Gonzales Requested Torture Memo

How can this piece of shit be the next Attorney General?  This is a disgrace:

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security. Until now, administration officials have been unwilling to provide details about the role Mr. Gonzales had in the production of the memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gonzales has spoken of the memorandum as a response to questions, without saying that most of the questions were his.

Current and former officials who talked about the memorandum have been provided with firsthand accounts about how it was prepared. Some discussed it in an effort to clear up what they viewed as a murky record in advance of Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Others spoke of the matter apparently believing that the Justice Department had unfairly taken the blame for the memorandum. A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Tuesday that while Mr. Gonzales personally requested the August opinion, he was only seeking "objective legal advice and did not ask the Office of Legal Counsel to reach any specific conclusion."

I'll say it straight - I don't believe that. It makes no sense. You ask for a memo analyzing whether you have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, something no one in their right mind would question, and you aren't looking for an opinion saying you can? Come on.

Mr. Gonzales's request resulting in the original August 2002 memorandum was somewhat unusual, the officials said, because he went directly to lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing the office of the deputy attorney general, which is often notified of politically delicate requests for legal opinions made by executive-branch agencies, including the White House. Officials dispute how much senior Justice Department officials knew of the memorandum as it was being prepared. A former official and a current one said that neither Attorney General John Ashcroft nor his deputy, Larry D. Thompson, were aware of the memorandum until it was about to be submitted to the White House.

Can you fucking imagine that? They had to hide it from Ashcroft?!?!?!?

A senior administration official [said] that the memorandum's conclusions appeared to closely align with the prevailing White House view of interrogation practices. The official said the memorandum raised questions about whether the Office of Legal Counsel had maintained its longstanding tradition of dispensing objective legal advice to its clients in executive-branch agencies.

We must oppose the confirmation of Gonzales as Attorney General. There is no choice.

•  unfortunatley, the disgrace can be found..

  at the end of the article, where the newest whipping post of the republican party suggests that Sen. Leahy (who apparently has finally found his common sense) has no cause for concern.  Wonderful.
  

  by alpkeaton on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:41:47 PM PDT

  •  Look! I'm following dkos etiquette

    by not posting this as an independant diary (that's gotta be worth a tip or two by itself).
    

    
    From my (non) diary:

    Forget CSI, tonight it's C-Span!
    

    
    This Thursday Senate confirmation hearings begin for the Abu Ghraib Apologist, Alberto "Gitmo" Gonzales, your next Attorney General. Gonzales, as you may be aware, is serving currently serving as Shrubcorp's in-house shyster, and is best known for the memo rationalizing torture by the expedient of re-naming its victims: "POW" becomes "enemy-combatant" and voila' no more problems with those silly old Geneva conventions.
    

    
    Now some bleeding-heart liberal types might claim that a record of trying to avoid both international as well as US law might disqualify a guy from becoming America's top law enforcement officer, but we know the real reason. According to CNN, some Republicans are concerned because the fellow's views are "too moderate." I swear to God that's true, it says so right here (paragraph 8).
    

    
    In today's hearings look for sharp questioning, to absolutely no avail, from Judiciary Committee members Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, and California's own Dianne Feinstein. All of which should be followed by a variety of sycophantic pandering from Orrin Hatch et al. on the Republican side. Million-dollar question: will John Cornyn (R-TX) call down "Gitmo" for all those moderate Texas executions he approved? "Mr. Gonzales, could you please tell the committee why you electrocuted the defendants rather than torture them to death?"
    

    
    Don't forget to set your TiVo!
    

    
    On C-Span: Thursday, January 6, at 10am ET.
    

    by CaliBlogger on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:46:51 AM PDT

  •  To understand Gonzales, first understand........

    the role of Guantanamo in the neo-con phantasmagoria.

    Guantanemo is not needed really, The CIA, and the DIA sub units have ample experience spiriting away people, and holding them under horrible conditions, including torture and murder.

    Our own John Negroponte has considerable experience in this arena, notably with his "see no evil" ambassadorship in Honduras.  But I digress.

    Anyway, all Guantanamo does is tell the world that we renounce the Geneva Accords, International Law, The Nuremburg Accords, and in general, the standards of a civilized world.  In a nutshell, as Mr. Mike Whitney pointed out over at Smirkingchimp, "that all law will now come from Washington." to paraphrase.

    Mr. Gonzales' role in this phantasmagoria is little more than an enabler.  He can be counted on not to rock the boat, be absolutely loyal, and grovel on command to Chimpy and the neo-cons.

    Folks, there are numerous highly qualified State and Federal officials and judges of Hispanic ancestry that would be a credit to the nation and the office of Attorney General of the United States, besides Mr. Gonzales.  These other officials are not tainted by 'Torture memos,' and and fantastic nonsense that can only be described as "Fascist daydreaming."

    Mr. Gonzales is unacceptable.  Pure and simple.  He is too tainted by this torture business.

    I see in Gonzales a man who has contempt for the law, a man willing to pervert the law for political end.  Is this the kind of man we want for Attorney General?

    I hope not.

    We don't need Guantanamo, and we surely don't need a "sockpuppet" like Alberto Gonzales.    

    by boilerman10 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:51:32 AM PDT

    •  say...

      i like that.

      a few tweaks and that would make a fine message to a senator.

      to make real easy, there's a site called congress.org that also lets you easily send messages.  you go the directory then find your senators by name or by committee, that takes you to their info page (in this case, biden), where you click on send message and that lets you compose your own message.  it slaps all the addressing and so forth on their, and you can then email it, print it out and mail it, or pay $5 and have western union hand deliver it.

      yourcongress.com also has a quickbitch page if the five-minute procedure above is to much to ask of citizens of our republic.

      by zeke L on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:57:04 AM PDT

  •  And now the Military is shutting down bloggers...

    
    At least ones they disagree with. This guy has been writing about his experiences before and after the Mosul bombing where our guys got decimated. Now the military is citing "regulations" as they use their strong arm to turn his site off.

    by ContrarianAlexis on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:46:25 AM PDT

    •  so why not just not say who or where he is?

      You state you're an Army doctor, you open yourself to their rules. So post what you want and don't say who you are.

      There's nothing that forces him to say he's an Army doctor, no reason he can't just say he's a doctor in Mosul.

      There's also no reason he can't send emails to his extended family or friends and THEY post them. They're not under Army regs.

