I am joining a growing list of Americans who oppose the confirmation, of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales’s advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales’s legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law’s undoing.
In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales’s endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions “quaint.”
[. . .]
With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.
While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process. As a nation, we must stand united against Albert Gonzales and everything he represents. Torture is not an American value.
Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amen, forward ‘leaning’ leadership that drafted these sorts of inhuman policies should NOT be leading and making more poor decisions that shame us.
The jewel on this issue in the blogosphere today is a top rated diary over on Daily Kos from Hunter.
The committee vote was encouraging, in that the 8 Dems ALL were on board. I can dream we lose 45-55 on the Senate floor, but I fear several D jackasses are going to ‘support the President’, similar to how Lieberman spoke in support of Rice earlier this week.
I don’t want to get slammed here but just to put a slightly different light on the topic I’m reminded of a recent Mark Steyn column in which he points out that,
“To be covered by Geneva, a combatant has to have (a) a commander who is responsible for his subordinates; (b) formal recognizable military insignia; (c) weapons that are carried openly, and (d) an adherence to the laws and customs of warfare.
Islamist terrorists meet none of these conditions, and extending the protection of the conventions to them would simply announce to the world that, from a legal point of view, there’s no downside to embracing terror. Blow up a nightclub or a schoolhouse or a pizza parlor and you’ll still get full POW status.”
This blog has instructions on how to click your way through a letter to your Senators to protest the nomination of Gonzales:
http://www.anti-everything.us/weblog/archives/2005/01/easy_activism_a.html
Who would have thought that they could have found some one worse than Ashcroft?
I dunno if my opinion counts or not cos I’m irish so tell me its none of my business if you want. Ireland and america have always shared a close relationship so i want to add my bit in cos basically i like the country and its people… this is long but a worth while comment so apologies if im taking up too much space…
Earlier tonight I was looking over pictures I had up on my buzznet account. One of the pictures was of Bill Clinton’s first visit to Ireland where hundreds of thousands of people turned out to celebrate his visit here. An american presidential visit in ireland is always treated almost like a public holiday with a kinda st patricks day type atmosphere. This was in stark contrast to President Bush’s visit last May. The usually welcoming irish once again turned out in thier droves, however this time there was no celebrations, no public holiday, no st patricks day feeling. This time unfortunately, the atmosphere of the irish people was one of protest. In the biggest security set up that ireland has ever seen, our government spent over 50 million for the mere two day visit to set up what was described as a ring of steel around Dublin. The question that americans should be asking is if the irish who normally love the hell out of america are protesting against the president then there must be something radically wrong. (not that we are always right either)
Prior to Sept 11th, the american administration was respected the world over by most democratic countries. Even though we did not always agree on everything, we knew that our opinion would at least be listened to and most international decisions were made with agreement or at the very least consultation of other democratic counties.
Post Sept 11th, we see that the american admisitration has shut its self off from the rest of the world opinion. Examples are abundant such as the backing out of the koyoto agreement for the environment, disregarding the Missle treaty with Russia, making the UN ineffective, blatantly defying the geneva conventions, allowing the peace process in northern ireland to stall due to lack of intrest… etc… where has it gone so wrong in just 4 short years??
Despite the best intentions of the current adminisration, the people who carried out the attacks on sept 11th, have effectly done what they have wanted to do in first place… to change world opinion of america. The aim of any terrorist act is to change the way people live and think. I would love for the american administration to stand up and say that they want to return to the way things were before sept 11th and wont be bullied by one single terrorist act into changing the american way of life but unfortunately I think the rest of world can count that next four years will be very similar to the last.
P.S. Im not anti-bush I just dislike the way he’s running things.
rclifford: the larger issue for me has much less to do with the Geneva Conventions. I’m concerned that if Gonzoles is confirmed, it will affirm that as a country (because the Senate is supposed to represent the American people) we all think that torture is just fine and dandy. As I said in my blog, if we seek to defeat our enemy, we must not become him.
Take a look at theRed Cross report on Abu Ghraib: they estimated that 70-90% of the detainees were innocent civillians. How many of those people were tortured because Alberto Gonzales gave President Bush the legal cover to do it?
Oh, and you shouldn’t get “slammed” here. One of the things I really miss from the old days of WWdN is the interaction and discussion in the comments. Hopefully we can bring that back. 🙂
Hey Wil..
it’s good to see you saying something about this..i watched CNN today, and it looked as though they were trying to label the D’s as just spoil sports…trying to ruin the Republicans picnic…
torture is wrong.
i can’t think of anything worse than to see the US becoming what it used to oppose.
it’s a truly sad thing.
cheers wil
Tyson
I defintely think that once a week you should put up your view on some current hot topic. It’d definetly get a debate going in the comments section and its always a good read to see what the others think. (once people dont go too far and act like jerks i guess) only a suggestion though!
I don’t follow politics too much; just on the major issues and things of that nature.
But just by reading about Gonzales, I’m gonna have to agree with you as well. Torture is definatly not a nice thing.
RClifford, you are exactly right that the Geneva conventions most likely don’t apply to the terrorists. However that doesn’t mean it should become policy of the US government and Armed Forces. We have survived for the past 200+ years without resorting to it and should continue to avoid such practices.
We shouldn’t open ourselves up to the not too foreign possibilities that such declarations on our part could lead to others using such practices on our own troops. We need to be able to scream bloody murder if our troops are mistreated by their captors and not have the rest of the world go, “Yeah. Now they complain.”
Alberto Gonzalez is, in my opinion unfit for the office of Attorney General.
While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process. As a nation, we must stand united against Albert Gonzales and everything he represents. Torture is not an American value.
ghods yes. I keep thinking that… this is no longer America, this is no longer my country. I protested during ‘Nam, but never felt that things couldn’t be made better. Now… *sighs*
Wil, sometimes I feel really powerless to do much of anything. It doesn’t seem like our current administration listens to anyone, even its own people. My college friend, Greg Goodrich, was killed in Iraq, and it makes me so angry. His death was such a waste. I guess ultimately, I blame Bush for it, even though Greg signed up for the Reserves and seemed proud to serve his country. And the news today… One of my students wrote a very good entry about war in his blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nadavspi/2005/01/07/ (I am the English teacher he references in the entry).
It seems to me that we’re painting all issues with the same brush. What we may be doing down at Gitmo, and whether or not some of the items in the Geneva Convention treaty are still relevant today, are two seperate things.
Sending our enemy’s ‘POW’s’ back to their home countries after cessation of hostilities is impossible when the soilders arent representing any particular country while attacking ours, and also when there was no official declaration of ‘war’ from either side. Hostilities could conceiveably continue ad infinitum.
Actions of physical torture against people we have in our custody is abhorent. To do that is to lower ourselves to the level of our enemy. But to define ‘torture’ in such a way so as to force us to ‘coddle’ our prisoners, in an attempt to avoid that definition, is equally as absurd. Prisoners are not supposed to have all the comforts of home. These people left their homes to force their ideas and beliefs, violently, upon us in our homes. By doing so, they have forfeited the comforts of theirs.
The quoted story above doesn’t mention the context in which The President was advised that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him. As Commander in Chief it does not necessarily apply, when he’s acting as the leader of our armed forces during a conflict against non-citizens in foreign lands. That statement drips with out-of-context spin and rhetoric.
The story also makes the statement:
“The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality…inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried.”
That’s a ridiculous leap. It’s like inferring that smoking causes mass genocide, because Hitler enjoyed cigars. To assert that Gonzales undermined several hundred years of military discipline, and an entire nation’s moral authority with a few penstrokes is an insult to the American people’s intelligence.
There will always be a right and there will always be a wrong, but their definitions will most certainly change over time. I haven’t caught any good duels lately on the street walking to the market, but 150 years ago I might have – and it would have been a perfectly acceptable way to settle a major dispute. In this day and age we as a society have agreed to settle our disputes less violently. I don’t believe this makes us any more or less moral than our ancestors. Times change, and we need to realize that the world is changing very quickly. Maybe throwing out antiquated treaties and starting over isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse. Perhaps some of our citizens need to change the bong water, and wake up to the reality that there are millions of people who have sworn to kill us and change the very way we live our lives.
Are we afraid that men like Mr. Gonzales are single-handedly unweaving the fabric of our morality? Or is he just trying to shift our paradigms fast enough to defend against these new attackers, and what we’re really afraid of is that we arent’ strong enough to hold on to our morals in the process?
Gonzales bothers me, but he’s a hell of an improvement over Ashcroft.
Hey Wil,
I have to say that although I am not typically a political person, I agreed with the issues you have with this. I was thinking the same thing because I feel that the people we elect SHOULD represent good! (And I totally see how defeating our enemies does not mean becoming them.) How can we elect officials that will abandon our most cherished policies, and advocate throwing away the fair and humane ways we TRY and deal with things as a nation?
I commend you for this post, and we do need to fight for things like the Geneva Convention and our Constitution.
Amen.
Am I the only one who thinks it’s time for another American Revolution?
MouseBeast: “But to define ‘torture’ in such a way so as to force us to ‘coddle’ our prisoners, in an attempt to avoid that definition, is equally as absurd. Prisoners are not supposed to have all the comforts of home.”
Yes, because not electrocuting, waterboarding, sicking attack dogs on and/or any other number of abuses is “coddling” and not having that done to you is just a “comfort of home”.
Are you really saying there is no grey area… say… NOT TORTURING THEM… while still being tough on them? The absense of grey and the black and white mode of thinking is what’s wrong with our leaders today.
Mousebeast..
while some of your thoughts are intriguing, they are still fundamentally flawed.
“millions of people sworn to kill us and change the very way we live our lives”?
who exactly?
Iraq was invaded. Not the United States.
a war is going being waged.
again, in other countries, not your own.
the states was attacked.yes. but not by Iraq.
there certainly is an aggressor here. no doubt about that.
care to take a guess who it is?
seems to me, that the millions you speak of are Americans and the way of life they seek to change is that of the islamic nations.
now, i don’t hold any special love for radical islam, but then again, i don’t hold any strong feelings for hypocrisy either. (not you dude..i mean US foriegn policy)
the facts speak for themselves man…
your way of life has indeed been changed..but it was done by your own countrymen…
take a good hard look at the patriot act.
it sure looks a lot like the kind of thing we used to see a lot of behind the Iron Curtain..
hear that? it’s the sound of your personal freedoms being stolen from you..
and not by the islamic boogeymen, but by the neocons you have let run your foriegn policy..
the same nuts that lead you to believe it’s ok to entertain the idea of a ‘little harmless torture..oh, no..not the bad stuff…just a little ‘diet-lite torture’ c’mon.how bad can a beating really be?…
i like to think america can be better than that…
i certainly think that the americans i’ve met are better than that..
but i’m begining to lose hope for your country.
like Neil Young said..
it’s like being in an out of control SUV with your drunken uncle at the wheel.
anyhow..you’re certainly entitled to your beliefs, and i agree with wil, no one on this comments section should be chastised for what they think…
but what you should do, is really think hard about some things..
primarily, why the hell your country is in Iraq…
torture, unfortunetaly is just one tiny detail in this whole horrific mess
Jason: The absense of a grey area is exactly my point. One sentence previous I denounced physical torture, because that is definately on one extreme of the black/white spectrum. ‘Coddling’ would be on the opposite end. We shouldn’t be refraining from physical torture merely because some document decrees it as ‘wrong’. We should refrain from it because our collective ‘moral authority’ doesn’t allow us to stoop to that level.
I am not claiming to be any sort of expert on Mr. Gonzales or his policies, but from what I have read he’s merely trying to wipe some of the slate clean; to darken some of the areas painted bright white by the pacifist minority in this country. To err too far on either side has definate consequences. Either our enemies trample over top of us due to our complacency, or we sacrifice the very morals we’re fighting for in order to stop them. Moderation is key.
I am by no means a war monger, but the current enemies of our country do not fit the mold that the previous treaties were cast from. To not have faith that our current leaders – fellow Americans – will not find that grey area, is proof of what our enemies have already accomplished…and of how afraid we truly are.
Hear Hear! Nice to see you speak out against torture. Let’s hope that the democrats, and even some republicans will vote no against this facsist. We don’t need the world viewing us as another dangerous country.
First of all: Wil, I hope that these comments here embody the spirit of ‘interaction and discussion’ that you mentioned. Exchange and debate of ideas, in the few good forums that exist, is the best thing left on the internet (aside from the gigabytes upon gigabytes of free, streaming, midget porn! *zing!*…but i’ve said too much…)
I don’t feel slammed at all here, but I feel that I must point out a few things.
Not once did I mention Iraq, or our American foreign policy. I suppose our treatment of prisoners sits partially under the shadow of ‘foreign policy’, but probably more under ‘moral policy’. Whether or not we had any good reason to invade, and to this day occupy Iraq, is a completely seperate issue from whether or not an Al Qaida fighter picked up after shooting a Marine somewhere in Kashmir has a fuckin’ prayer mat in his detention cell in Cuba. Everytime America’s efforts to thwart terrorism go on trial, it seems that any action we take involving muslims, or muslim nations, becomes fair game in an ad hominem attack against those efforts. I prefer to debate on a more specific, and relevant level.
Having said that, I completely agree with you on the fact that we are indeed trying to change the way of life of the Iraqi people. Depending on which cable news channel you watch, the Iraqi people may or may not be super-excited about this intrusion into their way of life. This does not, however, detract from the fact that there still are millions of people who are currently engaged in jihad against Americans. Both realities, in my opinion, are completely true…and neither are kosher. (I just used the words ‘jihad’ and ‘kosher’ in the same breath…boo yah!)
As for our personal freedoms, let me just say one thing. Some people wake up suddenly in the middle of the night after dreaming of falling (and, I assume, landing hard). Some people also awaken in a cold sweat after having dreams where they are drowning, or burning alive, or re-living a painful childhood experience. My nightmares have a both a name, and a face…A 300+ word document called the United States Patriot Act. Enough said.
Da Svidanya
~~(__)8>
well said mousebeast.
i still disagree with you on a few things..but your last post was pretty on point..
the stuff about ‘enemies’ and “millions of people who are currently engaged in jihad against Americans” well…i dunno dude….the rest of your thoughts are pretty well layed out, but that stuff is a touch weak.
still tho, most of your points are pretty strong…
i encourage you to read a bit of noam chomsky..
🙂
cheers mousebeast
tyson
Also: The Constitution does NOT have a national security clause. We can’t let fear act as an excuse to abandon our core beliefs as a nation.
Being both a UK and a US citizen. I *like* to think that I have a good grasp on things.
However, totally flame me if I’m wrong.
I don’t think that torturing people gets us anywhere. Torturing someone to make things “better” isn’t very logical.
How much hatred stems from this sort of news? A lot more than the good that stems from the information we get from these prisoners.
My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with torture…please don’t read that into it.
Using the practices/tactics of an enemy to gain a tactical advantage over that enemy is _not_ the same as becoming that enemy. To think it is the same is overly simplistic and naive.
Turnabout is fair play. Ye shall sow what ye reap. Also overly simplistic, and just as valid or invalid as thinking we are becoming our enemy by choosing to actually fight them versus rolling over and playing dead.
No other comment, and I take no issue with Wil’s stance. Just with that notion.
