I've written a second letter that I'm sending now to all of the members on the judiciary committee. (Hopefully I'll have a better list by email of them soon...)

Here's a link to the first letter, in case you haven't sent that one yet.

Subject header: Protect Our Troops - Oppose Gonzales Nomination

Dear Senator,

I'm writing you to a second time to request that you vote against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General because I feel it is so vitally important.

We must protect the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act, and our diplomatic credibility throughout the rest of the free world. Now more than ever, with an unprecedented number of our armed forces and National Guard forces on active duty all over the world.

Send a message of strength and a clear signal that the abuses of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are being taken seriously, and that those days are over. Otherwise, you will send our troops, our country and the rest of the world in a very dangerous direction.

Sincerely,

Lisa Rein

All the senators on the
judiciary committee.

Senator Dick Durbin, (202) 224-2152,

http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Senator Patrick Leahy, (202) 224-4242, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553,

http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Senator Russ Feingold, (202) 224-5323, russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Senator Edward Kennedy, 202/224-4543, senator@kennedy.senate.gov

Senator Tom Harkin, (202) 224-3254, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov

Senator Jim Jeffords, (202) 224-5141, Vermont@jeffords.senate.gov

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
part one of two of these clips.

In this clip, Gonzales confirms that he believes that President Bush can take it upon himself to not to follow the Geneva Convention, the War Crimes Act, or any other law, if he feels it is unconstitutional, as long as he thinks about it a lot first.

Gonzales manages to reduce this very specific question about what's going now in the current world (re: Bush and Gonzales' advice that geneva conventions don't need to be followed) to a hypothetical about whether it's theoretically possible for "a president" to not adhere to a law if he felt it was unconstitutional. (Which of course it is.)

But this isn't about anything hypothetical at all. This is about some real legal advice that Gonzales gave to President Bush in August of 2002 while he was his legal counsel. We're talking about a specific, deliberate legal justification for why a specific, really important law, the Geneva Conventions, doesn't necessarily have to be adhered to, and under what specific scenario it might be legal to do so.

Then Gonzales either lies (if he is aware of the facts) or makes a mistake (if is is ill informed of the facts, which I highly doubt), when he states that the courts have decided both ways as to whether or not it is OK for a President to knowingly break a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Truman tried to do this fifty-two years ago, and the Supreme Court decided he was wrong in doing so. The Supreme Court has never sided with a president on this issue. So again -- Gonzales is either lying or misinformed. Neither is appropriate for a U.S. Attorney General. He needs to be both honest and well informed as to the legal status of such important questions.

Video of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part Two of Two)
(Small - 13 MB)

Audio of Gonzales Questioned By Dick Durbin (Part Two of Two)
(MP3 - 8 MB)

Senator Durbin:

"But you believe he has that authority. He could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this President or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, again, your asking me, hypothetically, does that authority exist? I guess I would have to say that, hypothetically, that authority may exist. But let me also just say that we certainly understand and recognize the role of the courts in our system of government. We have to deal with some very difficult issues here. Very, very complicated. Sometimes the answers are not so clear. The President's position on this is, ultimately the judges, courts, will make the decision as to whether or not we've drawn the right balance here. And, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have agreed with the Administrations position, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have disagreed, and we will respect those decisions."

Senator Durbin:

"Fifty-two years ago, a president named Harry Truman decided to test that premise. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co Et. Al vs. Sawyer in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, as you know, "President Truman, you're wrong. You don't have the authority to decide whats constitutional - what laws you like and don't like. I'm troubled that you would think, as our incoming Attorney General, that a president can pick and choose the laws that he thinks are constitutional, and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he's going to comply with the law."

Part Two

Senator Durbin:

"In your August memo, you created the possiblity that the President could invoke his authority as Commander In Chief to not only suspend the Geneva Convention, but the application of other laws. Do you stand by that position?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"I believe that I said in response to an earlier question that I do believe it is possible, theoretically possible, for the Congress to pass a law that could be viewed as unconstitutional by a President of the United States. And that's not just the position of this President. That's been the position of Presidents on both sides of the aisle. In my judgement, making that kind of conclusion is one that requires a great deal of care and consideration. But if you're asking me if it's theoretically possible that Congress could pass a statute that we view as unconstitutional. I'd have to conceed sir that that's theoretically possible."