      There are plenty of ways to get around the system. Been there, done that...

      by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:18:16 AM PDT

  •  You Can See the Memos Themselves

    through links on the first diary I ever posted here, noting Gonzales' key role in commissioning these rationalizations for torture: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/141130/82

    WaPo today posted a HUGE article detailing how this happened.  At last......

    by NotFuzzy on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

  •  Torquemada Gonzales

    I'll contribute this to the cause:

    

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:46:14 AM PDT

•  Wow, when it is too rough for Ashcroft, it is bad

  Wow, when this had to be hid from Commandant
  Ashcroft, you know it is bad !!
  When Ashcroft has higher standards than anyone,
  that is horribly disgusting and frightening.
  

  by wishingwell on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:43:46 PM PDT

  •  effin' A

    gonzales is a product of rightwing death squads.

    interesting that our foreign policy is now turning in on us.

    not to be too hyperbolic or nothin',  but this is some scary ass shit.

    by x on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:18:05 PM PDT

  •  Yeah and I think that is highly unlikely

    Ashcroft saw this shit.  Hell, the whole scumbag team probably got together for martinis to celebrate their genius at concocting a legal strategy that permitted torture.

    We need one ethical, moral person to do the right thing and leak on these creeps.  You know there are e-mails out there somewhere...

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:28:46 PM PDT

    •  Appointment hearing algebra...

      Process, plus routing this through heretofore unique, but official channels = plausible deniability.

      Solve for x...

      Just like the Enron crew with their derivatives and byzantine business practices, these clowns at Justice think that they have struck on a new method of having less than savory legal tidbits sail through, without internal vetting. Keeps any potential "boy scouts" out of the loop.

      by rgilly on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:06:40 AM PDT

  •  Ashcroft was in the loop

    According to the WaPo
    Story
    Actually, these folks are in deep shit.  If someone died the folks involved in the torture memo have, on the looks of it, comitted a capitol offense (not a realistic possibility of actually getting these guys charged though).  The different stories in the NYT and WaPo might be folks in the Admin getting into some CYA fingerpointing.  Interesting that Drudge is featuring the WaPo article, which blames Chaney and Ashcroft.

    by Myrkury on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:18:12 AM PDT

•  Wes Clark lambasted Gonzales on Hardball.

  Wes Clark really lambasted Gonzales on Hardball
  this evening. He was very strong and very consistent
  in his beliefs in the Geneva Convention and the need to strictly adhere to these rules no matter what. Other Generals are speaking out too against
  Gonzales and any torture or tactics that break
  the Geneva Convention.

  by wishingwell on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:46:31 PM PDT

  •  Here's a link

    For folks who like to see the man in action.

    http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html

    I gotta say he's an incredible guy, with an incredible mind.

    by danthrax on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:48:46 PM PDT

    •  Wes Clark

      could have been the president of the USA right now. Now that would have been great.

      by Zagatzz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:09:06 AM PDT

    •  Thanks

      I was pleased to see that interview. It should be looked at by all those who question the wisdom of strong campaigning against Gonzales in the name of political expediency.

      by Welshman on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:01:29 AM PDT

  •  "Nope!"

    It's what Clark said before Tweety could even finish  asking him if Gonzales should be the next AG. Clark didn't hold back in the least. I want to see him on the talk shows all the time---he's so effective on calling BushCo out on national security and defense issues.  

    by Ascendent on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:14:46 AM PDT

•  Investing our political capital, not spending

  To expose what the right wing stands for. Even if we lose and Gonzales goes through, think of how much we'll have gained. People will know that the man who endorsed torture went through -- the debate will come to the surface. It won't remain hidden, nor will it remain ignored. It will become popular news.

  And once everyone knows... we can ride that for the next 4 years, 8 years, 10 years.

  I know we have a limited amount of political capital to spend. But I do not think this is strictly a liability. I think this is an investment of our political capital that will pay us back twofold, when we gain the moral highground in mainstream America's mind.

  by danthrax on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:47:29 PM PDT

  •  Putting U.S. soldiers at risk....

    ...that is what is so fucked up about this...This whole fiasco has endangered American troops. That is why guys like Clark are so pissed...And that is how we can score some points here, even if we lose the overrall battle...Rather than supporting the troops, fucking sociopaths in Camp Chimpy are killing them...

    by Volvo Liberal on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:51:06 PM PDT

    •  Which came first?

      I totally agree that this has endangered not only our soldiers but anyone even remote affiliated with America.

      The real hypocracy of this administration is revealed when you look at this timeline:

      End of year 2001 the first Taliban and others begin to show up at Gitmo.

      Gonzales greases the way to torture them, August 1, 2002... the games begin.

      March 21, 2003 Shock and Awe begins

      March 23, 2003 Jessica Lynch is captured and the threats spew forth from the administration that Saddam had better not torture her, while they've been hard at work for 7-8 months torturing the people in Gitmo.

      "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

      by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:22:12 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      Our soldiers signed up to liberate Abu Gharib, not to re-open it under new management.  Unfortunately, they're the ones who are going to suffer the consequences.

      Why don't they send Gonzales and the rest of the Sociopaths-R-Us Bar Assoication off to combat for a while (at the rank of buck private)?

      by liberaldregs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:26:37 AM PDT

  •  well done

    investment is an elegant frame for political capital.

    by wu ming on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:43:05 PM PDT

    •  Thanks a lot

      It came to me as I was writing it.

      I was acknowledging the limited political capital we have available to spend (e.g.: the idea that we need to choose our battles, or else fall into "boy who cries wolf" space).

      But I also knew that it could actually boost the standing of our party even if we fail, so our next comments can build on this common knowledge that Gonzales is an asshole and torture did happen.

      Right now there are an unfortunately large number of people who see Abu Gharib as a Frat Party against Terrorism and give it a big thumbs up. Pushing this discussion into the mainstream has a big payoff in the long term, I believe.

      by danthrax on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:48:24 AM PDT

•  I called Senator Feinstein's office

  and told the woman who answered the phone that I would like to see Gonzalez eat those torture memos live on C-Span.

  It took several calls to get through.  I think they're hearing from people.

  by Doc Bogus on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:47:37 PM PDT

•  An attorney General...

  ...who believes that the Executive Branch runs the country, as opposed to being just one arm of the government is dangerous indeed.

