The vote in the US Senate to confirm Alberto Gonzales as the new Attorney General is scheduled for Wednesday, January 26th at 9:30 am.

As you may or may not recall, we sort of got into discussing Gonzales in this thread started by Amlord back in November after Ashcroft resigned. There is some good information in that thread but I wanted to highlight this item:




Questions for debate:
1. Given that Gonzales has been criticized publicly by Democrats and privately by some Republicans, what do you think of his chances for confirmation Wednesday?

2. Given that Gonzales has been indispensible in authoring the administration's controversial policy on torture and the job of the Attorney General is to uphold laws not find loopholes in them, is he the right man for the job?

3. Assuming Gonzales is confirmed, what message does that send about our country to the international community?

1. Given that Gonzales has been criticized publicly by Democrats and privately by some Republicans, what do you think of his chances for confirmation Wednesday?
99.99 percent. Cabinet positions are rarely blocked by the confirmation process.

2. Given that Gonzales has been indispensable in authoring the administration's controversial policy on torture and the job of the Attorney General is to uphold laws not find loopholes in them, is he the right man for the job?
With regard to the first answer, I believe he is the right man for the Bush administration. He advocates a liberal interpretation of laws to get the policies implemented for the Bush administration. He will be a good representative of his administration and a team player. I am not sure that it is a given that it is not the attorney general's job to find loopholes in the law. But I do not think law bending interpretations of the law such as those in regards to torture needing to damage internal organs are in the best interests of our country. But that issue was part of the package of issues up for debate this past November.

3. Assuming Gonzales is confirmed, what message does that send about our country to the international community?

I think it sends the message the President Bush was reelected and if you want to get the US's support on something you better get the support of GWB.

Questions for debate:
1. Given that Gonzales has been criticized publicly by Democrats and privately by some Republicans, what do you think of his chances for confirmation Wednesday?

I think his chances are good, probably around 75%. He has the Republican Machine behind him doing who knows what to get him accepted.

2. Given that Gonzales has been indispensible in authoring the administration's controversial policy on torture and the job of the Attorney General is to uphold laws not find loopholes in them, is he the right man for the job?


Absolutely, without a doubt NO! I have gone on record with my Representatives stating as much, and been as active as possible to prevent it.

[/b]3. Assuming Gonzales is confirmed, what message does that send about our country to the international community?[/b]

[/quote]

America is now a Fascist State, controlled by sinister forces who are in search of global domination at all costs to humanity.

(excuse my editing of the "given" parts - I'll just answer the questions themselves)

1. what do you think of his chances for confirmation Wednesday?
90%, with the other 10% being some delay in confirmation, not an outright rejection.

2. is he the right man for the job?
Yes, I think that he probably is. The only other AG candidate I was supporting was Giuliani, but that doesn't seem likely.

As to the "policy on torture," this has been debated in other threads. As counsel to the president, Gonzalez was asked to offer a legal opinion regarding the Geneva Conventions and did so. As AG, he will have different duties. Many lawyers switch from prosecutors to defense attorneys to judges, and I trust that he will be able to make this switch as well. Seems like a bright enough guy.

3. Assuming Gonzales is confirmed, what message does that send about our country to the international community?

That the son of poor Mexican immigrants can rise to a position in a presidential cabinet, even in our Fascist State, controlled by sinister forces who are in search of global domination. Seriously, he's the right guy.

As for the what the "international community" thinks, I really don't care what they think. France can hire their own attorneys general and state prosecutors and it's really none of our business either. ... except to say that it's too bad one of them recently stole a German colleagues' credit cards to pay for hookers. That is one thing that Ashcroft probably would not have done..

Carlito, you should know by now that cutting out parts of the question and selectively answering it doesn't work here. The issue about Gonzales' record on terrorism is central to this question - otherwise why would there be any reason to ask the question? It very well may have been brought up in other threads but in searching I found no thread dedicated to Gonzales and while I may have been inactive for a month or so I have a pretty darn good thread memory from pre-election posts.

