This footage is from January 6, 2005. I'm posting this to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Here's a link to part 2 of 2.

In this first of two clips of Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) questioning Gonzales, Durbin asks if Gonzales feels it's permissible to torture prisoners, second guess the Geneva Convention under certain circumstances, or knowingly violate the War Crimes Act under certain circumstances.

Although Gonzales states for the record that "our policy is that we do not engage in torture," he skirts the War Crimes Act question completely and continues to deny that his memo had any part in helping to create a "permissive environment" at Abu Ghraib.

I've also included a link to the complete clip that this smaller clip was taken from, for your reference below.

Video of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part One of Two)
(Small - 14 MB)

Audio of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part One of Two)
(MP3 - 9 MB)

Senator Durbin:

"Do you believe that there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel?"

Alberto Gonzales:

(7 second pause)

"Sir, I don't believe that that would be the case, but I would like the opportunity to, I don't, I want to be very candid with you, and obviously thorough in my response to that question. Uh. It is sort of a legal conclusion and I would like to have the opportunity to get back to you on that."

Senator Durbin:

"I'll give you that chance."

Here is the full text of this part one of two clips of Durbin questioning Gonzales on January 6, 2005:

Senator Dick Durbin:

"I'm sorry that there has been some breakdowns between this committee and the white house about the production of documents. As I told you in our White House meeting, it is very difficult for us to sit on this site of the table and believe that we have the whole story, when the White House refuses to produce documents to tell us what happened about many of the issues we are raising. But, based on what we do have, I want to try to get into a few specific questions on the issue of torture."

"The images of Abu Ghraib are likely to be with us for a lifetime, as many images of War can be. The tragedy of Abu Ghraib, and the embarrassment and scandal to the United States are likely to be with us for decades and beyond.

"Yesterday, we paid tribute to our collegue Congressman Robert Matsui. Not only a great congressman, but particularly great in light of the fact that, as a Japanese American, he was sent to an internment camp by his government that did not trust his patriotism or the patriotism of his family. That shameful chapter in American history is recounted even today, more than fifty years later as we think about it. I'm afraid that the torture that occurred in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will similarly be viewed fifty years from now as a shameful chapter in American history."

"When you answered Senator Cole, you said "we're gonna divide what happened at Abu Ghraib into two areas: physical and sexual torture, never acceptable, some idea of fun by depraved people, and you condemned it. Then a second area, interrogation techniques that went to far, and you conceeded that those interrogation techniques might have migrated or started at Guantanamo and somehow made it to Iraq. My question to you is: 'Would you not also conceed that your decision and the decision of the President to call into question the definition of 'torture,' the need to comply with the Geneva Conventions, at least open up a permissive environment for conduct which had been ruled as totally unacceptable by presidents of both parties for decades?'"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Thank you Senator for the question. Perhaps I did misspeak and I thought I was clear that I wasn't dividing up the categories of abuse into two categories, that really, that division had been done within these reports themselves. Those reports did indicate that there was some migration as to the second category [ed note: interrogation]. But the reports and the briefings were fairly clear in my judgement, and others may disagree, that the reasons for the migration was because there was inadequate training and supervision. That, if there had been adequate training and supervision, if there had been adherence to doctrine, then the abuses would not have occurred. And that's what I see in the reports and what I see in the briefings."

"As to whether or not there was a permissive environment -- you and I spoke about this in our meeting. The findings in these eight reports universally were a great majority, overwhelming majority, of our detention operations have been conducted consistent with American values and consistent with our legal obligations. What we saw happen on that cell block in the night shift was limited to the night shift on that cell block, with respect to that first category: the more offensive, the intentional severe physical and sexual abuse, the subject of those pictures, and this isn't just Al Gonzales speaking, this is what, if you look at the Schlessinger (sp?) Report concludes, and so, what you see is that you have this kind of contact occurring at the night shift, but the day shift, they don't engage in that conduct, because they understand what the rules were. And so, I respectfully disagree with the characterization there was some sort of permissive environment. That's just not the case. The facts don't bear that out sir."

Senator Durbin:

"Let's go to specific questions. Can U.S. personnel, legally engage in torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstances?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Absolutely not. I mean, our policy is that we do not engage in torture."

Senator Durbin:

"Good. I'm glad you stated that for the record."

"Do you believe that there are circumstances where other legal restrictions, like the War Crimes Act, would not apply to U.S. personnel?"

Alberto Gonzales:

(7 second pause)

"Sir, I don't believe that that would be the case, but I would like the opportunity to, I don't, I want to be very candid with you, and obviously thorough in my response to that question. Uh. It is sort of a legal conclusion and I would like to have the opportunity to get back to you on that."

Senator Durbin:

"I'll give you that chance."