  What about the Plame affair? Has anyone heard any word on this, or have the Republicans been able to silence it, especially considering Gonzales could be the new AG if anything comes out of the Plame investigation? Isn't there a serious conflict of interest with the AG being the former White House counsel when the White House is being investigated for abuses on said pending's AG term?

  by Alumbrados on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:50:01 PM PDT

•  Dirtbag

  Agreed, Gonzales is a dirtbag. It may be strictly true that he never specifically asked the OLC to reach a specific conclusion, but that's a mere talking point. The implied answer is often embedded in the assignment. He could have said, "I want to know whether we can reconcile torturing terrorists with the Geneva Conventions." This statement would set out the argument he wanted the lawyer to make without exactly demanding a particular legal conclusion outright.  

  It's scary stuff. We're seeing the "hired gun" approach to government lawyering overtake "the gatekeeper" approach. Advocacy, not objectivity.  

  by RatIV on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:50:41 PM PDT

•  WaPo points to Cheney's office..

  interesting story...

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48446-2005Jan4.html

  Cheney's boys fucking everything up....what a huge shock...

  by Volvo Liberal on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:52:59 PM PDT

•  Yes he is a disgrace

  I thought I would puke today when I read Andrew Sullivan suggesting that although he is opposed to Gonzales' views, we should sit back and take it because the majority voted for Bush. Fuck that.

  by southernblues on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:04:15 PM PDT

  •  And that two-bit fuck would flip...

    ..in a second when a Dem took back the White House..All of a sudden the majority wouldn't matter...Ignore anything Sully says. He is scum....

    by Volvo Liberal on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:19:57 PM PDT

•  Sullivan is so wrong

  Anyone who sits back and takes it is consenting
  to the Bush administration running amok. I much prefer those who speak up in dissent even if they
  lose the debate. History should tell people that sitting back and keeping silent accomplishes nothing because silence often means consent or apathy. That is how some governments are run into the ground and how dictators gain and sustain power.

  As MLK said, Racism flourishes because good  white men stay silent.

  This can be applied to a wide variety of policies,
  principles and practices in government and in society.

  by wishingwell on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:09:07 PM PDT

  •  if the founding fathers had sat back

    we would be part of the UK today.

    There is a time for compromise and a time to speak up for what's right.

    This is the time to speak up.

    Because if we don't speak up now, when DO we speak up?

    by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:23:42 AM PDT

•  Objective Legal Advice?

  My ass!  

  A senior administration official [said] that the memorandum's conclusions appeared to closely align with the prevailing White House view of interrogation practices.

  by BarbinMD on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:12:52 PM PDT

  •  is the gun

    starting to smoke now?

    Is this the beginning of the leaks that put everything back in the lap of Bush and Cheney, right where it belongs?

    by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:25:01 AM PDT

  •  Here's some OLA

    The First Amendment Permits Human Sacrifice.
    Wrong, but objective, legal advice.  So I'll give you a 5% discount off my hourly rate.

    by Myrkury on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:24:33 AM PDT

•  CYA

  Administration officials said over the last few days that Mr. Gonzales had played a role in the decision to issue the new legal opinion as well, but they did not offer specifics.

  An honest reporter would have said that Mr. Gonzales, "Senor Wetback" to dubya, was making a typically half assed attempt at saying it never happened. Not our media though, Rush might mention them on his show.

  by Mike S on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:13:49 PM PDT

  •  Cover Your Ass

    Actually, the recent "No torture ever" memo's even more digusting. It's not just an attempt to erase the torture and sadism memo from history... But to, at the same time, preserve their assertion that the President can order torture of anyone at any time for anything.

    by RHunter on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:06:45 AM PDT

•  'Just lookin' for an opinion'... Yeah, right...

  ... while Mr. Gonzales personally requested the August opinion, he was only seeking "objective legal advice and did not ask the Office of Legal Counsel to reach any specific conclusion."

  These assholes are consistent, you have to give them that.

  Here's Bush "looking for an opinion" connecting Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda on September 12, 2001:

  On September 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room.

  "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

  I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

  "I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred-"

  "Absolutely, we will look-again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

  "Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us.

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:19:33 PM PDT

  •  "Look into Iraq, Saddam ...

    ...and somebody check into constitutional uses of thumbscrews."

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:01:34 AM PDT

•  Your right

  We have to oppose this--its a moral imparative.  We have to do it if for no other reason than to reject the hubris of an adminstration that promotes and rewards failure, incompetence, and dishonesty.

  Gonzales has spent the past 10 years engaging in some of the most cynical and sadistic sophistry I've ever observed in America.  This man is going to be the one person in America making the final decisions on who gets crimally investigated and he himself should be investigated.  

  I guess that one way to avoid indictment--make sure your the one deciding who gets indicted.  

  But then, corruption isn't exactly out of character for these creeps, is it?

  by Descrates on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:22:35 PM PDT

•  Can I ask a question?

  Please, please don't flame or troll rate me for this or accuse me of being part of the "diary police" but, it seems we have a lot of diaries going about the Alberto Gonzales issue. Of course, it is the huge issue du jour since the hearings begin on Thursday and his confirmation would be a disaster, but I'd like to see our discussion a little more focused ie. in one or two diaries. Is that possible or am I doomed to being declared as a sh*t disturber for bringing this up?

  Thanks.

  by catnip on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:57:01 PM PDT

  •  agreed n/t

    by SonofFunk on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:07:49 AM PDT

  •  I respect your opinion

    I don't share it.

    I'm sorry but I can't oblige you.

    by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:18:53 AM PDT

    •  Republicans against Torture

      Do you think McCain and Lindsey Graham will vote to confirm Gonzales? I can't see how they square that with their questioning during the Abu Ghraib hearings.

      I think to defeat the Gonzales appointment you need a unified Democratic Senate against AND McCain or Graham to make a public statement against confirmation. McCain has huge credibility on this issue as a former POW as does Graham as a former JAG lawyer. If either one comes out against that gets huge news and may be enough to split off Lugar, Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins? That's 49-51.

      It's much better to defeat Gonzales through an open vote than by fillibuster. Opposing torture should be a bipartisan issue.

      by joejoejoe on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:25:43 AM PDT

      •  McCain and Graham

        McCain will vote for him - he knows that he'll have no chances for a Presidential run in 2008 if he crosses Rove or Bush at any point. I'm willing to bet that Graham will close ranks around the President and vote for him too.

