Showing posts with label Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Show all posts

Oct 4, 2007

Bush Lied, We Do Torture

The New York Times has a blockbuster revealing that as Bush and Company ran around pushing the "we don't torture" line, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration toadies were secretly issuing orders expanding the limits of U.S.-sanctioned torture.

Bush and his cronies lied to the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people to pursue an anti-human program of torture over the objections of many government attorneys. James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, was derided as a "disloyal" "wimp" for his moral and legal objections.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central
Intelligence Agency.

... Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
... Scott Horton, an attorney affiliated with Human Rights First who has closely followed the interrogation debate, said any official offering legal advice on the campaign against terror was on treacherous ground.
“For government lawyers, the national security issues they were deciding were like working with nuclear waste — extremely hazardous to their health,” Mr. Horton said.
“If you give the administration what it wants, you’ll lose credibility in the academic community,” he said. “But if you hold back, you’ll be vilified by conservatives and the administration.”
... Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront Mr. Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.
But under Mr. Gonzales, and after the departure of Mr. Goldsmith and other allies, the deputy attorney general found himself isolated. His troublemaking on N.S.A. and on interrogation, and in appointing his friend Patrick J. Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, which would lead to the perjury conviction of I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, had irreparably offended the White House.
“On national security matters generally, there was a sense that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,” said one Justice Department official who heard the White House talk, expressed with particular force by Mr. Addington.

###

Aug 29, 2007

Gonzo on Habeas Corpus Was the Perfect Bushie


That Bush could let an Attorney General express the opinion that the "U.S. Constitution doesn’t expressly recognize habeas corpus" and not fire the person as both an unimpressive lightweight and an ignoramus with no understanding of the liberties enshrined in our Constitution is revealing of Bush's shallow (shallow because the man does not hold deep and nuanced opinions) contempt for classical liberal thought.

Robert Parry has a great piece at Consortiumnews.com.

Writes Parry:

First, (Gonzo's comment) exposed the narrow, ideological thinking that has pervaded the legal analysis of Gonzales and other Bush administration lawyers.

Neoconservative and right-wing legal operatives have long functioned with the notion that if they could conjure up a clever legal argument – no matter how flimsy – that their argument must be accepted as sound or at least treated with the utmost seriousness. If we can devine a rationale, we must be right.

That self-absorbed thinking has been at the core of the legal theories behind George W. Bush’s treatment of profound issues such as presidential power, government secrecy, and limitations on the inalienable rights of individuals who are not in Bush’s inner circle.


... Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Liberty scares the hell out of rightwingers, and yet they repeat their "they hate us for our freedom" braying endlessly.

A reader objecting to the challenge here to Bush's appropriation of extra-constitutional powers in the Jose Padilla case commented:

Interesting. If the U.S. was an actual fascist state or descending into one, you wouldn't be able to say things like that without getting arrested or worse.

What escapes rightwingers is the fact that authoritarian and fascist states do not inflict their power on all citizens uniformly. Discrete minorities (like disaffected Muslims here) suffer disproportionally at the hands of the state.

If Bush were to go after the elites (like McCarthy and Nixon did) or after someone protected by a political culture of openness and civil liberties (like a news blogger in Wisconsin), the political reaction would be devastating to the administration.

That's why writers are able to say things without getting arrested or worse.

Liberty has a prominent placement in the Constitution.

But I wonder if Bush has ever read the document, despite his canned judges-ought-to-interpret-and-not-make-law sound bites.

Warning of the emergence of a new authoritarianism in the early 1980s, Prof. Richard Epstein writes in the preface to Prof. Macedo's The New Right v. the Constitution, "... partisans of the New Right advocate ... a fundamental narrowing of judicial protections of individual rights. ... But the New Right's claim to the Founders' legacy is dubious, its allegiance to the Constitution largely rhetorical, and its stature in relation to the great tradition of American constitutional thought unimpressive."

Epstein and Macedo's work applies well today to Bush and his Constitutional lightweights.

###

Aug 12, 2007

Gonzales visits Iraq to offer advice on legal system

Via ThinkProgress

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales “arrived in Baghdad on Saturday for his third trip to Iraq to meet with department officials who have been there to help fashion the country’s legal system. ‘I am pleased to see firsthand … the progress that the men and women of the Justice Department have made to rebuild Iraq’s legal system and law enforcement infrastructure,’ Gonzales said in a statement released by the department.” The AP notes: “[h]is optimistic assessment came despite the frequent sectarian lawlessness and killings in the country.”
###