Senator Durbin:

"Has this president ever invoked that authority as Commander In Chief or otherwise, to conclude that a law was unconstitutional and refuse to comply with it?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"I believe that I stated in my June briefing about these memos that the President has not exercised that authority."

Senator Durbin:

"But you believe he has that authority. He could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this President or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?"

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, again, your asking me, hypothetically, does that authority exist? I guess I would have to say that, hypothetically, that authority may exist. But let me also just say that we certainly understand and recognize the role of the courts in our system of government. We have to deal with some very difficult issues here. Very, very complicated. Sometimes the answers are not so clear. The President's position on this is, ultimately the judges, courts, will make the decision as to whether or not we've drawn the right balance here. And, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have agreed with the Administrations position, and, in certain circumstances, the courts have disagreed, and we will respect those decisions."

Senator Durbin:

"Fifty-two years ago, a president named Harry Truman decided to test that premise. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co Et. Al vs. Sawyer in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, as you know, "President Truman, you're wrong. You don't have the authority to decide whats constitutional - what laws you like and don't like. I'm troubled that you would think, as our incoming Attorney General, that a president can pick and choose the laws that he thinks are constitutional, and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he's going to comply with the law."

Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, you asked me whether or not it was theoretically possible that the congress could pass a law that we would view as unconstitutional. My response is that, obviously we would take that very, very seriously, look at that carefully, but I suppose that it is theoretically possible that that would happen."

"Let me just add one final point. We in the Executive Branch of course understand that there are limits upon Presidential Power, very very mindful of Justice O'Connors statement in the Hamdi decision that a state of war is "not a blank check" for the President of the United states with respect to the rights of American citizens. I understand that, and I agree with that."

Senator Durbin:

"Well let me say in conclusion - I'm glad to hear that. I'm troubled by the introduction. The "hypothetical" is one that you raised in the memo relative to torture. As to whether the President has the authority as Commander In Chief to ignore the Geneva Conventions or certain other laws. This is not something that comes from our side of the table of our own creation. It is your creation. The hypothetical you created."

"My concern is this; I do not believe that this government should become a symbol for a departure from time honored traditions where we have said that we will not engage in torture, directly or indirectly by rendition, which I hope to ask you about in the next round. That we will stand by the same standards of Geneva Conventions since World War II and, frankly, dating back to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War in terms of the treatment of prisoners. I am concerned that that round of memos that went through the Department of Justice, Mr. Baibi (sp?), into the Department of Defense, into Guantanamo, and then migrated somehow to interrogation techniques in Abu Ghraib has stained our world reputation. I want to win this war on terrorism, but I don't want to do it at the expense of our soldiers, who may some day become prisoners themselves. Thank you Mr. Gonzales."

This story is from January 8, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Tortured Answers
An Editorial By The St. Petersburg Times.

After seven hours of testimony and pointed questions, it seemed clear that he doesn't understand the difference at all. Gonzales' time before the Senate Judiciary Committee was spent refusing to answer direct questions, being evasive, conveniently losing his memory regarding key events, averting responsibility for controversial legal judgments that he had sought and supported, and generally failing to demonstrate any independence from the White House.

If confirmed as attorney general, which he no doubt will be, Gonzales will bear close watching. He may not be as ideologically driven as John Ashcroft, but his lapdog loyalty to the president offers little reason to believe he will disturb business as usual in this administration. That means the government will continue to hold foreign prisoners without due process, distort the reading of the Geneva Conventions, and justify the use of abusive (but ostensibly not torturous) interrogation methods - all actions that already have eroded this country's moral authority and put our own soldiers' safety at risk.

Both Republican and Democratic senators seemed frustrated at Gonzales' lack of candor and cooperation. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., bluntly told Gonzales: "We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet."

Citing faulty memory, Gonzales refused to lay out the events that led to the development of a 2002 Justice Department memorandum interpreting a federal statute barring torture. The memorandum was the centerpiece of the hearing. Reports are that it had been solicited by Gonzales after the CIA sought a legal analysis on whether their agents faced criminal liability for utilizing abusive interrogation techniques. The memorandum, which was repudiated by the administration on the eve of Gonzales' hearing, said that the president could approve of torture and override any law or treaty as part of his warmaking powers. It also defined torture very narrowly and said there could be a necessity defense for its use...

The Republican leadership in Congress, and particularly the judiciary committee chairmen, should recommit themselves to asserting oversight over the policy direction and operations of the Justice Department. Gonzales is someone who will need to be watched, not trusted.

Gonzales, like Ashcroft, seems willing to advance any position preferred by the White House - an impulse that has helped undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. This country deserves better in its chief law enforcement officer.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/08/Opinion/Tortured_answers.shtml

Tortured Answers
The St. Petersburg Times | Editorial

Saturday 08 January 2005

Alberto Gonzales' performance this week didn't inspire confidence that he might break from White House ideology as attorney general.

At his Senate confirmation hearing this week, Alberto Gonzales assured senators that he understood the difference between the role he has played as White House counsel and the one he would play as U.S. attorney general. "I will no longer represent only the White House," Gonzales said. "I will represent the United States of America and its people."

After seven hours of testimony and pointed questions, it seemed clear that he doesn't understand the difference at all. Gonzales' time before the Senate Judiciary Committee was spent refusing to answer direct questions, being evasive, conveniently losing his memory regarding key events, averting responsibility for controversial legal judgments that he had sought and supported, and generally failing to demonstrate any independence from the White House.

If confirmed as attorney general, which he no doubt will be, Gonzales will bear close watching. He may not be as ideologically driven as John Ashcroft, but his lapdog loyalty to the president offers little reason to believe he will disturb business as usual in this administration. That means the government will continue to hold foreign prisoners without due process, distort the reading of the Geneva Conventions, and justify the use of abusive (but ostensibly not torturous) interrogation methods - all actions that already have eroded this country's moral authority and put our own soldiers' safety at risk.

Both Republican and Democratic senators seemed frustrated at Gonzales' lack of candor and cooperation. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., bluntly told Gonzales: "We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet."

Citing faulty memory, Gonzales refused to lay out the events that led to the development of a 2002 Justice Department memorandum interpreting a federal statute barring torture. The memorandum was the centerpiece of the hearing. Reports are that it had been solicited by Gonzales after the CIA sought a legal analysis on whether their agents faced criminal liability for utilizing abusive interrogation techniques. The memorandum, which was repudiated by the administration on the eve of Gonzales' hearing, said that the president could approve of torture and override any law or treaty as part of his warmaking powers. It also defined torture very narrowly and said there could be a necessity defense for its use.

While Gonzales declared that he opposed the use of torture, he refused to say whether he thought the president would be bound by a law barring it.

To other important subjects such as how a department under his leadership would handle government openness, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the death penalty, Gonzales gave pat, noncommittal responses.

All in all it was not a reassuring performance by a man who knew he would be confirmed as long as he didn't say anything outrageous. So he chose not to say anything illuminating at all.

The only encouraging sign came when Gonzales promised that, if confirmed, he would be more accessible and accountable than his predecessor. During his four years in office, Ashcroft appeared before the judiciary committee only five times and frequently refused to answer senators' questions or letters. Gonzales should be held to that commitment.

The Republican leadership in Congress, and particularly the judiciary committee chairmen, should recommit themselves to asserting oversight over the policy direction and operations of the Justice Department. Gonzales is someone who will need to be watched, not trusted.

Gonzales, like Ashcroft, seems willing to advance any position preferred by the White House - an impulse that has helped undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. This country deserves better in its chief law enforcement officer.

This story is from January 7, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.

Mr. Gonzales's Testimony
A Washington Post Editorial.

The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world. Instead, the Bush administration will continue to issue public declarations such as those Mr. Gonzales repeated yesterday - "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration" - while in practice sanctioning procedures that the International Red Cross and many lawyers inside the government consider to be illegal and improper...

Alberto R. Gonzales missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so. He was invited to reject a 2002 ruling made under his direction that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Nor did he condemn torture techniques, such as simulated drowning, that were discussed and approved during meetings in his office. "It is not my job," he said, to decide if they were proper. He was prompted to reflect on whether departing from the Geneva Conventions had been a mistake, in light of the shocking human rights abuses that have since been reported in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantánamo Bay prison and that continue even now. Mr. Gonzales demurred. The error, he answered, was not of administration policy but of "a failure of training and oversight."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54854-2005Jan6.html

Mr. Gonzales's Testimony
The Washington Post | Editorial

Friday 07 January 2005

Alberto R. Gonzales missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so. He was invited to reject a 2002 ruling made under his direction that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Nor did he condemn torture techniques, such as simulated drowning, that were discussed and approved during meetings in his office. "It is not my job," he said, to decide if they were proper. He was prompted to reflect on whether departing from the Geneva Conventions had been a mistake, in light of the shocking human rights abuses that have since been reported in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantánamo Bay prison and that continue even now. Mr. Gonzales demurred. The error, he answered, was not of administration policy but of "a failure of training and oversight."

The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world. Instead, the Bush administration will continue to issue public declarations such as those Mr. Gonzales repeated yesterday - "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration" - while in practice sanctioning procedures that the International Red Cross and many lawyers inside the government consider to be illegal and improper.

Mr. Gonzales doesn't have the manner of a stonewaller; in his appearance yesterday he frequently demonstrated the modesty and good nature for which he is known. Senators from both parties rightly celebrated his rise from a childhood in poverty to high national office. The priorities he listed for himself as attorney general sounded like the right ones: "the protection of civil rights, the protection of our voting rights, the protection of our civil liberties." Mr. Gonzales said he is concerned about the spread of pornography and violent crime, as well as "the use of certain kinds of weapons in connection with those crimes." In significant respects, he probably would be a less ideological, less confrontational and less polarizing figure than the outgoing attorney general, John D. Ashcroft.

Yet Mr. Gonzales appeared willfully obtuse about the consequences of his most important judgments as White House counsel. He repeatedly misrepresented the war crimes that have occurred, suggesting they were limited to those shown in the photographs taken by the "night shift" at Abu Ghraib, when it is now documented that abuses occurred throughout Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo and that they continued even after the photos became public. He again derided and mischaracterized the Geneva Conventions, claiming that they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees" and prevent their prosecution for war crimes - an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war.

He was asked if he believed that other world leaders could legitimately torture U.S. citizens. He replied, "I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by." (The Geneva Conventions would be among them.) He was asked whether "U.S. personnel [can] legally engage in torture under any circumstances." He answered, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that." He was asked whether he agreed, at least, with Mr. Ashcroft, who said he didn't believe in torture because it produced nothing of value. "I don't have a way of reaching a conclusion on that," he said. Those senators who are able to reach clear conclusions about torture and whether the United States should engage in it have reason for grave reservations about Mr. Gonzales.

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."

This story is from January 7, 2005. I'm posting it to provide background for you to inspire you to write your senators about opposing the Gonzales confirmation for US Attorney General.


By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith for The Washington Post.

Attorney general nominee Alberto R. Gonzales strongly defended his tenure as White House counsel yesterday, including his conclusion that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged terrorists, and he suggested that the United States should consider renegotiating the international treaties to better wage its war on terrorism...

But under often tough questioning from Democrats and some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he could not recall key details of his involvement in the production of an August 2002 memo that narrowly defined the tactics that constitute torture. He also declined repeated invitations to repudiate a past administration assertion that the president has the authority to ignore anti-torture statutes on national security grounds...

Gonzales said he could not remember who had requested the legal guidance on permissible interrogation tactics - many officials have said it was the CIA - but he acknowledged under questioning that high-pressure interrogation techniques were discussed in White House meetings at which he was present. Others have said the tactics included mock burials and simulated drownings...

But many Democrats and at least one Republican argued that Gonzales had participated in formulating policy that laid the foundation for the abuse scandals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, which have generated global outrage. Gonzales declined to answer many questions and said he could not recall details in relation to many others, prompting complaints from some Democrats on the committee.

"We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Gonzales. "I love you, but you're not very candid so far."

Gonzales said "it is appropriate to revisit" the Geneva Conventions, which provide an international standard of conduct for handling detainees during military conflicts. Gonzales disclosed that White House officials, including some lawyers, had held "some very preliminary discussion" about the idea, but he said "it's not been a systematic project or effort."...

Four different senators tried to pin down Gonzales on the August 2002 memo's controversial assertion that a president had the power to authorize torture in unusual circumstances, but Gonzales deflected that, saying it was a "hypothetical question." A new memo issued by the Justice Department last month also avoided the question of presidential power.

At the same time, Gonzales did not rule out reaching such a conclusion in the future. "I would have to know what . . . is the national interest that the president may have to consider," he told Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54607-2005Jan6.html

Gonzales Defends His White House Record
By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith
The Washington Post

Friday 07 January 2005

Nominee questioned on detainee policies.

Attorney general nominee Alberto R. Gonzales strongly defended his tenure as White House counsel yesterday, including his conclusion that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged terrorists, and he suggested that the United States should consider renegotiating the international treaties to better wage its war on terrorism.

During a day-long hearing dominated by a debate over the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies, Gonzales pledged to pursue any allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that fall within the Justice Department's jurisdiction. He said he would honor the obligations of the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements on the treatment of detainees.

"Torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration," Gonzales said. "I will ensure the Department of Justice aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions."

But under often tough questioning from Democrats and some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he could not recall key details of his involvement in the production of an August 2002 memo that narrowly defined the tactics that constitute torture. He also declined repeated invitations to repudiate a past administration assertion that the president has the authority to ignore anti-torture statutes on national security grounds.

Gonzales testified that while he disagreed with portions of the Justice Department memo, he could not recall whether he conveyed those objections to other government lawyers at the time. He said he did not quarrel with its general findings.

Gonzales said he could not remember who had requested the legal guidance on permissible interrogation tactics - many officials have said it was the CIA - but he acknowledged under questioning that high-pressure interrogation techniques were discussed in White House meetings at which he was present. Others have said the tactics included mock burials and simulated drownings.

The memo - which was used to formulate permissive Defense Department rules on interrogations - was withdrawn by the Justice Department after it was revealed publicly in 2004 and has since been rewritten, reaching starkly different conclusions.

"There was discussion between the White House and the Department of Justice as well as other agencies about what does this statute mean," Gonzales said, referring to a 1994 anti-torture law. "I don't recall today whether I was in agreement with all the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the [Justice] department. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the department to tell us what the law means."

Republicans and many Democrats have said that they expect the GOP-controlled Senate to easily approve the appointment of Gonzales, 49, a longtime confidant of President Bush whose inspirational rise from poverty to Harvard Law School and the White House was cited by supporters yesterday.

His exchanges with senators touched on a wide variety of issues, from Gonzales's defense of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law, to his acknowledgment that the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion "is the law of the land." Several Democratic senators, who have had increasingly sour relations with Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, said they were hopeful that their relationship with Gonzales would be more productive.

But many Democrats and at least one Republican argued that Gonzales had participated in formulating policy that laid the foundation for the abuse scandals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, which have generated global outrage. Gonzales declined to answer many questions and said he could not recall details in relation to many others, prompting complaints from some Democrats on the committee.

"We're looking for you, when we ask you questions, to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Gonzales. "I love you, but you're not very candid so far."