Thank you Tyson for your kind words. I have probably admired dozens of Chomsky quotes throughout my adult life, but never picked up any of his books. I shall definately be hitting my nearest bookstore soon (right after my my copy of Just A Geek arrives, and after I get done laughing my way through ‘America – The Book’)
Miss Wendy May makes an interesting point regarding the constitution. In my original post I was merely trying to make the case that ‘War is Hell’..blah blah blah, and shit happens (I admit it was kind of weak, although the Kos story was spewing just pure rhetoric at that point…but I digress). I do think, however, that there is a difference between ‘Civil Liberties’ and ‘Human Rights’, and that line keeps getting blurred everytime prisoner torture is debated.
Wendy May hit the nail squarely on the head, I believe, by pointing out that it is fear that will drive the American people toward the further erosion of our core beliefs and rights as citizens.
But don’t worry too much about it. Soon, N. Korea or Iran will give us something totally different to shit our pants in fear over.
~~(__)8>
One more comment, a somewhat negative one…contrary to what Wil said in a subpost, I don’t think the Senate represents the American people any more than the president or House does. These people, once elected, work for just one thing – to get reelected. They’ll do anything necessary to achieve that goal, such is the system we’ve set up for them.
To those who think otherwise, then if the Senate _does_ confirm this guy, shouldn’t that be enough for you? That a Senate elected by America chose to do something should be enough, in a democracy, to get people to move on and look forward.
Gonzales es un hombre malo, but he is a (silent, but in the literature, legitimate) Affirmative Action supporter and ruled against the Texas law requiring parental consent for minors getting an abortion.
He really is better than Ashcroft, but that doesn’t mean we should settle for him.
i agree
For over two hundred years the usa has always stood for truth, justice and equal rights it was only lately that of countrys values have be thrown out the window and instead of understand why were hated around the world, we just give them more reasons to hate us.
After world war2 we were looked upon by the world of what should be right, but thanx to the current leadership all is ruined and damaged
unfortunatly John Kerry was the right choice either, but what is need is a fresh face and new untained washington style person to lead us from these days to bring us back to the light and let us hold our heads high again cause after what bush is done were all damned
I am forced to agree with Wil. This man should not be in this position.
Copy-Pasted from my blog (it’s under the LJ-cut.)
Before I get into the meat of my rant, a thought: Why is it, that when the media lists interrogation tactics with regards to “torture” they list “playing loud music?” What, are they playing Limp Bizkit? When I think torture I think the rack, I think iron maiden, I think electrical shock to the neither regions, I think cheese graters and salt/lemon juice/hot sause. I don’t think about playing rock music very loudly when it comes to torture.
I’m hoping that the abuses that lead to the infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (god that reads redundantly, but I couldn’t come up with a better phrase) are in the minority, when it comes to means of interrogation used against captured terrorists (things can get blown out of proportion both in the mainstream and independant media). As it is, while some Terrorist groups may consider themselves to be soldiers (the IRA and ULA come to mind) this does not mean that being a terrorist makes you a soldier.
Furthermore, in order to take down terroist groups like the ones trying to stop the Iraq election we need HUMINT (Human Intelligence) as much if not moreso than SIGINT (Signals Intelligence). Typically there are 3 ways to get this, the three Is:
Infiltration – get someone into the groups and have them sending out information.
Informants – Either people on the inside, or people watching.
Interrogation – Get someone to talk.
Due to the nature of islamic extremism, 1 is out. 2 will be very difficult as the terrorists have been striking hard against those who collaborate with the Iraqui government and US forces. Guess what that leaves us with. And asking nicely or even just asking rudely probably won’t get answers. Also, there’s a reason we’re shipping some of our captives to nations that support real torture. Why? Because, for all intents and purposes, every Middle Eastern Nation engages in practices that, to our more “enlightened” western eyes, would be torture. People are dying from terrorist attacks weekly in Iraq, and I’m not just talking from US troops. Now, I admit, leaving would make the terrorist attacks stop, but that would be because the entire Iraqui government we’re trying to put togeather would be dead, as would the police force, and there would be an ultra-conservative government put into place in Iraq, again, possibly helmed by Saddam Hussein, again. (And don’t say he was elected in a fair election. If that was a fair election, then so were the ones that kept Stalin in power.) However, that is besides from my point.
Using the tactics you see at Abu Ghraib does repulse me. Same with the ones at Guantanimo Bay. We are supposed to be the good guys here, after all. However, just sticking someone under a hot light while drinking from a penguin shaped water cooler (bolded so the text doesn’t mess with the flow or over emphesize the statment) won’t work either. We’re going to need a balance. Now, while Alberto Gonzales’s statements regarding torture have been considered too vague and allow carte blanche with regards to torture, getting too specific can be, um, how to put this tactfully, counter-productive. So, as I’ve said, I abhore the tactics used at Abu Ghraib, but I haven’t heard any alternatives.
However, I am open to suggestions.
Disclaimer: In the last election I was registered as a Democrat. Next election I’m probably going to register Independant because I can’t find a party that fits my leanings (Moderate)
I agree Alberto Gonzalez is a poor excuse for a human being, but if his nomination is rejected Bush will simply pick a different yes-man for the post. Gonzalez will continue to advise the president, regardless.
I think progressives need to save our energy for some of the more critical fights we will face over the next four years.
Wil, I couldn’t agree more. I am a Canadian not an American, but watching things unfold over the last few years has really left me wondering about many things. I am a fan of Babylon 5 and I tell you, when the “Homeland Security” deal was started, I immediately saw a relationship with “Nightwatch” from that show.
I think the war has been a sham from the start, and the more people that get into positions with higher authority, the worse it will be for America, and the world. I recently posted in my own Blog about the proposed $80 Billion dollar budget Bush wants to extend this war for two years… Most people probably don’t get it, but they could use that money and literally build a new house for EVERY person that was left with nothing but the recent disasters in Asia.
Pathetic.
I’m a socially liberal fiscal conservative (which leaves me with zero in common with this administration) with no party affiliation, and I can see valid points on both sides of this argument. However, when I hear stories of waterboarding and testilectrocution (wheee), view the Abu Ghraib photos, and listen to pundits split hairs about what is or isn’t “technically torture”, my gut (which I can usually trust) wants to barf up lunch. It’s a very visceral reaction which I’m certain stems from believing at my core that the U.S. must humbly conduct itself from a certain moral high ground that cannot be abandoned, no matter the circumstances. My inner pragmatist sometimes scoffs at this, calling it quaint and obsolete, but I keep returning to my initial gut reaction when the Abu Ghraib story broke, which was “well thanks a whole farking bunch for doing this in my name, you filthy asshats”. Since Gonzales is one of the central asshats in this whole mess, I say no confirmation for him. Overly simplistic? Perhaps, but it feels right.
Gonzales and the things people in America seem willing to give up simply scares me.
Have you checked out the new Not In Our Name statemet:
http://www.nion.us/
“While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process.”
I keep getting stuck on this sentence. I’ve bounced back five times already this morning (I’m in New York) to re-read Wil’s post. Each time this sentence gets me.
Must we indeed defeat our enemies? Perhaps my confusion lies in an unclear definition of “enemy”. Who are my enemies? Why must I defeat them? Shouldn’t I only need to defend myself from an enemy? Or, indeed, isn
PS: Sorry about the double carriage returns above. Like that post wasn’t long enough as it was, huh?
I think what a lot of you, including our lovely site owner here, are failing to mention is that fact that you can pass the buck as far up the chain as you want. The fact remains however that those soldiers did not refuse the unlawful orders. As a soldier who was serving during that time, I can tell you that every soldier is trained from day 1 in basic training what to do with an unlawful order. Those soldiers had no more right to do what they did than the Nazis did, but they had every right to say no. They didn’t, and that’s why they are going to jail. Point at those in charge all you want, but in point of fact they weren’t the ones performing the torture.
Again, this is not about soldiers. This is not about following or not following orders.