        Remember - for these people, party is more important than anything else.

        by RHunter on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:08:13 AM PDT

    •  Agreed, big time

      We're talking about torture sanctioned by the White House as an instrument of policy.  It violates our treaty obligations, and as such is a high crime.  It is also vile and counterproductive.

      Put me in the camp that thinks this is the ONLY thing we should be talking about.  When we don't, we ignore it, because it is so ugly we can't bear to confront it.

      It's all about the torture.

      by Mogolori on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:20:51 AM PDT

    •  that wasn't aimed at you, Armando n/t

      by catnip on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:23:05 AM PDT

•  Ashcroft didn't know?

  That sure didn't come up at the infamous Senate hearing.

  Here's the PBS report with video.

  Can't seem to find the whole exchange, should be on c-span, though.
  

  by Felix Deutsch on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:10:23 AM PDT

•  Senate Judiciary Committee Members

  http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

  Let them know what you think about Gonzales.

  by steveb on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:19:26 AM PDT

•  I repeat myself

  but, I don't think we need to play "six degrees of separation" to figure out how assured Gonzales was that the man in the White House wanted a specific kind of answer. Gonzales (1) was a member of Vinson & Elkins; Vinson & Elkins (2) worked for Enron; Enron chief was Kenny Boy Lay (3) Lay and Bush are old old oil'bidness boys. See, we got it in Three!

  by greatbasin2 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:34:34 AM PDT

•  "get over it"

  Hey, if we're asked to "get over it" and accept that bush won the election, we might as well "get over it" and accept his appointees.

  by saiyoku on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:26:56 AM PDT

•  I'll tell you how

  this (piece of shit) can be AG, because hes no different then the (piece of shit) that wants to nominate him for that position, the whole admin is full of (pieces of shit), and that is being generous to describe these people that way, they are in reality much worse, but its the new year and I'm feeling very generous, at least right now.
  PEACE!

  by PC on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:30:41 AM PDT

•  Hooray diary police! Pffft.

  Guess what? I still support Gonzales. All the 1's in the world won't change that. Time to bring some brown to the lily white house.

  I think he will be confirmed. Show me a good alternative.

  by Saucy Rugrat on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:54:31 AM PDT

  •  Your attitute is why...

    ...they picked him.

    Bush et al are many things, but they are not racists.  Therefore, they pick lots of minority canidates for posts because it's harder for the Dems to oppose them.  Doesn't matter that the minority canidates are just as horrible as any white guys they could find.

    Bush is playing you.

    Now, you do have a point, in that it really doesn't matter who is picked.  But nobody should be picked merely because of the color of their skin.

    by Geotpf on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:00:21 AM PDT

    •  they're not racists

      my ass!
      just because there are token blacks, dosn't mean a thing.
      who's being played?

      look at this cracker barrel of loonies in charge and their main red state support, and tell me racism isn't one of their main agendas: domestically with the ghettoisation of main street downtowns and the prison system, and abroad, where hundreds of thousands of iraquis are being massacred for having had the wrong dictator.

      somehow i don't think the war would have been so supported if the target populations had had white skin.

      oh yeah, and they're sitting on 'our' oil, i suppose.

      by melo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:23:40 AM PDT

      •  i should add

        there is a positive side effect to this tokenisation thing: more kids grow up used to seeing people of colour in power positions.

        now if they really spoke for their people....

        by melo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:26:56 AM PDT

  •  White House, Huh?

    This appointment, if confirmed, would move Gonzales out of the White House, where he now works as White House Counsel, down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Department of Justice building.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:20:46 AM PDT

  •  You pathetic cretin

    Overlooking a scheming little twerp's plan to drag YOUR name as well as the names of every other American through the mud by advocating torture in our name simply because he's of Hispanic origin.

    Take your limited brain capacity elsewhere.  I hear there are many South American countries which have similiar "brown" leaders willing to engage in similar acts of moral weakness.  You'll fit right in, send us a card to let us know how your black hood fits.

    We are truly doomed if this is the thinking of anyone out there.  Is anybody awake anymore?  WTF.

    by guyute16 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:18:26 AM PDT

  •  From the desk of Louis L'Amour.

     Indian Whiskey

     1 barrel of river water (not strained)
     2 gallons of straight alcohol
     3 plugs chewing tobacco
     5-6 bars very strong lye soap
     1/2 lb. red pepper
     sagebrush leaves to taste
     2 oz. strychnine

     Mix all ingredients in barrel except for the strychnine. When fully mixed, add the strychnine.
    In the author's words, 'the resulting brew is something to make a mummy rear on his hind legs and let out a regular Comanche yell.'

    by Anderson Republican on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:47:59 AM PDT

•  Political "Capital"

  Gonzalez will be appointed the same way the last "piece of shit" that held his position was...

  I mean who could argue with Ashcroft's popularity in his own home state prior to his appointment? If losing an election to a dead man doesn't qualify you for Attorney general of the United States, then a guy with a couple of silly torture memos is a shoe in...

  No one rewards incompetence like BushCo!!!

  by Burton Halli on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:09:03 AM PDT

  •  Amen!

    Game, set ,match on this nominee, so let's give 'em enough rope.

    by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:14:52 AM PDT

•  Can this be true?

  I heard it said recently, in a discussion of the BushCo refusal to release the torture memos, that the White House is even refusing to reveal Gonzales's middle name.

  Has anyone else heard this? I don't know if it was sarcastic hyperbole or not. And I haven't yet found anything on it (leading me to believe its just hyperbole).

  by aggressiveprogressive on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:39:41 AM PDT

•  I understand THEM better than I understand US

  THEM: Bush won the election (probably), and now he and his are behaving according to their view of the world, and the U.S.'s role in it - reaffirming their policies and putting their people in positions to implement them. According to Bush: Kerick and Gonzales are great, let's see if we can get `em in. And if we can't, we have others just like them on the bench. The tactic is as old as history: You don't like Hitler? Fine, I offer you Stalin (recent history: you don't like the Russians? I give you bin Ladin.).

  US: And what are we doing about it? Going after the bait, our focus seems to be to shoot down one little fish after the other, as if that would materially change things in the White House. A doctor's metaphor: you can't cure cancer by going after each individual cancerous cell separately; you concentrate all your efforts on finding the primary malignancy, which you then try to defeat.