Gonzales said "it is appropriate to revisit" the Geneva Conventions, which provide an international standard of conduct for handling detainees during military conflicts. Gonzales disclosed that White House officials, including some lawyers, had held "some very preliminary discussion" about the idea, but he said "it's not been a systematic project or effort."

Gonzales did not say what revisions are under consideration, but he said they would not affect provisions requiring "basic, decent treatment of human beings."

An August report by a panel of experts appointed by the Defense Department endorsed the idea of adapting the 1949 conventions "to the realities of the nature of conflict in the 21st century." It particularly urged the creation of a legal category for detainees from terrorist groups, who presumably would not be afforded the same protections as other detainees. The International Committee of the Red Cross immediately condemned the idea of changing the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who is a judge advocate in the Air Force Reserve, joined Democrats in criticizing some of the administration's conclusions on detention and interrogation policies. He said policymakers ignored the advice of seasoned military professionals.

"When you start looking at torture statutes and you look at ways around the spirit of the law . . . you're losing the moral high ground," Graham said. "Once you start down this road, it is very hard to come back. So I do believe we have lost our way, and my challenge to you as a leader of this nation is to help us find our way without giving up our obligation and right to fight our enemy."

Other Republicans on the committee strongly defended Gonzales, a counsel to then-Gov. George W. Bush and a former Texas Supreme Court judge, saying he was being unfairly used as a scapegoat by critics of the administration's anti-terrorism policies. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Gonzales's conclusion that al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not protected under the Geneva Conventions is supported by other legal opinions. Cornyn characterized the 2002 memo on torture as "a memo he [Gonzales] didn't write, interpreting a law he didn't draft." The memo was written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

"President Bush and Judge Gonzales have both unequivocally, clearly and repeatedly rejected the use of torture," Cornyn said. "But is there anyone here today who would fail to use every legal means to collect intelligence from terrorists in order to protect American lives? I certainly hope not."

Four different senators tried to pin down Gonzales on the August 2002 memo's controversial assertion that a president had the power to authorize torture in unusual circumstances, but Gonzales deflected that, saying it was a "hypothetical question." A new memo issued by the Justice Department last month also avoided the question of presidential power.

At the same time, Gonzales did not rule out reaching such a conclusion in the future. "I would have to know what . . . is the national interest that the president may have to consider," he told Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

Gonzales acknowledged under questioning from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that he took part in discussions about the legality of high-pressure interrogation techniques. But he said it was not his "job to decide which methods of obtaining information from terrorists would be most effective" or whether such methods are prohibited by a 1994 law barring torture.

"That would be a job for the Department of Justice, and I never . . . influenced or pressured the department to bless any of those techniques," he said.

Kennedy responded that "just as an attorney, as a human being, I would have thought that . . . if there were recommendations that were so blatantly and flagrantly over the line in terms of torture, that you would have recognized them."

In response to a question from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) about whether U.S. personnel could legally engage in torture under any circumstances, Gonzales said: "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that and make sure I don't provide a misleading answer."

Gonzales expressed skepticism about the reliability of documents obtained in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union indicating that as many as 26 FBI agents had reported seeing the mistreatment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison. He said that one FBI agent had asserted erroneously that a presidential order authorized aggressive interrogation techniques, and that "if something like that is wrong in these e-mails, there may be other facts that are wrong."

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

White House Won't Release Gonzales Papers
By Mark Sherman for the Associated Press.

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."...

"The road you traveled....all the way to the White House is a tribute to you and your family," Leahy said.

Nevertheless, the Vermont Democrat had harsh criticism for administration officials, including Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft.

"Senior officials in the Bush White House, the Ashcroft Justice Department, the Rumsfeld Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, our policies and international agreements on torture and treatment of prisoners," he said...

Senate Democrats say the White House has refused to give them all of the memos and documents they need to trace how that decision was made so they can review Gonzales' role and how it would affect him as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It appears that legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"Memos you solicited, endorsed, approved or acquiesced in undermined longstanding traditions in our military and weakened important protections for our own troops serving abroad by violating the military's golden rule: that we treat captured enemy forces as we would want our own prisoners of war to be treated," Kennedy's statement said.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4715334,00.html

White House Won't Release Gonzales Papers
By Mark Sherman
The Associated Press

Thursday 06 January 2006

Washington - 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."

