Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

OK, so Bush is showing that he's multicultural and all by nominating Alberto Gonzalez to replace John Ashcroft, but I'm wondering if the senators and congressmen who expressed such horror about Abu Ghraib will actually block the nomination or simply believe his statement that he's going to follow the Geneva Convention's rules on torture from now on?

Apparently, all you have to do to get ahead is state the reverse of what you've done before, and voila! The slate is clean.

What's bothering me about this, too, is the press coverage. I see cogent cases for blocking the nomination, and not just on the torture issue. But in all the "positive" press, his status as a Hispanic and his previous service as a White House Counsel are what's really mentioned. That, and glowing recommendation statements from the odd person here and there.

Are we being asked to simply accept someone's word that he's kosher and say, "Oh, cool! More diversity!" or is anyone going to tell us some GOOD reasons why this man should be the next Attorney General? Saying he's experienced just doesn't cut it for me. I've seen that he's provided legal aid to the poor, but what else? Plenty of people can have experience (and we all know, realistically, that the years can stock up on bad experiences as well as the good, and that someone's actual experience might be quite -- erm, beyond not-right), can be charitable, but what else can he do?

It seems the Republicans are happier to promote him to Attorney General, so as to avoid the possibility he might be nominated to the Supreme Court -- turns out Gonzalez is rather pro-choice, and has issues with parental notification for minor girls wanting to receive an abortion.

My question: why does he have to be either a Justice or an Attorney General? That's the third option.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

He'll get through, apparently. It's only really Democrats railing against him, it seems. In general, nearly all presidential nominees get through, I thought, unless both sides agree that they are involved in a scandal (and there isn't any cross-party agreement on Gonzales' role in some of the things we are talking about; indeed, some republicans appear to think that responsibility for these events lie only with those who did them, rather than with their bosses higher up).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

There's that, and the pro-choice constituency obviously thinks it's good to have him in the Attorney General seat -- they call him a "less polarizing" candidate. That pro-choice is not polarizing, but pro-life is, tickles me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 13054

Go back and look up what Ashcroft said at his nomination questioning, and compare it with what he did and said during his tenure.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

"Um, sure! I'll uphold the Constitution! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkum
I'm wondering if the senators and congressmen who expressed such horror about Abu Ghraib will actually block the nomination or simply believe his statement that he's going to follow the Geneva Convention's rules on torture from now on?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

'Spite'? Surely you mean 'strength'.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3353

As he said during the hearings , it is his opinion that the Geneva Convention's do not apply to terrorist , which is a legitimate opinion ,and one that many people have .You all act as if that the questioning techniques like the ones used on the terrorist that they captured in Pakistan ( Kalid Muhammed) is torture without question , not everyone believes that it is , or even that it would be wrong if it was torture. The Geneva Convention's were not written by the finger of god , and if we feel we need to adapt it to the situation at hand , then we should.

As far as the race issue . How does it feel for liberals to be on the other side of the race card tactic ? Republicans have been accused of being bigots for years for disagreeing with the minority left, such as the congressional black caucus and the NAACP.

I hope Republicans do as Democrats have done for 40 years and use this issue to make the Democrats look like racist to latinos ,if they don't they are fools.

I fully support Gonzalez and I am glad that people of his mind are in power , I would fear for this country if liberals with the kind of opinions I hear here were in power , luckily Americans would never knowingly put people with those opinions in power.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
So, in answer to your question about Gonzalez qualifications--they don't matter.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3353

Left wing minorities in power is diversity , but conservative minorities are all strangely "unqualified".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18808

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucidnightmare
As he said during the hearings , it is his opinion that the Geneva Convention's do not apply to terrorist , which is a legitimate opinion ,and one that many people have .