  So why aren't we going after Bush and Co. directly? He hasn't even been inaugurated, and there are already Republican voices objecting to him on various significant issues. If, as I'd like to assume, Democrats are united against him, impeachment is not impossible, and indictment for impeachment in the House, requiring only a simple majority, might actually be easy. Why are we sitting on our butts on that?

  The Fish Stinks from the Head Down - Impeach Bush!
  

  by gbdoc on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:59:49 AM PDT

  •  You make good points...

    As far as impeachment, that is a long way off. Unless someone from the inner circle starts talking, that cannot happen. Just keep your ntebooks handy, follow your congressional reps. In 2006 they's gonna hafta dance with them what brung 'em. If Iraq is still a basket case and the President's numbers are tanking then we have a shot at regaining control in the House, then let the games begin.

    by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:12:12 AM PDT

    •  Who has to start talking, why wait?

      Gross mismanagement of the country and abuse of presidential powers is surely invokable even now. And whatever Congress feels are grounds, are grounds enough.

      by gbdoc on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:18:20 AM PDT

  •  You Got it

    Rove and Co. keeps everyone worked up over a few unimportant "hot button" issues, chasing after a few snakes like Gonzalez, or clowns like Kerik. Meanwhile they keep the crosshairs off of the real criminals, who occupy the top spots in the administration. It's how they've won every election, and it's how they hide their illegal activity from America...

    by Burton Halli on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:15:01 AM PDT

  •  no no no

    Impeachment would only work if you got EVERYBODY, and all at once.

    Otherwise, you get rid of Bush but get Cheney. Not a good idea.

    I say we impeach CHENEY first. Or force him to resign (like Agnew).

    The only Pres/VP team to both resign is Nixon/Agnew -- that should be our goal. Resignation and disgrace.

    Remember too, that they won re-election by a good margin in 72, and were BOTH gone by 74.

    by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:31:28 AM PDT

•  Confirmation is in the sombrero!

  My play on words is intentional, remember Clarence Thomas, his "high tech lynching"? No one will want to oppose this nominee and risk appearing anti-Hispanic. Bush's political capital will carry the day on this one. We need to conserve our energy and choose our battles wisely. This one is a non-starter and unless more damning evidence surfaces and Gonzales falls on his sword, he's gonna be the next AG. Think of it as an investment - if we give 'em enough rope, you finish the sentence...

  by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:06:41 AM PDT

  •  Maybe he is going to be confirmed,

    but that's no reason not to go after him in the hearings.  If he is sufficiently bloodied, maybe he won't get on the Supreme Court.  And other judicial nominees tainted with the torture, like Haynes, can be blocked.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:51:05 AM PDT

    •  The Supreme Court Is The Issue

      This appointment is just a stepping stone to a high court seat.  I think he's gonna get confirmed AG, but if enough crap is heaped on the table this go round perhaps we can head off his being made a Justice.  Clearly, Bush would love to be able to appoint the first Hispanic Justice.  And he and his brother would get still more capital for that.  There's a balancing act to be done here.  Not so much opposition in a losing effort that Rove and Co are able to then claim next go round that we simply oppose all their nominees and thus the filibuster rules should be changed.  But enough mudslinging to keep the man off the Supreme Court.

      by hollywood on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:25:39 AM PDT

  •  SADISM!

    There's one way to oppose Gonzales. Express extreme disbelief and disappointment that the Republicans are supporting an "obvious sadist", even though it's wonderful that they're finally supporting affirmative action...

    by RHunter on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:10:55 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, by this logic ...

    ...all Dubyanochhio has to do is nominate rightwing women and people of color for any post he really cares about, and the Dems will hold back for fear of expending too much energy fighting nominees that will make them look sexist or racist. If we fall for that line of reasoning, we might as well give up our final pretense that we live in a two-party state.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:27:21 AM PDT

•  I was disappointed

  by e-mails I've received in the past couple of days: one from MoveOn urging me to sign a petition saying that Gonzales must "unequivocally renounce torture as an instrument of American policy," the other from True Majority stating the "Senate should demand that Gonzales uphold American and international laws and renounce the use of torture."

  I didn't sign these petitions because I don't think they go far enough.  I agree with Armando that we should oppose G's confirmation.  Having to demand--pre-confirmation--that the Attorney General of the United States uphold the laws is a grim irony and shows how utterly unfit he is for office.  

  I simply don't see room for compromise here.  Anything less than total (raucous, outraged, adamant) opposition to this man is unethical.

  by katchen on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:45:40 AM PDT

  •  A better petition? Daily Kos?

    You're absolutely right.  MoveOn made a terrible error in their letter and petition.  Yesterday I corresponded with a MoveOn founder (and friend) who agreed to advocate a simple "Oppose Gonzales" petition - which millions of people would obviously sign - but for now they're still wedged.  Instead, people like you and me have trouble honestly signing or passing on their strangely weak petition.  They're psyching themselves out - so afraid of losing, they're forgetting how to fight.  They can't even blame Bush and Rove.

    Anyone know a strong site with a plain "Oppose Gonzales" petition aimed at Senators & Congress?

    How big is Daily Kos nowadays?  Can we create a petition for wider distribution here?

    by Levity on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:11:29 PM PDT

    •  Oppose Gonzales petition

      Here's a great petition against Gonzales that says Oppose him, don't just scold him (thanks bklyndispatch, below) from the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Fill it out so it goes to your congresspeople, and be sure to tell your friends.

      And remind them that Gonzales "vetted" Bernard Kerik to run our Homeland Security.  In addition to being a crook, Kerik did his best to set up Iraq's current security.  Don't we want that here?  Yeah, let's have an Attorney General who'll skip a basic background check on a(nother) notoriously corrupt cop, because he thinks they both have a pass from the President.

      by Levity on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:53:39 PM PDT

•  Anyone care

  to organize a March?

  money is easy, marching is harder.

  How many beds we got in DC?

  by BooMan23 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:48:20 AM PDT

•  quick question

  i'm not up with this topic very much, but why is everybody here so hostile about gonzalez, yet rummy, ashcroft, bush and many many more go relatively unscathed?

  imho, there's a percieved evil that is overpowering actual evil.

  by Furious Hal on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:12:58 AM PDT

  •  This is a chance

    to stop impending evil?

