Gonzales Approved
By: Reilly On: Jan/26/05 - 36 Comments
Senate Judiciary Committee Approved Alberto Gonzales
A divided Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney general, rejecting Democratic complaints about his role in formulating administration policies blamed for contributing to the torture of detainees.
On a party-line vote of 10-8, the Republican-led panel sent President Bush’s nomination of Gonzales to become the nation’s highest ranking lawman to the full Senate for anticipated confirmation, possibly as early as next week.
If they move on this that quickly I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
January 26, 2005 - 01:49 PM on January 26th, 2005
G_d help us.
i wonder if federal executions will take a sharp rise, or he’ll be too busy fiddling with the Bill of Rights to go kill-happy like he did in Texas.
this is a sad day for freedom, based on his record. maybe he’ll change. maybe i’ll register as a Republican.
January 26, 2005 - 10:04 PM on January 26th, 2005
this is your guy, right voices. no comments?
turning a blind eye? feel safer? see America losing?
A Degrading Policy
Wednesday, January 26, 2005; Page A20
ALBERTO R. GONZALES was vague, unresponsive and misleading in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration’s detention of foreign prisoners. In his written answers to questions from the committee, prepared in anticipation of today’s vote on his nomination as attorney general, Mr. Gonzales was clearer — disturbingly so, as it turns out. According to President Bush’s closest legal adviser, this administration continues to assert its right to indefinitely hold foreigners in secret locations without any legal process; to deny them access to the International Red Cross; to transport them to countries where torture is practiced; and to subject them to treatment that is “cruel, inhumane or degrading,” even though such abuse is banned by an international treaty that the United States has ratified. In effect, Mr. Gonzales has confirmed that the Bush administration is violating human rights as a matter of policy.
yikes
boy, Michael Moore is the devil, huh?
January 26, 2005 - 10:07 PM on January 26th, 2005
& what about Mary Joe?
& what about a Oval Office blow job?
& what about “………..” [insert your diversion & distraction to the degradation of the idea of America here.]
but by all means, boycott Hollywood.
January 27, 2005 - 10:32 AM on January 27th, 2005
still nary an opinion on Alberto ‘let’s strip ‘em and have some pain’ Gonzales.
i can see where it might be best to pretend none of it is real.
blind eyes.
January 27, 2005 - 10:39 AM on January 27th, 2005
shiloh, GFY, nobody cares about your chicken little hysterics.
January 27, 2005 - 10:48 AM on January 27th, 2005
5 pcd, you l-f,
you’re absolutely correct. apparently no one does
care.
that’s the problem, as i see it.
some are willing to shatter our own principles in a desperate attempt to feel safe.
January 27, 2005 - 12:44 PM on January 27th, 2005
A little reading for the blinded by Progressive ideology: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_25_05hm.html
January 27, 2005 - 01:17 PM on January 27th, 2005
7,
Prisoners are not ‘terrorists’ simply because they are collected in sweeps. This articles’ first assumption doesn’t even hold up.
January 27, 2005 - 01:25 PM on January 27th, 2005
Sandy, not “sweeps”, they surrendered on the battlefield. You are shading things falsely.
January 27, 2005 - 01:53 PM on January 27th, 2005
in preparation for the election, hundreds, if not thousands are being arrested in sweeps of ’suspected’ insurgents. there are currently about 8,000 Iraqi’s being held, most without any conclusive finding of guilt.
after the elections, if they go off, i suppose many will be released with a genuinely insincere apology.
ain’t ‘Democracy’ grand?
January 27, 2005 - 02:06 PM on January 27th, 2005
9,
Almost all of those held at Abu Ghraib did not surrender on a ‘battlefield’ (I may be playing semantics, but wouldn’t surrendering on a battlefield entitle you to Geneva protection)? There must be a distinction of who one is talking about.
January 27, 2005 - 02:21 PM on January 27th, 2005
Again, you are playing semantics. First off, these aren’t soldiers of a country we are dealing with. Second, do you have a roster of the AG prisoners, where, and what circumstances they were taken into custody, or are you making generalizations to fit your predetermined conclusion?
January 27, 2005 - 03:31 PM on January 27th, 2005
Shiloh,
Smoke and Mirrors…
No matter how much you complain… Conservativs ARE in power.
Get use to it. From what I have seen, the Democratic party is corroding from within and this loosing streak will continue.