This is about Alberto Gonzales, the man who would be Attorney General. As Hunter said at Daily Kos:”Alberto Gonzales, key player in the effort to provide a legal cover and justification for the torture of prisoners of war, including women and children, by American forces, and the decision that the United States of America would no longer be bound to the standards of worldwide law described by the Geneva Conventions, as Attorney General of the United States.”
On the torture topic, I agree that the soldiers (undertrained national guard or not) are responsible for performing the acts and for failing to recognize and refuse unlawful orders, but I disagree that “pointing at those in charge” isn’t warranted. The fact that there were intel personnel giving orders at Abu Ghraib is worthy of a full-blown investigation, IMO.
As far as Gonzales goes, he appears to be yet another Bush Buddy, one who will likely work to facilitate the same creepy fascist agenda that Ashcroft did, without attracting as much attention (e.g., weird fears of calico cats, burkhas on statues, let the eagle soar…yikes). It’s interesting that Gonzales intervened on Bush’s behalf to excuse the then-governor from jury duty, which allowed Bush’s DUI conviction to remain undisclosed. The administration is crawling with that sort of loyal-old-boy-network type, and Gonzales’ lawyerly evasions during his confirmation hearing only solidifies my distrust. I understand that all politicians should be assumed to be liars from the start, but I don’t think that means that we should give a free pass to Gordon Gekko when he pops up.
Dana Huff wrote above: “The quoted story above doesn’t mention the context in which The President was advised that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him. As Commander in Chief it does not necessarily apply, when he’s acting as the leader of our armed forces during a conflict against non-citizens in foreign lands. That statement drips with out-of-context spin and rhetoric.”
You need *context* to comprehend that telling the President that it’s legal for us to torture prisoners and that “that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him” is *wrong*?
Speaking of when the Constitution applies, I’ve been wondering this for a while… Where does it say in the Constitution that the principles stated in it so clearly yet elegantly *only apply to natural-born citizens of the USA*? If we hold those truths to be self-evident, then why doesn’t the right not to be detained by the government apply to those being held in Guantanamo Bay? Aren’t we just saying that, if we’re holding prisoners somewhere OFF the continental US that it’s okay to torture them and hold them for YEARS without a trial? Why don’t the rights in the Constitution apply to them too?
I know, they hate our guts and would kill us if they could. But isn’t this why we’re better? Because we DO (or should) follow the Constitution?
I just recently found this site and I love it! I put pictures of you from teen magazines on my wall when I was younger. But, anyway, ahem.
While I totally agree with you, I don’t think what the average American does at this point will do this much good. The Bush Administration, and congress, has already sent a very clear message that it really doesn’t care what the almost-majority (49%) of voters thinks. (http://www.rampantchaos.org does a good job of pointing this out) We watch every day as more and more crimes are committed by our country and more and more of our rights are siphoned away from us in the name of preserving freedom.
I would write a letter but as it is I feel powerless against our government (and not only because I am a genuine Florida disenfranchised voter).
Take care!
Helen
Tyson, and of course Wil.
thank you for saying it so well!
I’m trying to figure out what exactly an ‘almost-minority’ is. Sounds alot like a bitter ‘absolute minority’.
I
Blast, multi-posting. Sorry.
To pbarnes7:
I suppose we did
So many people seem to forget that the Iraqi prisoners have nothing to do with the initial “War on Terror” induced by the 9-11 attacks. The lie about WMDs was used to get into Iraq, and now these prisoners are classified as “unlawful combatants”…
They are neither terrorists nor unlawful combatants. They are freedom fighters or innocent. If China demanded the US was to remove all of their WMDs (really scares me that thought) and invaded the US, then anyone taking up arms to defend their country would be an unlawful combatant and could be locked away in a Chinese prison for nothing??? Bah. I would like to hear what all of the people who blindly stand up for these lies would have to say then.
I wish I had thought of this trite Chinese prison analogy before I wrote ‘smoking equates to genocide’, in illustrating a ridiculous, off-topic leap in thought.