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:00:54 AM PDT

    •  hmm

      yeah i guess that's the best explanation.

      by Furious Hal on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:19:49 PM PDT

  •  Because tomorrow

    they will debate making a man that pushed for torture AND re-wrote the Constitution the highest law authority in the land.

    I think that deserves our attention for now.

    by Mike S on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:14:26 AM PDT

    •  do you mean gonzalez or bush? n/t

      by Furious Hal on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:19:29 PM PDT

  •  I don't know how long you've ...

    ...been around daily Kos, but it must not be long if you really think the crew you just mentioned have gone unscathed here.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:17:51 AM PDT

    •  well

      in terms of front page exposure.

      by Furious Hal on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:18:47 PM PDT

•  The real question

  The real question is how many Americans really care about how the prisoners are being treated. I suspect that not many do. That's the real problem. It's similar to American attitudes toward prison conditions in general. There's just not that much sympathy (particularly after 9/11 but probably not much different before either) to prisoners. Those of us who do care are in a distinct minority. Proof of this can be seen in Kerry's extreme reluctance to bring this up as an issue during the campaign.

  by YoGo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:43:23 AM PDT

  •  That is the question!

    One man's torture is another's effective interrogation technique. Kerry couldn't "afford" looking soft on terror so he was always ready to hunt them down and kill them wherever they may be. Well, good for Kerry. Now he can put on his spiffy new camo gear, carry his rifle in the "safe method" and hunt and kill 'em all he wants whenever the Senate is on break.
    We are the minority! Tree huggin', terrorist lovin', gay marrying pussies. The Blame America first crowd. Thank God George Bush and Co. are here to save us from ourselves. I for one can't wait to take my meds and watch the upcoming season of American Idol. (or is it American Idle?)

    by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:48:58 AM PDT

  •  Conditions in U.S. prisons may be a disgrace,

    but they don't threaten the survival of our military in the way that antagonizing virtually all of Iraq does.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:49:37 AM PDT

  •  I think

    People block it from their minds. If they'd have to confront it, I think they would be bothered but rather than trouble themselves, they tell themselves it doesn't happen here, Americans aren't like that. Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I'd like to think if they were confronted by it, they'd be against it.

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:03:34 AM PDT

    •  Not Pollyanna, It's a Blue state of mind

      Your optimism is heartening.
      Red staters have a different take on all this, it isn't torture, it's interrogation. They trust the president. They have to, they are tied to his success. Their world view lines up with the administration's. Most Americans don't recognize fascism as it flourishes in our own country. The s _ _ _ is gonna hit the f _ _ soon enough, and then  W's mandate will disappear faster than Vanilla Ice.

      by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

•  Loyalty preempts ethics and morality

  Gonzales is a servant/product of Bush's frame that loyalty (to Bush) preempts or overides any considerations of ethics or morality.  Reviews by appropriate staff at the State Department and apparently by the AG were omitted because the instigators of these policies (Addington, Yoo, Gonzales)did not want to be called on their actions.  Gonzales appears to have acted primarlily as a facilitator or enabler rather than as an independent thinker, this is possibly even more dangerous, given what he rubber stamped.  It is very possible that this issue underlies Ashcroft's resignation (although extremely conservative he strikes me as principled, witness his recusal on the Plume investigation).

  by barbwires on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:54:53 AM PDT

•  The most disturbing thing about it all.

   Went over to FR to see what they were saying, came across this one.

   

  I listened to some JAG Admiral yesterday who will be questioning him. His insistence that the Geneva Conventions apply to enemy combatants captured by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq - the captured men were not wearing uniforms nor part of some army so the rules don't apply.
  " The Geneva Conventions specifically guarantee the safety of soldiers fighting on behalf of nations or liberation movements. Insisting that the Conventions should govern our treatment of terrorists who owe no allegiance to any state or liberation movement -- and whose primary targets are not soldiers but civilians -- could well undermine the very protections of the Conventions."

  Rush went over this thoroughly and clearly yesterday, it's up on his web site.
  

   So, in other words, when dealing with a subject involving military law, Rush is a better source than a high ranking JAG.

   Did anyone bring a rope? I fell down this rabbit hole.

  by Anderson Republican on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:32:24 AM PDT

  •  Limbaugh: We're Siding With Terrorists.

    In that same broadcast, Limbaugh apparently equated objecting to torture with siding with the terrorists.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:59:00 AM PDT

    •  So

      our military sides with terrorists? That is a rabbit hole!

      -5.88, -6.82

      by Debby on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:04:46 AM PDT

  •  Rush Limbaugh got a pass

    for a pimple on his ass. That Chickenhawk Fascist got out of serving in Vietnam and now exalts the virtues of pre-emptive military action and re-interprets laws for his dim-witted denizens to digest.

    Soon it's gonna rain, I can feel it-
    Soon it's gonna rain, I can tell that
    Soon it's gonna rain
    What are we gonna do?

    by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:11:22 AM PDT

  •  Big Pharma

    is their go to guy for everything. He's forgotten more facts on whatever the GOP is pushing than any expert now knows. Hillbilly heroin can do that .

    by Mike S on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:17:34 AM PDT

  •  which goes to show

    that this is NOT a war.

    Wars are fought by states/countries. You can't fight a METHOD.

    by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:37:35 PM PDT

•  The party will cave

  Tell it to Joe "Alberto's a Good Guy" Biden about the necessity of opposing this jackass.  We'll play along; we always do.  The Democrats are like a pathetic lovesick sap: "If I'm nice enough to her, maybe she's love me!"  The "she" in this case is the GOP and the voters.  But as in life, the Republicans will kick us in the groin and the voters will wonder what the fuck we stand for.

  by Tuffie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:46:17 AM PDT

  •  Caving bad, Winning good!

    It is only caving if we go along reluctantly after being out-flanked by the GOP. Gonzalez is a W lifer, who better to be in Justice when the s_ _ _ hits the f_ _.We don't have the votes to stop him so we need someone on our side of the aisle who can wax eloquently about Gonzo's shortcomings, someone who can keep the pressure on. Please consider supporting Howard Dean for DNC Chair. Close your eyes and imagine the good Doctor's succinct skewering of this administration's policies. Day in, day out.  Have Howard Dean state the case so the Dems can run the table in 2006. Ooooo, how sweet it is.

    by smartinez on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:59:06 AM PDT

  •  I wrote

    both my senators to let them know if no uncertain terms how I feel about this. One Repub and one DINO--don't know what good it will do but at least they can't say (honestly) there was no public opposition to Gonzales. I hope everyone here has done the same.

