07 12:27:44 PM  

#13  The searing photographs from Abu Ghraib...

Searing pictures...the electric shock "pose" picture was disturbing, but searing? I haven't seen any searing pictures.

Why wasn't I put on the email list?
Posted by: Jules 187   2005-01-07 11:53:40 AM  

#12  "Why do Democrats, socialist and wankers not understand the 1949 Geneva Accords do not apply to terrorists?"

Oh, they understand perfectly well, same as you or I; they just don't care about truth anymore. I'm no longer sure they ever did.
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-07 11:49:00 AM  

#11  hmmm - I never could figure out how to getout of those Chinese Handcuffs™ - those woven tubes that constrict on your fingers as you try to pull them out....been stuck for days at a time
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-07 11:47:10 AM  

#10  tu3031: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".

The Chinese water torture does not exist (and never did) - at least in the sense described - of a steady drip of water on one's head. It's as Chinese as the phrase "may you live in interesting times", et al, which is to say, quite possibly the creation of Hollywood scriptwriters for the Charlie Chan movies.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-01-07 11:31:35 AM  

#9  Highlight of the day: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".

Yeah, the irony. Like James Taranto says, "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment."
Posted by: BA   2005-01-07 10:40:04 AM  

#8  tu - ROFL!!! Did he bring up bridges? Lol!
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 10:37:35 AM  

#7  tu3031: Gonzalez should have answered, "We tried to get the MA police to cover it up for us, but they were busy." ;)
Posted by: BH   2005-01-07 10:30:33 AM  

#6  Highlight of the day: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".
Posted by: tu3031   2005-01-07 10:26:06 AM  

#5  My wife, who, sadly, is where I was before 9/11, had a big ol' hissy fit about Gonzalez last night.

"He actually believes that those people in Guantanamo Bay are not POWs covered by the Geneva Convention!!!"

"Well, they're not."

*silence*

"You don't get the protection of the Geneva Convention unless you follow the rules of the Geneva Convention."

"But shouldn't they be protected by the Geneva Convention anyway?"

"Well sure, if you think they should be able to take their uniforms off, shoot civilians, and behead hostages without any incentive to stop."

*silence*

I don't know how much longer I can take this.
Posted by: BH   2005-01-07 10:23:13 AM  

#4  I see I am again full of good spelling. :D that should read treaties (of course.)

The Democrats not cheat? That would be an outrage Mr D.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-01-07 9:15:24 AM  

#3  SPoD, I suppose you also think that Democrats, socialists and wankers did not cheat their way into the Washington governorship? There is nothing they won't do for their religion politics.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-07 8:34:51 AM  

#2  SPOD, because they (the LLL) do not see them as terrorists. They're just insurgents like the msm says remember?
Posted by: Jarhead   2005-01-07 8:31:27 AM  

#1  Why do Democrats, socialist and wankers not understand the 1949 Geneva Accords do not apply to terrorists? The US is not part of any treatiest subsequent that would apply. It has to be willful ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-01-07 2:26:46 AM  

00:00