Full Version: Ashcroft resigns
Attorney General John Ashcroft has submitted his resignation.
Ashcroft has been a lightning rod in his service as AG.
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
Ashcroft has been a lightning rod in his service as AG.
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
I don't think that it necessarily indicates anything but uncertainty. I highly doubt that Ashcroft resigned due to ideological differences with Bush. (more below)
I don't think that we can really determine what the second term will be like until Bush names a replacement or at the very least tells the press who is on his short list. So, I'll reserve judgement until we hear who is replacing him.
But I will say this, I highly doubt anything that a lot of us despised about the DOJ under Ashcroft will change under the next appointee. Specifically the abrogration of civil rights under the guise of providing increased security and the crusade against obscenity and all things "immoral". This is the bread and butter of the Bush administration and I wouldn't think Bush will be selecting someone who isn't on board with that agenda, I can only hope that whoever he selects isn't worse than Ashcroft.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
I think his reasons have to do with exactly what you suggested in the opening post Amlord, he is weary of being a lightening rod for the administration. After four years of that, who wouldn't be? I think he was justifiably criticized and I am not happy with a great number of things he did, so he isn't going to get much simpathy from me. But I can certainly understand why he'd want to call it quits.
I don't think his resigation has anything to do with ideological differences with Bush and it doesn't mean that Bush is turning over a new leaf and cleaning house. I think he is just tired and feels he has done his part.
But, I had read someone where (sorry dont have the link) a list of people speculated to be on Bush's short list for Supreme Court justices and Ashcroft was on the list. Maybe he is just ducking out in anticipation of Rehnquist retiring sometime in the next four years. I personally think that would be a huge blow to progress, but we'll see what happens, it was only speculation. I hope the person who wrote the article was wrong.
I don't think that it necessarily indicates anything but uncertainty. I highly doubt that Ashcroft resigned due to ideological differences with Bush. (more below)
I don't think that we can really determine what the second term will be like until Bush names a replacement or at the very least tells the press who is on his short list. So, I'll reserve judgement until we hear who is replacing him.
But I will say this, I highly doubt anything that a lot of us despised about the DOJ under Ashcroft will change under the next appointee. Specifically the abrogration of civil rights under the guise of providing increased security and the crusade against obscenity and all things "immoral". This is the bread and butter of the Bush administration and I wouldn't think Bush will be selecting someone who isn't on board with that agenda, I can only hope that whoever he selects isn't worse than Ashcroft.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
I think his reasons have to do with exactly what you suggested in the opening post Amlord, he is weary of being a lightening rod for the administration. After four years of that, who wouldn't be? I think he was justifiably criticized and I am not happy with a great number of things he did, so he isn't going to get much simpathy from me. But I can certainly understand why he'd want to call it quits.
I don't think his resigation has anything to do with ideological differences with Bush and it doesn't mean that Bush is turning over a new leaf and cleaning house. I think he is just tired and feels he has done his part.
But, I had read someone where (sorry dont have the link) a list of people speculated to be on Bush's short list for Supreme Court justices and Ashcroft was on the list. Maybe he is just ducking out in anticipation of Rehnquist retiring sometime in the next four years. I personally think that would be a huge blow to progress, but we'll see what happens, it was only speculation. I hope the person who wrote the article was wrong.
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
Nothing much Ashcorft has been a whipping boy for some time, it really depends whom Bush appoints in his place. I myself am withholding judgement until a succesor is named.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
Probably personal reasons, you have to have thick skin in any public office but he would need skin of stainless steel to have the attacks not get to him. I hope he gets some peace and quite
Of course speculateing is fun and 5 words no liberal would want to hear is Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft.
Nothing much Ashcorft has been a whipping boy for some time, it really depends whom Bush appoints in his place. I myself am withholding judgement until a succesor is named.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
Probably personal reasons, you have to have thick skin in any public office but he would need skin of stainless steel to have the attacks not get to him. I hope he gets some peace and quite
Of course speculateing is fun and 5 words no liberal would want to hear is Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft.