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:07:13 AM PDT

•  WaPo Article Today.

  There's a lot of information about the history of the torture memos in this morning's article in the Washington Post: Gonzales Helped Set the Course for Detainees: Justice Nominee's Hearings Likely to Focus on Interrogation Policies.

  by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:56:47 AM PDT

•  Huh??

  Hey, I love this website, but all of these parting demands are really starting to weird me out.

  "We must oppose the confirmation of Gonzales as Attorney General. There is no choice."

  What the hell, guys? Since when did we take a turn towards 1984? I've seen a lot of this in the past few weeks and it's pretty disconcerting.

  by napk on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:51:37 AM PDT

  •  OTOH, Consider This.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer4jan04,1,417679,print.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

    by hollywood on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:02:28 AM PDT

    •  Hey,

      Don't get me wrong -- I detest the guy. If he is confirmed I'll go nuts.

      What concerns me is the tone that has been taken on the front page of dailykos. We all know the guy is bad, but no one should try brainwashing us with "There is no choice". That's garbage.

      by napk on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:09:02 AM PDT

      •  You're Right But...

        Hyperbole in the defense of good politics, er, Extremism in the defense of liberty, er, yeah, I get what you mean.

        by hollywood on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:13:24 AM PDT

  •  Since my use of the word MUST

    can have no FUCKING effect on you whatsoever, I am really pretty annoyed by your comment.

    Of all the things to consider in what is written, THAT is what captures your attention?

    Well, to each his own.

    by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:20:56 AM PDT

    •  Whoops

      I have seen what is written and confirmed that I don't want him as AG. He is an embarrassment to our legal system and perhaps the country itself.

      I'd hate to see the dailykos readers be smashed into one block and receive marching orders from the front page posters. That's just how it appears to me in this instance. I would think in this community of progressive thought we'd shy away from that a bit.

      However, I submit I have turned this into more of an issue than desired; I just wanted to say the phrasing put a bad taste in my mouth.

      You all do a fantastic job of keeping the dkos community abreast of current affairs, and I applaud you for it.

      by napk on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:11:14 AM PDT

      •  My god

        If anything deserves a bit of bite in rhetorical style, it's this.

        I mean, we're talking about opposing a guy who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

        I don't think there was anything hyperbolic about the front page posting and in fact think it deserves widespread attention. I also don't feel that I was smashed into a block and am receiving "marching orders."

        "Progressive thought" does not mean milktoast rhetorical analysis of moral decay.

        Personally, I believe Gonzales is a moral invertebrate. Perhaps to you that is "shrill." But when it comes to torture, don't you think we must raise our voices a little?

        by Thaxter on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:14:43 PM PDT

•  Apples and Oranges

  I remember when Lani Guinier ran into major opposition for a Justice Department appointment because some of her academic writings discussed possible voting schemes that would increase minority  representation.  She was dubbed the quota queen.  Here we have the Dr. Mengele of the legal world appointed to be AG and it's a done deal?  That just shows you how much more effective the Repugs are in Congress than the limp dick Democrats.

  by kaleidescope on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:54:50 AM PDT

  •  So true. It will be very very ...

    ...interesting to see what Karl Rove's focus group rehearsal of Gonzales's hearing will come up with as the best way for him to survive the nominating process. He won't be able to use the Oliver North "I am a patriot" approach that cowed Congress nearly 20 years ago, and the "I don't have an opinion on that" approach of Clarence Thomas won't cut it either. But I'm sure they've got something effective up their sleeves.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:19:15 AM PDT

•  Gonzales

  Absolutely right Markos.  Torture is beyond the pale.  No bullshit allowed on this one.

  by The Fool on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:55:13 AM PDT

•  At least somebody has got some guts.

  I think this has been mentioned before, but what the heck. Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights. They're taking a firm oppositional stance against Gonzales, unlike so many groups who are just asking for tough questions. Let's get some backbone! www.ccr-ny.org/actionalert

  by bklyndispatch on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:27:17 AM PDT

•  Alberto Gonzales and grievance?

  Alberto Gonzales is licensed to practice law in Texas, bar number 08118550.

  Watch the evidence that develops to see if Gonzales violated Rule 1.02(c) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

  
  A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.  A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
  

  Or Rule 4.01:

  
  In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client.
  

  More on the Disciplinary Rules and the grievance procedure in Texas can be found here.

  by kenfair on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:36:11 AM PDT

  •  so what, we get him disbarred?

    That's going to do a lot of good.

    by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:40:20 PM PDT

•  Torture

  I'll start off with, I appose this guy also.  there are much better choices.

  But, lets look at the torture here.  
  Our definition of torture;
   Loud music
   Going without blankets
   Kneeling in one place
   solitary confinement

  Taliban definition of torture;
   Disembowlment
   Cutting off fingers, or entire limbs
   Beating
   Rape
   Electric shock
   and Beheading, wich is not really a torture  technique but does show the general thought process here.

  Now, I dont really see a comparison here.  
  Loud music?  Come on, Millions of people are torturing themselves as we speak.
  Why was there no cry of torture when they played loud music at Waco?

  No blankets?  They are in Cuba.  I've been there, its not that cold.

  Kneeling?  This is a commen torture technique in many American houses, but we call it a 'Time Out'.

  Leaving off the question of whether or not these people should even be incarcerated, thats a completely different subject, they are not being tortured.  

  Not by any commanly accepted definition of torture.
  

  by Ageredon on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:45:20 AM PDT

  •  You have no knowledge

    of the facts if that is your belief of what is occuring.

    You do know a detainee in Guantamo was killed don't you?  And it wasn't from catching prenumonia from lack of blankets.

    Moreover, terrorists do not set MY criteria for acceptable behavior - I used to think they didn't set my country's either.

    by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:07:40 AM PDT

  •  I Hope You Were Joking...

    Ah yes, the good ole' US vs. the Taliban comparison.

    You have entirely missed the point, my friend. Why don't you ask a WW2 or Korea or Vietnam POW who endured those same types of things, if they consider it torture or not... Your comparison trivializes the entire issue. Just because one example is "less worse" than another, doesn't make it ok.