"I hope things will be different if you are confirmed, Judge Gonzales," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the former Texas Supreme Court justice.

Gonzales, who served as President Bush's White House counsel, pledged to abide by treaties that ban torture of prisoners, if he is confirmed by the Senate as the first Hispanic attorney general, while saying the foremost duty of the Justice Department is to protect the nation from terror attacks.

He faced questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in Bush's 2002 decision that the president had the authority to bypass international anti-torture accords.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., portrayed Gonzales as a rags-to-riches success story, and said his committee would closely scrutinize his involvement in the crafting of a January 2002 memo he wrote on the treatment of enemy prisoners and his role in crafting presidential orders on detainee policy.

"You know there are going to be times when the attorney general of the United States has to enforce the law of the United States. He can't be worried about friends or colleagues at the White House. His duty is to all Americans," Leahy said as Gonzales watched impassively.

With Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, "I worry that our system of checks and balances may become short-circuited by too few checks on the executive branch," Leahy said.

Still, Leahy told the son of Mexican immigrants: "I want to make clear how inspiring your life story is."

"The road you traveled....all the way to the White House is a tribute to you and your family," Leahy said.

Nevertheless, the Vermont Democrat had harsh criticism for administration officials, including Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft.

"Senior officials in the Bush White House, the Ashcroft Justice Department, the Rumsfeld Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, our policies and international agreements on torture and treatment of prisoners," he said.

He said the hearing provides an "opportunity for some accountability for the meltdown on longstanding U.S. policy on torture."

"Harsh treatment is tantamount to torture," Leahy said.

Despite the contentious statements by Leahy and other committee Democrats, Gonzales' nomination was expected to be confirmed by the GOP-led Senate.

Senate Democrats say the White House has refused to give them all of the memos and documents they need to trace how that decision was made so they can review Gonzales' role and how it would affect him as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It appears that legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"Memos you solicited, endorsed, approved or acquiesced in undermined longstanding traditions in our military and weakened important protections for our own troops serving abroad by violating the military's golden rule: that we treat captured enemy forces as we would want our own prisoners of war to be treated," Kennedy's statement said.

David Leitch, the White House's deputy counsel, told ranking Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont in a letter released Thursday that the administration has already turned over all of the documents it plans to.

Gonzales faces criticism from Democrats concerning a January 2002 memo he wrote arguing that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

A month later, Bush signed an order declaring he had the authority to bypass the accords "in this or future conflicts." Bush's order also said the Geneva treaty's references to prisoners of war did not apply to al-Qaida or "unlawful combatants" from the Taliban.

Some Gonzales critics say that decision and his memo justifying it helped lead to the torture scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and prisoner abuses in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

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

Last June, the Justice Department withdrew its 2002 memos arguing that the president's wartime authority supersedes laws and treaties governing treatment of prisoners.

Gonzales has repudiated torture before. "The president has stated that this administration does not condone torture. If anyone engages in such conduct, he or she will be held accountable," Gonzales said in a White House online discussion on July 7.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Democratic criticism is partisan, and that it is settled law that Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. "Now, I hate to ruin a good story for the President's political opponents. But there is one important problem with this criticism: Judge Gonzales is right," Cornyn said in remarks prepared for his introduction of Gonzales.

John Yoo, who helped write the key memo at Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that critics said appeared to condone torture, said Gonzales and top Justice officials did not attempt to influence or interfere with the content, although they were briefed on drafts.

Even Democrats say they expect Gonzales to be confirmed. Republicans control a Senate split between 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent.

Please do this today! Every second counts on this one guys-lr

Learn more via Video, Audio, Transcripts and Analysis of the Confirmation Hearings.

I just realized today that we've found our first bi-partisan issue of this administration: opposing Gonzales as US Attorney General.