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
That’s hard to tell at this point. Whoever Bush appoints and the Senate confirms to replace him will give us an answer. Will it be a new direction or the same old, same old? Time will tell.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
Amlord is correct. Ashcroft has been a “lightening rod” as Attorney General.
Chiefdork is probably correct in his assessment of why Ashcroft is leaving.
Yet I can’t muster any compassion for the departing Ashcroft. His lightening rod status is self-inflicted--the equivalent of someone traipsing around a golf course during a thunderstorm. One example is his squandering of $8000.00 for a curtain to cover Lady Liberty’s bare bosom. This enactment of Dan Quayle’s prudish statement about “family values”--in my opinion a code word for domestic fascism--contributed to the laser like line of fire Ashcroft drew. Hopefully the curtain will be torn down and sent to Ashcroft’s home in Missouri with a bill requesting reimbursement to taxpayers for this extravgance in false modesty and piety. I can describe Ashcroft’s departure in two words, "good riddance."
That’s hard to tell at this point. Whoever Bush appoints and the Senate confirms to replace him will give us an answer. Will it be a new direction or the same old, same old? Time will tell.
Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 9 2004, 06:23 PM)
Ashcroft has been a lightning rod in his service as AG.
QUOTE(Chiefdork @ Nov 9 2004, 07:19 PM)
Probably personal reasons, you have to have thick skin in any public office but he would need skin of stainless steel to have the attacks not get to him. I hope he gets some peace and quite.
Amlord is correct. Ashcroft has been a “lightening rod” as Attorney General.
Chiefdork is probably correct in his assessment of why Ashcroft is leaving.
Yet I can’t muster any compassion for the departing Ashcroft. His lightening rod status is self-inflicted--the equivalent of someone traipsing around a golf course during a thunderstorm. One example is his squandering of $8000.00 for a curtain to cover Lady Liberty’s bare bosom. This enactment of Dan Quayle’s prudish statement about “family values”--in my opinion a code word for domestic fascism--contributed to the laser like line of fire Ashcroft drew. Hopefully the curtain will be torn down and sent to Ashcroft’s home in Missouri with a bill requesting reimbursement to taxpayers for this extravgance in false modesty and piety. I can describe Ashcroft’s departure in two words, "good riddance."
QUOTE
President Bush is moving swiftly toward naming a successor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has emerged as the leading candidate.
What does this resignation indicate about the second term of George W. Bush?
Let us look at the successor. "Gonzales has been at the center of developing Bush's positions on balancing civil liberties with waging the war on terrorism..." So does this mean that he will be the same as Ashcroft. It is obvious that what ever the case, Gonzales will be focusing more on the civil liberties of non citizens in the US vs the US right to defend itselfs domestically against foreign nationals.
"...Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy...of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts." Which means that the Bay Prison shall remain. Will he have a different spin now that he does not have to defend the policy but can rewrite the policy?
And for the Michael Moore crowd, "And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron." Ties to Enron and big corporations, he is just another high priced attorney defending energy companies.
Provide proof that he met with, worked on, and defended Enron. WHA? There is none? That's means that just because you work for a company doesn't mean you do everything for the company.Why do you feel Ashcroft resigned?
Ashcroft has set a standard to defending the US against foreign nationals. Let's see how these standards hold with someone else in office. As history will show, Ashcroft's policies have improved life in American rather then restricted it. I am always reminded of the 1950s reaction to fingerprinting. The fact that finger printing took away people's civil liberties, yet finger printing today is nothing. Everyone is finger printed, and most jobs require life scans based on your finger print and ID. Go figure.
This article offers a slightly different take on things Yehoshua.
First, please note above that conservatives are also questioning this man's appointment as well.
Most importantly however is the paragraph that I bolded above. Gonzales wrote the memo claiming we had the right to skirt international law and anti-torture law in the war on terrorism. If the author of a document like that makes it into the DOJ, then you can expect things like Abu Ghraib to become common practice.
No American that actually respects the Constitution should support this man who intends to water down portions of the bill of rights in the name of "protection" and intends to break international law and authorize torture.
If Bush does in fact name Gonzales as Ashcroft's replacement then my fears will have come true, and we will have installed someone even worse into that office.
I think it is high time we all stop playing partisan games here, the election is over - Bush won, nothing will change that. Even if you support Bush you really need to ask yourself, can I support someone in the DOJ that condones torture and breaking international law?
Edited to add: There is a good chance that this nomination could be the final straw that pushes Colin Powell out the door. The Left Coaster writes:
I'd tend to agree with him, this is going to bring the whole Abu Ghraib thing to the surface again and I think that Democrats will find more than a few allies amongst moderate Republicans.
Oh and Yehoshua, he didn't just work for the law firm that represented Enron, he was a partner at that law firm and Enron was their biggest client. To assume that he didn't have some level of involvement isn't even close to logical. All of the info is just a few clicks away on google, but here is one article from 2002.
It isn't conclusive proof, but I bet there will be a much closer look taken this time around, because it is certainly highly suspicious. Also, Enron donated a decent chunk of money to his campaign efforts.
QUOTE
Gonzales has been at the center of developing Bush's positions on balancing civil liberties with waging the war on terrorism -- opening the White House counsel to the same line of criticism that has dogged Ashcroft.
For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -- essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts -- of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.
For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -- essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts -- of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.
First, please note above that conservatives are also questioning this man's appointment as well.
Most importantly however is the paragraph that I bolded above. Gonzales wrote the memo claiming we had the right to skirt international law and anti-torture law in the war on terrorism. If the author of a document like that makes it into the DOJ, then you can expect things like Abu Ghraib to become common practice.
No American that actually respects the Constitution should support this man who intends to water down portions of the bill of rights in the name of "protection" and intends to break international law and authorize torture.
If Bush does in fact name Gonzales as Ashcroft's replacement then my fears will have come true, and we will have installed someone even worse into that office.
I think it is high time we all stop playing partisan games here, the election is over - Bush won, nothing will change that. Even if you support Bush you really need to ask yourself, can I support someone in the DOJ that condones torture and breaking international law?
Edited to add: There is a good chance that this nomination could be the final straw that pushes Colin Powell out the door. The Left Coaster writes:
QUOTE
You can also be sure that hooking Gonzales up as AG in a second term to serve alongside Rummy will be the final straw in pushing Colin Powell out the door. Given how shocked various GOP senators were in seeing what transpired at Abu Ghraib, and knowing how upset even John Warner is at being stonewalled by the Pentagon and the White House over his requests for information on Abu Ghraib, it's easy to see how the Democrats can form alliances with GOP moderates to strongly fight any Gonzales nomination to the highest law enforcement post in the land.
If John Warner and Lindsey Graham are that concerned about the Abu Ghraib debacle, and if John McCain shares Colin Powell's revulsion at the trashing of the Geneva Convention protocols and what it means for American POWs from here on out, how can any of these three vote for the architect of that legal doctrine to be our AG?
If John Warner and Lindsey Graham are that concerned about the Abu Ghraib debacle, and if John McCain shares Colin Powell's revulsion at the trashing of the Geneva Convention protocols and what it means for American POWs from here on out, how can any of these three vote for the architect of that legal doctrine to be our AG?
I'd tend to agree with him, this is going to bring the whole Abu Ghraib thing to the surface again and I think that Democrats will find more than a few allies amongst moderate Republicans.
QUOTE(Yehoshua)
Ties to Enron and big corporations, he is just another high priced attorney defending energy companies. blink.gif Provide proof that he met with, worked on, and defended Enron. WHA? There is none? That's means that just because you work for a company doesn't mean you do everything for the company.