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Lucid, holding an opinion is clearly something on which those in power can be judged (and crucified, not that many are). In particular, certain elements of his opinions were in fact illegal under US constitutional law, to boot. Are you really suggesting that democrats support Gonzales because he is hispanic? Or are you saying that republicans should adopt the worst tactics (alleged or otherwise) of democrats in the past (although, recall, dems geve Thomas a roasting for joining the USSC, quite deservedly so, the old perv), by alleging that they are being racist to be grilling Gonzales? Recent US politics has been enough of an arms race of sleazy partisan cuntishness without cheering for more, I'd say.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucidnightmare
... luckily Americans would never knowingly put people with those opinions in power.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

Smug hates brown people.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3353

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
And you are, what, 8 years old?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I really don't see why it matters who Attorney General is. Whoever Bush chooses will be derided by someone on the Democrat side as a raving lunatic, just as much as if Kerry had won and was choosing an Attorney General he would be derided a dangerous commie bastard by someone on the republican side. That is the nature of "high profile" american politics , it's all about attack and smear, and all aided by a compliant media that has blurred the line between news and commentary (the last year of election campaigning should be a lesson there). And anyway, the US needs an Attorney General that will be really tough on terrorists because come February 1st, Baghdad will be facing Tehran and the Empire will need to strike back.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by philjit
Whoever Bush chooses will be derided by someone on the Democrat side as a raving lunatic

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Bob Herbert:

quote:

---

The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."

What took so long? Why were we ever - under any circumstances - torturing, maiming, sexually abusing and even killing prisoners? And where is the evidence that we've stopped?

The Bush administration hasn't changed. This is an administration that believes it can do and say whatever it wants, and that attitude is changing the very nature of the United States. It is eroding the checks and balances so crucial to American-style democracy. It led the U.S., against the advice of most of the world, to launch the dreadful war in Iraq. It led Mr. Gonzales to ignore the expressed concerns of the State Department and top military brass as he blithely opened the gates for the prisoner abuse vehicles to roll through.

There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has been explosive. Forget the meant-to-be-comforting rhetoric surrounding Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Nothing's changed. As detailed in The Washington Post earlier this month, the administration is making secret plans for the possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists who will never even be charged. . . .

Who knows who these folks are or what they may be guilty of? We'll have to trust in the likes of Alberto Gonzales or Donald Rumsfeld or President Bush's new appointee to head the C.I.A., Porter Goss, to see that the right thing is done in each and every case.

Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs

Did he really say that? I must have missed that one. I heard a lot of hemming and hawing and playing dumb, but I don't remember him saying that. Link?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3353

quote:

---

Also, this is completely futile with you, but what's your definition of a terrorist? Because over 80% of the people in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo (and elsewhere) don't even fit BUSH'S definition of a terrorist, so to say that all these guys being detained and tortured are terrorists must mean that you know something I don't in that regard. Indeed, I'm certain that the US government would love to be privy to your inside track on this, as they keep letting these people go without charge or comment. If terrorist simply means "Is Arabic and/or Islamic and was found in Iraq and/or elsewhere", which are the only qualifications for these people being held as far as I can see, then I don't know if I would be lobbing charges of racism around if I were you. But in any case, I'd be interested in hearing your definition of terrorist. After that, what is your opinion of torturing non-terrorists, people that aren't even criminals, children even

---

Last edited by lucidnightmare on 01-07-2005 at 12:28 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

Just because there is information to be gained by torture, does not mean that torture is a good idea. There are many things with obvious benefits that we avoid doing due to the morality of the situation, (but more often due to the possible consequences).

In addition, while you're right that laws that are written can be changed, agreements that are made with third parties cannot simply be changed without input from those third parties or a complete and deserved loss of trust. What does this say about signing treaties, or any other type of agreement with the United States? Why bother, if we'll declare it quaint and irrelevant when it becomes inconvenient? I believe that under american law, treaties are granted the authority of the constitution. So far, under this administration, we've gone back on our obligations in the geneva convention, and the anti-ballistic missile treaty*.


*the abm treaty is a wholly different situation, an agreement with a defunct state