    The point is that our government feels it's ok to conduct itself this way, who's to say they won't make the short jump to treating American citizens the same way? They can grab you, hold you, never charge you with anything, and subject you to torture the entire time. All without letting you defend yourself in court. And if you think that's not possible, just take a close look at the Patriot Act, sometime. There are plenty of ways to keep us safe, without defacating all over the Bill of Rights in the process.

    Not to mention the treatment any unfortunate US soldier POW will have to endure in the future after Bush has destroyed the moral high ground the US used to hold on this...

    Wake up and smell the dog crap, man.

    by Burton Halli on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

  •  YOUR LIST IS INCOMPLETE. YOU ARE WRONG.

    Stop this disinformation.  You are ill-informed and spreading lies of omission.  There are proven cases of killing, rape, mock executions and the list goes on and on.  READ AT LEAST A MODICUM OF THE ABU GHRAIB TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU POST SUCH NONSNES.

    by maxschell on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:58:58 AM PDT

    •  This post was in response to Ageredon's.

      In case it wasn't obvious.

      by maxschell on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

  •  I suppose he tripped and killed himself, eh?

    This is the poor man - innocent of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time - who was packed in ice, then given an IV in a mockery of medical care after death, to conceal the fact of his death under questioning at Abu Ghreib, as was reported in Spiegel in more detail than in the US SCLM, whence this grim photograph of our respect for human rights:

    

    (And no, I'm not going to apologize for posting this: the disrespect to Mr. Jalil is in the deed of his torture-murder, not the reporting of it, and we are talking about approving the man who helped to promote and authorize this, so it is well we remember exactly what it is we are talking about. Save your breath to denounce the guilty.)

    by bellatrys on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:16:45 PM PDT

    •  link?

      can you post a link to back-up your story?

      not saying i doubt it, i just want to use it myself.

      by ignu on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:30:03 PM PDT

      •  Sorry for the delay - I'll email it too

        I've been working and running my own blog as well as OD'ing on dKos and frankly I need two of me.

        Here is an English-language version from the liberal-left Christian paper, the National Catholic Reporter, summing up the story from Spiegel, which broke it.

        German TV reports torture, death at U.S. base
        National Catholic Reporter,  May 28, 2004  by Claire Schaeffer-Duffy

        "Spiegel TV Magazine," an investigative news program on German television, reported May 16 that a 47-year old Iraqi father of seven was tortured and beaten to death last January while detained at Al Asad, a U.S. military base located about 80 miles west of Baghdad.

        Spiegel had the photos, plus the text of American issued death certificates - I believe Mr. Jalil (also transliterated as Jaleel) was said to have died of cardiac arrest.

        Unf. I heard of the Spiegel articles from a Euroblogger, living in Germany, and I'm honestly not sure on which blog it was (it may be one of the burned-out-bloggers, in fact) in comments iirc. But it was definitely Spiegel, and it was back in the summer, if you want to try digging it up before I re-excavate more links myself.

        by bellatrys on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 04:24:06 PM PDT

  •  The pyschology of pretending it's not torture

    Ageredon is clearly a troll, so my purpose in replying is not to speak to him but rather to speak about him and the psychology he exemplifies.

    I've seen this kind of posting elsewhere -- the assertion that what happened at Abu Ghraib was just "forcing people to listen to loud music," etc.  Now, every single person in the world with TV/internet access -- even every single person who laid eyes on a newspaper or stood in a checkout line -- knows what went down at Abu Ghraib.  The electrodes attached to the genitals of the guy forced to wear a hood and stand on a stool.  The dogs lunging at the genitals of the naked, bleeding, screaming guy.  The dead body in the plastic bag.  The guy covered in feces as a soldier points a gun at him.  Another bleeding, screaming guy, handcuffed on the floor, with another solider pointing a gun at his head.  And of course Lyndie with her leash, and the sexual humiliation, and the leering soldiers.  And the stories (thank God with no photos attached) of the boys and women raped with light bulbs and broomsticks, of the burning cigarettes in ears, of the beatings.  And on top of it all, the soul-destroying fact that most of the detainees weren't even terrorists, weren't even guilty of ANYTHING.  They were just Iraqis who got caught up in bungled sweeps.  

    Yep, everybody knows.  And yet people like Ageredon and Rush and all the freepers have amazingly blocked it all out, and replaced it with a fantasy of "some terrorists being forced to listen to loud music."  Isn't it incredible?

    It reminds me of the Germans during WWII who lived next door to the concentration camps, who saw the death trains rattling by, and claimed they didn't know what was happening.  I see now how that worked.  They really didn't know -- just as Ageredon and Rush and the freeps seem to really not know what happened at Abu Ghraib.

    How do we deal with the Ageredons of the world?  How do we, as moral beings, encounter them in civil discourse?  For the past 60 years the response to the know-nothing Germans has always been, "If you didn't know, it was because you chose not to know.  You have no excuse."  
     

    by sassafras on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:37:54 PM PDT

•  Sure, Gonzales should be opposed, but ...

  is he really the  major issue? Does anybody seriously believe Gonzales woke up one morning and had this bright idea, all by his lonesome? C'mon, get real. Who does he work for?  The scenario was certainly much more like this:

  The Good Ol' Boys are sitting around the Oval Office discussing our POW's, sick and tired of being hamstrung for the umpteenth time by propriety and the law.

  Dick: The U.S. Administration's policy toward the detainee situation is strongly affected by its Middle East policy, specifically the pacification of Iraq. Some observers would point out that the unintended result of this policy toward Iraq is to give detainees more leverage over their rights than is good for our rights. Thus, our traditional policy toward detainees contradicts our policy toward encourging freedom and independence for the states in the region.

  Rummy: There are known knowns and known unknowns, and right rights and not-right rights.

  W: Isn't that what Alberto's paid for? (calls offstage) Hey, Alberto, why don't you mosey over to Justice and see what you can do about some of these-here not-right rights of some of our non-POW POW's? Bone up on KUBARK before you go, and make sure to leave a copy on a couple of desks over there, with a couple of Texas Rangers season passes stuck in.

  Opposing Gonzales is certainly important, but it is anywhere close to enough?

  The Fish Stinks from the Head Down - Impeach Bush!
  

  by gbdoc on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Oppo