Oh and Yehoshua, he didn't just work for the law firm that represented Enron, he was a partner at that law firm and Enron was their biggest client. To assume that he didn't have some level of involvement isn't even close to logical. All of the info is just a few clicks away on google, but here is one article from 2002.
QUOTE
But before Gonzales became a permanent fixture of Team W, he was a partner at the powerful Houston law firm Vinson & Elkins, and that's something congressional investigators are apparently taking a closer look at.
Sources tell me that investigators are following up on tips that Vinson & Elkins may have briefed former partners in advance on the findings of a top- secret probe into Enron's shady business dealings.
<snip>
Enron is Vinson & Elkins' biggest client. Joseph Dilg, Vinson & Elkins' managing partner, rose through the ranks specializing in work for the energy trader. Enron's own general counsel, James Derrick, is a former Vinson & Elkins partner.
Not surprisingly, many Vinson & Elkins partners, as well as those who have departed the firm, are Enron shareholders. For congressional investigators now poring over Enron's affairs, the tight relationship between the company and its lawyers is a source of concern.
Sources tell me that investigators are following up on tips that Vinson & Elkins may have briefed former partners in advance on the findings of a top- secret probe into Enron's shady business dealings.
<snip>
Enron is Vinson & Elkins' biggest client. Joseph Dilg, Vinson & Elkins' managing partner, rose through the ranks specializing in work for the energy trader. Enron's own general counsel, James Derrick, is a former Vinson & Elkins partner.
Not surprisingly, many Vinson & Elkins partners, as well as those who have departed the firm, are Enron shareholders. For congressional investigators now poring over Enron's affairs, the tight relationship between the company and its lawyers is a source of concern.
It isn't conclusive proof, but I bet there will be a much closer look taken this time around, because it is certainly highly suspicious. Also, Enron donated a decent chunk of money to his campaign efforts.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:17 AM)
This article offers a slightly different take on things Yehoshua.
I quote the argument when I took Gonzales apart piece by piece or with the piece we are given this far.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:17 AM)
If Bush does in fact name Gonzales as Ashcroft's replacement then my fears will have come true, and we will have installed someone even worse into that office.
If confirmed by the senate he will be your Attorney General, are you trying to say that things were better off under Ashcroft? "Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft" (Source)"Sources tell me that investigators are following up on tips that Vinson & Elkins may have briefed former partners in advance on the findings of a top- secret probe into Enron's shady business dealings." Or he can be proven to have no connection. He left Vinson & Elkins prior to Enron, from your article "Gonzales, 46, worked for Vinson & Elkins from 1982 through 1992, when he was tapped by Bush to become the then-governor's general counsel."
The only tie your article shows to Vinson & Elkins and Enron since 1992 is, "The law firm and Enron were Gonzales' main financial backers when he ran in 2000 to hold his seat on the supreme court. Vinson & Elkins contributed $29, 450 and Enron ponied up another $6,500. " I don't know about you but I could collect some money from people I use to work for to run for a positions. Maybe not this amount, but I haven't worked for big boys like Vinson & Elkins or Enron.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Nov 10 2004, 10:53 AM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:17 AM)
If Bush does in fact name Gonzales as Ashcroft's replacement then my fears will have come true, and we will have installed someone even worse into that office.
If confirmed by the senate he will be your Attorney General, are you trying to say that things were better off under Ashcroft? "Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft" (Source)
That is exactly what I'm saying Yehoshua. I don't care that he is Hispanic, that doesn't make a bit of difference to me. What I do care about is that he was the one that wrote the memo in 2002 waiving anti-torture and international law. That is simply unacceptable for the highest post in the DOJ.
But there is some good news. It takes 50 senators to confirm, 40 senators to filibuster and 60 to overcome a filibuster. Given that democrats hold 44 seats and there are a decent number of moderate republicans and 1 independent I don't think this guy will get confirmed anyway. It just isn't mathematically possible if people vote the way I'm expecting them to. I'd suggest that every Democrat contact their senator and write something to that effect as well - I'll be doing that this afternoon.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 03:01 PM)
That is exactly what I'm saying Yehoshua. I don't care that he is Hispanic, that doesn't make a bit of difference to me. What I do care about is that he was the one that wrote the memo in 2002 waiving anti-torture and international law. That is simply unacceptable for the highest post in the DOJ.
