Friday, January 07, 2005
Gonzalez and torture
I like reading the Washington Post after midnight when they post the next day's paper on-line. Yeah, I'm that much of a junkie, get over it. So grow used to seeing posts from early in the morning.
I watched some of the Alberto Gonzalez testimony at his confirmation hearing Thursday, and I wasn't really surprised that none of the senators followed up any kinda-tough questions.
But when the Post says that Gonzalez "strongly defended" his time spent as White House counsel, I had to laugh because he neither spoke strongly nor was asked questions that would have required a strong answer. He was a soft-spoken man at the hearing and didn't give any answers that the senators could jump on. I'm sorry, on which the senators could jump. That's why I didn't go Ivy League like Gonzalez, that preposition at the end of the sentence crap.
The issue with Gonzalez is not whether he makes sure the DoJ "'aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.'" The issue is whether the memo he authored in 2002 gave the green light to leaders in the military and intelligence agencies to use barbaric methods in the pursuit of information that may or may not have existed in order to prevent attacks on the United States that may or may not have been planned.
I'm sure what Gonzalez intended to mean is that he will make sure that the soldiers included in the pictures we have seen from Iraqi detention centers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's a mistaken idea, that only the people who actually performed the actions are solely responsible. I would argue that those who created the atmosphere in which the abuses occurred are also responsible. That means that Gonzalez himself bears some of that responsibility. He should be fired, not given a promotion.
But in the Orwellian universe that is the Bush White House, incompetence is rewarded and excellence ... um ... well, once we see some excellence, then we'll see what Bush does with it.
I watched some of the Alberto Gonzalez testimony at his confirmation hearing Thursday, and I wasn't really surprised that none of the senators followed up any kinda-tough questions.
But when the Post says that Gonzalez "strongly defended" his time spent as White House counsel, I had to laugh because he neither spoke strongly nor was asked questions that would have required a strong answer. He was a soft-spoken man at the hearing and didn't give any answers that the senators could jump on. I'm sorry, on which the senators could jump. That's why I didn't go Ivy League like Gonzalez, that preposition at the end of the sentence crap.
The issue with Gonzalez is not whether he makes sure the DoJ "'aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.'" The issue is whether the memo he authored in 2002 gave the green light to leaders in the military and intelligence agencies to use barbaric methods in the pursuit of information that may or may not have existed in order to prevent attacks on the United States that may or may not have been planned.
I'm sure what Gonzalez intended to mean is that he will make sure that the soldiers included in the pictures we have seen from Iraqi detention centers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's a mistaken idea, that only the people who actually performed the actions are solely responsible. I would argue that those who created the atmosphere in which the abuses occurred are also responsible. That means that Gonzalez himself bears some of that responsibility. He should be fired, not given a promotion.
But in the Orwellian universe that is the Bush White House, incompetence is rewarded and excellence ... um ... well, once we see some excellence, then we'll see what Bush does with it.
