Democrats to confirm defender of torture as new AG

[Guest guest]

A

Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:13:32 -0500

Subject:Democrats to confirm defender of torture as new AG

 

 

Subject " Democrats ready to confirm defender of torture as new US

attorney general "

 

 

[As usual, the Democrats subservient

 

 

EXCERPTS:

" The nomination of [ White House Legal Counsel

Alberto ] Gonzales

confirms that the Bush administration is preparing

to escalate its

attacks on democratic rights and its defiance of

international law.

 

Gonzales is, if anything, more consistent in his

hostility to

constitutional principles and civil liberties.

 

Demonstrating their utter prostration before Bush

and the Republican

right, and their indifference to democratic rights,

leading Democrats

have already announced that Gonzales will have

little trouble being

confirmed by the Senate. "

 

ENTIRE ARTICLE:

Democrats ready to confirm defender of torture as

new US attorney

general By Joseph Kay 12 November 2004

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/gonz-

n12.shtml

 

President George Bush announced Wednesday

his nomination of current

White House Legal Counsel Alberto Gonzales to

replace Attorney General

John Ashcroft, who submitted his resignation on

Tuesday. The

nomination of Gonzales confirms that the Bush

administration is

preparing to escalate its attacks on democratic

rights and its

defiance of international law.

 

Ashcroft became something of a symbol of the

Bush administration's

contempt for constitutional safeguards and its

assertion of

unprecedented police powers. His tenure saw an

unrelenting attack on

democratic rights, including the implementation of

the Patriot Act,

the mass arrests and deportations of Muslims and

Arabs following

September 11, and the detention without charge of

US citizens Yasser

Hamdi and Jose Padilla. Ashcroft will be

remembered for his assertion

to a congressional committee that critics of

administration policy

were giving " aid " to the terrorists.

 

Gonzales is, if anything, more consistent in his

hostility to

constitutional principles and civil liberties. He is

infamous for

having authored a 2002 memo arguing that the

Geneva Conventions did

not apply to the war against Afghanistan. He is

also implicated in

discussions within the administration on legal

justifications for the

use of torture, military tribunals, and the claim that

the president,

as commander-in-chief in the " war on terror, " has

virtually unlimited

powers.

 

Demonstrating their utter prostration before Bush

and the Republican

right, and their indifference to democratic rights,

leading Democrats

have already announced that Gonzales will have

little trouble being

confirmed by the Senate. Although the

Republicans wield a majority in

the chamber, the Democrats have more than

sufficient votes to mount a

filibuster and thereby block a nomination. They

have gone out of their

way to make clear, however, that they will not

exercise that option.

 

Senator Charles Schumer of New York declared

that " it's encouraging

that the president has chosen someone less

polarizing " than Ashcroft.

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware evaluated

Gonzales to be " a pretty

solid guy. "

 

Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in

2000 and a possible

replacement for Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the

Democratic National

Committee, said on CNN that the Democrats

would not seek to filibuster

the nomination.

 

The New York Times, the newspaper of the liberal

establishment and

supporter of the Kerry campaign, published an

editorial on Thursday

declaring, " Mr. Gonzales has shown that he can

distinguish between a

political agenda and the law. " It continued, " We

hope he brings that

sort of reasoned approach to the Justice

Department. "

 

The Democrats are well aware of Gonzales's role

in the administration.

In a speech he gave on May 26, 2004, Gore

himself pointed to Gonzales

as one of the advisors who had crafted the

administration policy that

led to the torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib

prison. In earlier

speeches, Gore denounced as a " 'Big Brother'

style of government " the

very policies pushed by Gonzales.

 

As for the New York Times, it has documented in a

number of articles

Gonzales's contempt for constitutional principles of

law and

government. An article by Times correspondent

Tim Golden published on

October 24, 2004 ( " After Terror, a Secret Rewriting

of Military Law " ),

details how a group of right-wing lawyers-including

Gonzales, one of

his deputies, Timothy Flanigan, and the vice

president's counsel,

David Addington-pushed for an agenda that would

undermine legal

protections for those detained in the " war on

terror. "

 

Only a week after the September 11 attacks,

Gonzales set up a group to

examine options for prosecuting individuals

captured by the American

military and intelligence services. Gonzales himself

favored the use

of military commissions, where the most basic

rights would be denied.