But there is some good news. It takes 50 senators to confirm, 40 senators to filibuster and 60 to overcome a filibuster. Given that democrats hold 44 seats and there are a decent number of moderate republicans and 1 independent I don't think this guy will get confirmed anyway. It just isn't mathematically possible if people vote the way I'm expecting them to. I'd suggest that every Democrat contact their senator and write something to that effect as well - I'll be doing that this afternoon.
But there is some good news. It takes 50 senators to confirm, 40 senators to filibuster and 60 to overcome a filibuster. Given that democrats hold 44 seats and there are a decent number of moderate republicans and 1 independent I don't think this guy will get confirmed anyway. It just isn't mathematically possible if people vote the way I'm expecting them to. I'd suggest that every Democrat contact their senator and write something to that effect as well - I'll be doing that this afternoon.
I'll wait with writing to my Senator (Lieberman) until Gonzales is actually nominated. At this point his candidacy is just a rumor, nothing more.
As for 2002 memo, don't you know, Cube Jockey, that everything that mocks and circumvents anything that includes words "global" and "international" is popular with electorate? Did you forget the "Global Test" already?
I expect that Gonzales will be selling his candidacy based on 2002 memo, not vice versa. 
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 11:01 AM)
But there is some good news. It takes 50 senators to confirm, 40 senators to filibuster and 60 to overcome a filibuster. Given that democrats hold 44 seats and there are a decent number of moderate republicans and 1 independent I don't think this guy will get confirmed anyway. It just isn't mathematically possible if people vote the way I'm expecting them to. I'd suggest that every Democrat contact their senator and write something to that effect as well - I'll be doing that this afternoon.
And you don't think a single one of those democrats want to have the first hispanic DOJ? Or you don't think it will look bad on them to deny the first hispanic DOJ? And note above where I show how Gonzales has only one connection to Enron, through a campaign donation to him in 2000.But it is true about the torture memo, let's find the memo and go through that.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Nov 10 2004, 11:16 AM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 11:01 AM)
But there is some good news. It takes 50 senators to confirm, 40 senators to filibuster and 60 to overcome a filibuster. Given that democrats hold 44 seats and there are a decent number of moderate republicans and 1 independent I don't think this guy will get confirmed anyway. It just isn't mathematically possible if people vote the way I'm expecting them to. I'd suggest that every Democrat contact their senator and write something to that effect as well - I'll be doing that this afternoon.
And you don't think a single one of those democrats want to have the first hispanic DOJ? Or you don't think it will look bad on them to deny the first hispanic DOJ? And note above where I show how Gonzales has only one connection to Enron, through a campaign donation to him in 2000.But it is true about the torture memo, let's find the memo and go through that.
We should not be putting people in office simply because of the fact that they are the first so and so, that is flawed reasoning. I don't buy it and I don't think many Democratic senators buy it either. You put someone in office because they are qualified for the job, not because of what race they are or because they are going to break some precedent.
Oh and English Horn, in that article I linked Scott McClellan is quoted as saying "I would not rule out an announcement today". So you might be right about it being rumor, but if it is the White House is certainly encouraging it. Perhaps they are doing that to feel out how the nomination might be received, I don't know. We may know more in a few hours given that it is about 2:30 pm on the east coast right now.
Found it:
Tie him pro torture. It is like saying that the person who defends a murder is a murder or is pro murder. Or the doctor who preforms abortions is pro abortion. This isn't always true. So show me where he is pro torture.
I believe this memo declares no where any regards to torturing prisoners.
QUOTE
...Geneca Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply tp the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised you that DOJs opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respects to the conflict with the Taliban.