Republican and Democrats should be able to join together in opposition to Gonzales for many reasons.

(In case you're not familiar with this situation, Gonzales is the legal counsel that wrote the "torture memo" that declared that the geneva convention was "quaint" in the context of the war on terror. And basically said that torture was OK.)

It's just bad politics to place a man who openly condones torture and provides a legal justification for it as head of our Federal Justice system.

As a Republican, one should be concerned about how an extremist such as Gonzales places the entire Republican party in a bad light. Surely not all Republican's condone torture, but if the Republican-appointed Attorney General condones it, it sure looks like that way.

We have enough bad faith across nations without the man who wrote the infamous "Torture Memo" as head of our Justice Department. Plus, it sends a skewered message to the rest of the world that could put our troops at risk, by suggesting that the Geneva convention is somehow outdated.

Now, more than ever, with our troops spreading out all over the world, we need the Geneva convention to help protect them from being mistreated as POWs in other countries. (Let's not get into whether they should be fighting there or not. The point is they're there, and we need to protect them by keeping the Geneva convention in full force.)

I think that most Democrats would agree with the above reasoning as well.

Basically, anyone against torture and in favor of the Geneva Convention should be in agreement with this objective.

That means, for once, we might be all be on the same page.

Let's take advantage of this opportunity to work together to send a strong message to Congress opposing Gonzales as Attorney General.

With Gonzales on hold, there are a few days to get the word out to our Senators.

Here's a little letter that you can cut and paste and modify for your own letter.

Write as many letters to as many Senators as you can. (Time count: 6 minutes to email/fill out forms for everyone below.)

I'll be posting clips from the confirmation hearings over the course of the day to try to clarify some of the more complex issues.

In the subject header, write "Please Oppose Gonzales And Protect Our Troops."

Dear Senator,

I'm writing you to request that you vote against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General. I feel that placing a man with such questionable values as head of our Justice Department will send a very damaging message to the rest of the world and place our troops abroad in unnecessary danger.

We must protect the Geneva convention and our diplomatic credibility abroad by voting against Alberto Gonzales as US Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Lisa Rein

Here's a list of senators to start with. I'm trying to put together a list of particularly relevant senators, like the one's on the panel asking the questions.

Update 1/24/05 - send letters to these senators on the Judiciary committee.

I know that Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy are on it, because I saw them during the hearings, so I'm putting them at the top of the list.

Senator Dick Durbin, (202) 224-2152,
http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Senator Patrick Leahy, (202) 224-4242, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553,
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Senator Russ Feingold, (202) 224-5323, russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Senator Edward Kennedy, 202/224-4543, senator@kennedy.senate.gov

Senator Tom Harkin, (202) 224-3254, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov

Senator Jim Jeffords, (202) 224-5141, Vermont@jeffords.senate.gov

Alright, back in a bit with some clips and discussion from the hearings...

The senate put Gonzales' confirmation on hold last Wednesday. That means we have two more days to get the word out to our senators that we oppose his confirmation.

This article is just a little thing, so I've republished the whole thing below.

Democrats put hold on Gonzales vote
By the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General designate Alberto Gonzales will have to wait at least another week before getting a Senate committee vote on his nomination to be the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee decided Wednesday to ask for a one-week hold on Gonzales' nomination.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the committee should not vote on Gonzales yet because the nominee has not yet answered all of the Democrats' questions. Democrats have complained that Gonzales has been evasive with his answers to their questions about White House policies on the war on terror.

''If we are to meet our constitutional responsibility in the confirmation process, we must insist that Mr. Gonzales provide responsive answers to these fundamental questions,'' Kennedy said. ''He should not be listed on the agenda for a committee vote on his nomination until he does so.''

This is from the January 6, 2004 program of the Daily Show.

Hey Podcaster peeps, let me know that my feedburner feed is working out for ya.

Video of The Daily Show On The Gonzales Confirmation Hearings
(Small - 13 MB)

Audio of The Daily Show On The Gonzales Confirmation Hearings
(MP3 - 9 MB)