I know many Iraq and Bush apologists out there would like to forget that Abu Ghraib happened, but it will not be erased from the public memory so easily.

As it stands your answer has basically ignored the torture issue (which in my mind is the only possible issue anyone can have with Gonzales at this point) and have said he's a good guy and a Mexican American so he gets my vote

All right, all right. I'm not a Bush apologist, for God's sake. Once again, the politicians have taken a complex issue and made it simple for us to understand. Gonzalez = Torture.

Here is my analysis for you. Gonzalez' office sent a memo on Jan 22 - The Bybee memo (WaPo pdf file) - and this memo looked at why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Al Qaeda - it's not a nation-state, no uniforms, etc.

Gonzalez sent another memo to the president on Jan 25, 2002. This memo gave advice regarding Rumsfeld and the DOJ's contention that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda, and addressed Powell / State's opposition to this decision. Gonzalez was the president's counsel, and as such gave legal advice. In response to Powell's argument, Gonzalez says one very interesting thing that I'd like to note. My emphasis added. He makes it clear that, even if we say that the Geneva Convention does not apply, war crimes by either side are still unacceptable and thus prosecutable. This makes sense, given that we are presently prosecuting our guys for abusing prisoners.



On Feb 7, 2002, Bush issued a directive based on the advice given which supported Rumsfeld's view, and thus opposed Powell's view. You could say that Gonzalez' advice therefore supported this decision, but the logic of the advice has not been challenged here. Gonzalez and his office looked at the treaties, analyzed the applicaple law, and issued some opinions. Bush's memo appears flawed for a couple of reasons, notably that the Geneva Conventions call for a tribunal to determine whether they apply or not, and this didn't happen. However, simplifying the issue to "Gonzalez says torture OK, bring out the whips and chains" is overly simplistic and the substance and depth of these issues was not even touched on by the questioning senators in the confirmation hearings. As Gonzalez responded to Graham "we are nothing like our enemy."

I wish someone would retort to a Senator (Kennedy for example) that says our activities are "tantamount to torture" that our enemies are conducting themselves in a way that is "tantamount to beheading" but I'm not holding my breath.

In any case, there was nothing in Bush's order would have made the abusers of Iraqi prisoners think that they were executing policy. You can argue the broader point about hearings and infinite detentions, etc., but that's not the argument being made, which comes across in the press as "Gonzalez helps Lyndie England pick out a nice her dog collar on weekends."

What a very lawyerly position to take, appear support both sides to confuse everyone.

In my opinion, what he is doing here is giving the old nod and wink to the military and intelligence guys while at the same time saying don't get caught or we'll prosecute you.

The soldiers at Abu Gharib are being prosecuted more because they were stupid enough to get caught by the media than because the United States government is shocked we were torturing people.

I think that you have a pretty naive view of the world if you think we aren't using questionable techniques right now at this moment in holding cells in Guantanamo, inside the US and places all over the Middle East to extract information.

We are about to put the guy in office that gave the this administration the green light to do that (whether that was his job or not is irrelevant) and at the same time suggested that you'd be prosecuted if caught *wink*wink*. I'm sorry but I think that the man holding the office of Attorney General should have just a little bit more integrity and respect for our laws and international laws than that. I realize that Bush wouldn't put anyone in office that I'd agree with politically, but at the very least I should be able to respect the person he puts in office.

Senior Gonzalez is not the right person for the job, as he, like most other politicians of Meso-American heritage, supports continued mass immigration into the U.S. Ergo, Gonzalez is yet another Viva La Raza-Nazi who supports the "Reconquista de Aztlan" and hence, is yet another Bush coporatist stooge as well. With Gonzalez we get it from two fronts, which is doubly bad I suppose. American Patrol as well as VDARE have run stories on Gonzalez as his ties to pro-Mestizo racist organizations.

However, consider Bush and his agenda; why would Bush not nominate somebody such as Gonzalez...