From my understanding, Gonzales has found a loop hole in the GPW. So just because the GPW is a loop hole, does not mean he is pro torture. Tie him pro torture. It is like saying that the person who defends a murder is a murder or is pro murder. Or the doctor who preforms abortions is pro abortion. This isn't always true. So show me where he is pro torture.
I believe this memo declares no where any regards to torturing prisoners.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Nov 10 2004, 11:44 AM)
QUOTE
Geneca Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply tp the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised you that DOJs opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respects to the conflict with the Taliban.
From my understanding, Gonzales has found a loop hole in the GPW. So just because the GPW is a loop hole, does not mean he is pro torture. Tie him pro torture. It is like saying that the person who defends a murder is a murder or is pro murder. Or the doctor who preforms abortions is pro abortion. This isn't always true. So show me where he is pro torture.
I believe this memo declares no where any regards to torturing prisoners.
I absolutely agree with your logical statements here. In no way can one interpret Gonzales being pro-torture. However, one can certainly claim that he is pro-circumvention of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, one can claim that he is likely to continue to interpret "loopholes" in international law: loopholes which are intended to bypass the "spirit" of these laws and in particular the Geneva Conventions.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Nov 10 2004, 11:08 AM)
I'll wait with writing to my Senator (Lieberman) until Gonzales is actually nominated. At this point his candidacy is just a rumor, nothing more.
It's now official in case anyone was wondering - Bush officially names Gonzales.
QUOTE
President Bush named White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general on Wednesday, picking the administration's most prominent Hispanic for a highly visible post in the war on terror.
So, on to the confirmation process...
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 11:01 AM)
What I do care about is that he was the one that wrote the memo in 2002 waiving anti-torture and international law. That is simply unacceptable for the highest post in the DOJ.
He did not wave any magic wand and make all the anti-torture laws disappear, he simply found a loop hole to the fact that the Taliban and al Qaeda do not fall under the GPW (see the link I added in my last post). This in no way is an endorsement for the US to begin torture. It basically means that he does not see reason for the US to remain loyal to the GPW when it come to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Would this hold true in a court of law? I don' know. But I do know that America will not run its motives through some sort of 'global test.' But Gonzales was looking out for the best interest of America when he choose to defend the countries treatment of prisoners.
Is the memo linked to torture? Not that I read. I see him more defending the right to detain 'POW' (which he claims that the Taliban and al Qaeda are not POW) without just cause. Odd how this translates to Gonzales tortures POW in prison.
CJ who would you pick to be head of the DOJ? Who in your mind has the right stuff to be head of the DOJ?
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Nov 10 2004, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 11:01 AM)
What I do care about is that he was the one that wrote the memo in 2002 waiving anti-torture and international law. That is simply unacceptable for the highest post in the DOJ.
He did not wave any magic wand and make all the anti-torture laws disappear, he simply found a loop hole to the fact that the Taliban and al Qaeda do not fall under the GPW (see the link I added in my last post). This in no way is an endorsement for the US to begin torture. It basically means that he does not see reason for the US to remain loyal to the GPW when it come to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Do you realize what you are saying here? He created a "loophole" which doesn't apply to the Taliban and Al Qaeda (read: go ahead and torture them and violate the geneva conventions if you think it will gain you information) but that isn't condoning the practice of torture? That makes absolutely no sense. The US should adhere to these laws regardless of who they are dealing with, period.
You are basically saying that torturing people considered to be terrorists or enemy combatants is ok. It isn't and that is the reason we have laws offering protections to those who we are at war with.
The Department of Justice is supposed to uphold the law, not find ways to skirt the law to get around pesky little things like International Law, the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution. The protections are in place for a reason.
As to who I'd pick? I have no idea, I'm not a beltway insider and I have no idea what specific person would be qualified for the job. In general it would be someone who had a record of upholding the law and protecting constitutional rights while still agressively going after criminals. Those people do still exist. Mr. Gonzales is not one of those people.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.