January 27, 2005 - 03:35 PM on January 27th, 2005
i know conservatives are in power. that is not synonymous with problems magically disappearing. in the case of Gonzales, i think it a case of a problem created
January 27, 2005 - 03:42 PM on January 27th, 2005
Guess who said this:
“This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed … were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees.”
January 27, 2005 - 03:43 PM on January 27th, 2005
I’ll give you a clue, they aren’t in the Bush administration
January 27, 2005 - 03:46 PM on January 27th, 2005
It was Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz.
January 27, 2005 - 03:59 PM on January 27th, 2005
Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales — then the president’s attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote that the Geneva Convention was “obsolete” when it came to the war on terror. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill suited to antiterrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler’s “Wehrmacht,” mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva “obsolete,” a remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg,
January 27, 2005 - 04:13 PM on January 27th, 2005
so?
January 27, 2005 - 04:24 PM on January 27th, 2005
Just a comparison of how, in Nazi Germany, they thought the Soviets could not be dealt with according to the Geneva Convention just like many of you cite for engaging in terrorists.
January 27, 2005 - 04:38 PM on January 27th, 2005
If the Geneva Conventions actually applied to terrorists, it might be an issue. But as it is, they’re operating as though the GC does not apply to them.
January 27, 2005 - 07:22 PM on January 27th, 2005
18- The Geneva Conventions articles pertaining to the treatment of P.O.W. wasn’t adopted until August of 1949.
January 27, 2005 - 07:31 PM on January 27th, 2005
The Third Geneva Convention in 1929 adopted rules for the treatment of prisoners of war.
January 27, 2005 - 07:39 PM on January 27th, 2005
My mistake- it was revised in 1949 .
January 27, 2005 - 07:43 PM on January 27th, 2005
you got it on the nose
January 28, 2005 - 08:03 AM on January 28th, 2005
Terrorist need not apply… GC.
Terrorist lucky if the are “captured”.
January 29, 2005 - 02:13 PM on January 29th, 2005
pcd – were u fixing to apologize at all for the whole screen name fiasco?
January 29, 2005 - 02:45 PM on January 29th, 2005
11: No, not necessarily in my estimation. One of the “rules” is that you don’t fake a surrender to draw the person(s) into an ambush.
You don’t play possum.
You wear an identifiable uniform.
And so on.
January 29, 2005 - 02:48 PM on January 29th, 2005
Kind of like driving under the influence and causing a 100-car pile-up on the freeway, but your attorney argues that you used your turn signal when you cut off that semi hauling gasoline.
February 1, 2005 - 07:32 PM on February 1st, 2005
“Judge Gonzales is the wrong man for this job,” Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, declared, using the title Mr. Gonzales acquired as a member of the Texas Supreme Court. Mr. Gonzales’ actions as White House counsel, Mr. Leahy continued, “have tarnished our country’s moral leadership in the world and put American soldiers and American citizens at greater risk.”
Leading Republicans countered that the confirmation of Mr. Gonzales would mark a great day in American history, since he would be the first person of Hispanic descent to head the Justice Department.
“Every Hispanic-American in the country is watching,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch…
now there’s a stupid reason. he’s Hispanic. o, then by all means, never mind what he might have approved in the way of maltreatment of prisoners who have been denied basic rights.
until yesterday, that is, when a federal judge told the Bush folks to stop abusing the Constitution and get some due process. due process – a blow to freedom according to Bush.
if being Hispanic is a good reason, nominate a black Jewish woman. all the black Jewish women will be watching. i know they want to bend over as far as possible for Hispanics but, gee….
February 1, 2005 - 07:43 PM on February 1st, 2005
30- He will be confirmed. Just as Rice was:smile: Careful there Sybil. It appears to be storm clouds following you.
February 1, 2005 - 08:29 PM on February 1st, 2005
yes he will be confirmed. but you seem unconcerned with his behaviour & responsibility regarding torture.
that’s kind of the point. you think winning is the point & that’s what separates us.
February 1, 2005 - 08:32 PM on February 1st, 2005
32- Well yes it does. You always seem to be on the losing side? Get the picture?:roll:
February 1, 2005 - 08:49 PM on February 1st, 2005
yes. i get it.
don’t you think you’ll ever be on the losing side again?
you will.
even then, your ‘opponents’ won’t always be right. another thing that separates us is that i’ll be on your side when they’re not.
do you get that?
February 1, 2005 - 08:51 PM on February 1st, 2005
Yep
February 1, 2005 - 09:53 PM on February 1st, 2005
Gonzales is the MAN… Hope he loosens the restraints on us.:wink: