Gonzales Disavows Torture Tactics

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Here is the nominee for the Attorny General position. Wouldn't you like to have him as your Attorny General? Are you hearing the Beast speak? If he is confirmed, I sure do....[/]

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales drew scorching criticism from Senate Democrats on Thursday for his role in Bush administration policies on the treatment of terror suspects. He repudiated torture tactics and vowed at a contentious confirmation hearing to abide by international treaties on prisoner rights.

"I will no longer represent only the White House. I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles," President Bush (news - web sites)'s counsel told the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites).

His assurances did little to placate Democrats.

"America's troops and citizens are at greater risk" because of administration policies that are "tantamount to torture," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat.

Checkhere

for the complete story. Rather informative, as news storys go.....

[Bravus]

From William Gibson's blog yesterday:

Josh Marshall has a way of inducing these moments of hallucinatory meta-political clarity:

"Here's a question -- one I don't know the answer to, but one which I suspect may have an uncomfortable answer. We know that Al Gonzales has been White House Counsel for the last four years and that he's played an instrumental role in several legal findings and memos which have given legal sanction to torture (or what I guess we might call 'the act formerly known as torture'). What if Gonzales had had some roughly equivalent position in Argentina or Chile in the late 1970s? Would he have faced subsequent legal vulnerability and/or consequences?"

[Ron Lambert]

We need to keep in mind that the very definition of what constitutes "torture" is being contested at the present time. The administration wishes to hold to the distinction that when you are dealing with terrorists, you can use truth serums, sleep deprivation, loud noise, and other psychological methods of breaking down a prisoners' resistence to telling what they know about other terrorists and terrorist acts being planned. This is differentiated from actual physical torture, where you beat people and inflict pain, dismember them, etc. The controversy now is that some extremists are trying to classify everything the same, so that you cannot even use truth serum, sleep deprivation, etc., to get terrorist prisoners to talk. Thus when people are arguing about who is "in favor of torture," we need to keep in mind the slippery nature of the debate, with the basic terms constantly being redefined, depending on who is talking.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] On June 22, 2004, the White House officially released 14 documents originating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department concerning the Administration's interrogation policies. These records include only one that previously was published by news media sources, and did not include at least 5 additional documents widely reported in the news media and already made available to the public by the news media concerning interrogation policies from the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and Department of State. Still other records are reported to exist or referenced in the already released materials, but have not been made available -- either officially or unofficially -- to the public. This Electronic Briefing Book includes a comprehensive listing of available records relating to U.S. interrogation policies, including records officially released by the White House and the Department of Defense on June 22, leaked documents that have not been officially released, and a description of 17 records that have not been made available to the public. In addition, this posting includes the text of a congressional subpoena proposed by Senators Leahy and Feinstein that was defeated on June 17, 2004 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a copy of the "Taguba Report" detailing the findings of a Department of Defense investigation into the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. [/]

Click here for the offical source on this matter....

[Neil D]

White House Refuses To Provide More Interrogation Documents

Gonzales Hearing Opens

POSTED: 10:33 am EST January 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The White House refused Thursday to provide senators additional documents on attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales' role in the decision to allow aggressive interrogations of terrorism detainees.

The top Democrat at Gonzales' Senate confirmation hearing said that questioning was "tantamount to torture."

Gonzales, who served as President Bush's White House counsel, is promising to abide by treaties that ban torture of prisoners if he's confirmed by the Senate. He's testifying Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats wanted the documents to determine Gonzales' involvement in the president's decision that he had the authority to bypass international treaties that ban torture.

In his prepared testimony, Gonzales reiterates the argument that terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions because they aren't soldiers. But he added, "We must be committed to preserving civil rights and civil liberties."

About a dozen people showed up at the hearing wearing T-shirts that said "Investigate Gonzales" on the front and "No To Torture" on the back.

------------------------------------------------------

Senators Expect Confirmation For Gonzales

Approval Could Come Before Inauguration

POSTED: 10:17 am EST January 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are predicting Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed as the country's next attorney general.

Thursday, committee members questioned him for more than seven hours. The harshest questions were centered on his role in crafting the administration's policies on treating terror suspects and other detainees.

Committee chairman Arlen Specter told NBC's "Today" show that while Gonzales' answers were "not entirely satisfactory," the matter won't keep him from replacing John Ashcroft.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, from New York, concurred but said there are lower standards in appointing an attorney general than there would be for a judge.

Specter said Gonzales could be confirmed before Bush is sworn in to start his second term on Jan. 20.

[:"blue"] A man who argues for torture for interagation....Tell me the US is NOT becoming more BEAST-LIKE, as predicted by Revelation....[/]

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] It's been a while since I wandered the internet, but I found this in Stars and Stripes....Enjoy... Oh, and remember, you guys voted for the Bush...[/]

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes

European edition, Thursday, January 6, 2005

WASHINGTON — Several veterans groups on Wednesday joined the chorus of opposition to President Bush’s nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, calling his legal opinions on torture a threat to U.S. forces worldwide.

On Tuesday, 12 retired admirals and generals — including former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili — sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to closely examine Gonzales’ position on torture before they approve him.

Veterans for Common Sense, which represents about 12,000 former military personnel, and other related groups took their criticism of Gonzales even further by asking senators to oppose his nomination.

“Not only does his position (on torture) violate the laws of the United States, but it has also endangered our U.S. servicemen,” said retired Air Force Col. Richard Klass, president of the Veterans Institute for Security and Democracy.

“Judge Gonzales has opened the way for any tin-horned dictator or corrupt head of state to do the same to our troops.”

Critics attacked the White House counsel not only for his January 2002 memo calling the Geneva Convention “obsolete” and “quaint” but also for what they call failings in his judicial review of death penalty cases while an adviser to Bush while the president was governor of Texas.

“We are not just opposed to torture because it is counterproductive; it is just plain wrong,” said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst. “It is the rule of law that distinguishes us from the animals, who can’t tell right from wrong. This is not just an academic exercise.”

The groups submitted their own letter to the Senate, signed by nearly 3,600 veterans, asking that the controversies surrounding the torture memos be the focus of their confirmation hearings.

Those hearings for Gonzales are scheduled to begin Thursday.

[bevin]

Gonzales and Bush are clearly firmly against torture.

Torture is what bad guys do to good guys.

What they aren't against is anything that they (the good guys) want to do to bad guys.

You see, it is very naughty if Americans are interned in cold dark cells with loud music and beatings and no outside contact. That is torture, and no civilized nation would condone it.

But it is okay when non-Americans are detained in temperature-controlled temporary accomodations at greatly reduced lighting levels and are exposed to high-volume aural overload with some physical inducements, and are not allowed to communicate in case they send messages that might result in the death of Americans. You are supposed to do this kind of thing to save American lives, and civilized people like us understand that.

/Bevin

[Jeannieb43]

How true.

I happened to see part of Gonzales' nomination hearings from last Thursday broadcast yesterday on C-SPAN. The committee members pointed out (correctly) that the reason Colin Powell was against the torture tactics used at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is because this puts our own soldiers at risk. He (being a four-star general) knows first hand the terrors of military combat. Nothing is feared more by a military pilot than that he'll be shot down over enemy territory and his crew will be taken captive. The enemy has plenty of reason now to torture and maim our soldiers, because this is what the U.S. is doing.

Instead, we should be "taking the high road." Otherwise we're putting our own men in jeopardy. This was emphasized over and over again by the Senators on the committee.

They repeatedly told Gonzales they weren't questioning his credentials, but rather his judgment .