When the original group failed to act quickly

enough, Flanigan and

Gonzales's Office of the White House Counsel

moved to scuttle the

discussion.

 

According to Golden, with the White House and its

Office of Legal

Counsel in charge, the planning of military

tribunals moved more

quickly, culminating in a memo sent to Gonzales

on November 6, 2001.

Written by one of Gonzales's deputies, Patrick

Philbin, the memo set

out that the president had the " inherent authority "

as

commander-in-chief to establish military

commissions without the

permission of Congress.

 

In the divisions that emerged within the

administration over the

handling of detainees, Gonzales was consistently

among the most

fervent opponents of granting democratic rights.

Golden states that

Gonzales, Flanigan and Addington " opposed

allowing civilian lawyers to

assist the tribunal defendants, as military courts-

martial permit, or

allowing civilians to serve on the appellate panel

that would oversee

the commission. They also opposed granting

defendants a presumption of

innocence. "

 

On the question of the prosecution of detainees,

Gonzales even

outflanked Attorney General Ashcroft, who worried

that some of the

rules being proposed would be seen as

" draconian. "

 

The military commissions set up in accordance

with the proposals of

Gonzales and company were this week ruled

illegal by a federal

district judge.

 

Gonzales was also the author of a memo dated

January 25, 2002, arguing

that no prisoners captured in the war against

Afghanistan should be

accorded the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

His position was more

extreme than that eventually taken by the

administration.

 

A presidential decision issued two weeks later

declared that the

Geneva Conventions applied to the war in

Afghanistan, but members of

the Taliban captured by American troops would be

treated as " unlawful

combatants, " and not prisoners of war. All factions

within the

administration agreed that alleged members of Al

Qaeda would not be

given any rights under international law.

 

Gonzales opposed what would become the

administration's position

because he thought it would limit the flexibility of

the US government

in its interrogation practices and its plans for

further wars. His

memo states, " The war against terrorism is a new

kind of war.... The

nature of the new war places a high premium on

other factors, such as

the ability to quickly obtain information from

captured terrorists and

their sponsors.... In my judgment, this new

paradigm renders obsolete

Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy

prisoners. "

 

Gonzales also felt that by declaring that the

Geneva Conventions did

not apply at all to Afghanistan, the administration

would more

securely protect itself against future prosecution for

war crimes. He

noted that the US War Crimes Act makes war

crimes-defined as grave

breaches of the Geneva Conventions-punishable

by death. Some

provisions of the Conventions (such as the

prohibition of 'outrages

against personal dignity') apply whether or not the

detainee is

categorized as a POW. " A determination that the

[Geneva Conventions]

are not applicable to the Taliban would mean that

[the War Crimes Act]

would not apply to actions taken with respect to the

Taliban, " he

wrote.

 

It is no surprise, therefore, that Gonzales was

closely involved in

the memos produced within the administration that

sought to create a

legal rationale for the use of torture. The most

important memos on

the subject that have been leaked to the press

were drafted at the

request of Gonzales, including the August 1, 2002,

memo written by

Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee.

 

The Bybee memo sought to define torture in such

narrow terms as to

allow a wide variety of methods expressly

prohibited under

international law. It further developed the argument

that the

president had unlimited powers as commander-in-

chief, asserting that

even if torture were prohibited by law, such laws

would be

unconstitutional if they unduly restricted the

powers of the

president. (See " Washington Post publishes memo

implicating White

House in torture of prisoners " .)

 

Gonzales's close ties to Bush-going back to Bush's

governorship in

Texas-no doubt played a role in his selection.

There are a number of

ongoing investigations at the Justice Department

involving the White

House. These include an inquiry into the leaking of

the name of a CIA

operative who is the wife of an administration critic,

and an

investigation of Cheney's former company,

Halliburton. The Washington

Post quotes one administration official as noting, " It

could be the

kiss of death [for these investigations] to have an

attorney general

so close to the White House. "

 

While the Democrats are lauding Gonzales as " a

pretty solid guy, " the

Christian fundamentalist faction of the Republican

Party is also

applauding his nomination, mainly because it

means he will not be

given a seat on the Supreme Court. These layers

are cool to Gonzalez

because of his support for affirmative action and

what they consider

to be his " soft " position on abortion. His nomination

as attorney

general is a signal that the Bush administration is

preparing to

appease the Christian right with a suitable

nominee to the Court in

the likely event that Chief Justice William

Rehnquist resigns.