NationStates Jolt Archive

Gonzales, in his Senate hearings seemed to repudiate any belief in torture as a legitimate, legal tactic. This has been one of the thorniest issues around his confirmment hearings.

So - is he against torture?

Aparently. Or not. Or yes. Or... well, you make your own mind up (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/10732627.htm). Frankly, he's harder to get a firm position out of than John Kerry.

WASHINGTON - Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.

In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.

But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.
Gonzales, White House counsel and a close Bush adviser, described recent reports of prisoner abuse as "shocking and deeply troubling." But he refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful.

He warned that any public discussion about interrogation tactics would help al-Qaida terrorists by giving them "a road map" of what to expect when captured.

He also said the administration was conducting a comprehensive legal review of all practices and that the Justice Department, so far, had concluded that the tactics were lawful.

When the Senate ratified the treaty, it defined such treatment as violations of the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments. Because of that provision, Gonzales said, the Justice Department decided that the convention applies only to actions under U.S. jurisdiction, not "treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

He refused to be drawn into a discussion of tactics that might constitute torture. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked him about reports from FBI agents, recently released, that some detainees were bound hand and foot to lie in their own urine and feces for 18 to 24 hours.
"I found those e-mails to be shocking and deeply troubling," Gonzales responded. "I do not think it would be appropriate for me to address reports of interrogation practices discussed in the press and attempt to analyze whether such reported practices are lawful."



Near as I can tell his position is as follows:

Torture is bad, but cruel and inhumane treatment is OK - as long as you don't call it torture. And it's all good as long as it's not to Americans or on American soil. But you just have to take the governments word for everything, because questions are bad.

Oh yes, and he intends to be an attorney general who offers no public opinions on specifics of torture that he finds "shocking and deeply troubling" as to if they are in fact legal. Seems that that would not be appropriate.


Excuse me - but who the hell else WOULD it be appropriate for if not the guy who actually directs the law of the land?


So, what do people think? Is he pro-torture? Or not?

So - is he against torture?


Since this is a legal question, one should consult the various treaties in question, and ask the question, "what is the definition of torture?" and then ask who it applies to.

Strictly speaking, one could easily read a lot of these treaties with an eye to excluding many groups of people, and then defining torture where it is not defined.

Who in their right mind would believe a word that anyone in government, much less a george bush government appointee, says on record or especially during their confirmation hearing?

Since this is a legal question, one should consult the various treaties in question, and ask the question, "what is the definition of torture?" and then ask who it applies to.

Strictly speaking, one could easily read a lot of these treaties with an eye to excluding many groups of people, and then defining torture where it is not defined.

And given that, as attorney general, that would be his job - why does he refuse to do so for the Senate?

Who in their right mind would believe a word that anyone in government, much less a george bush government appointee, says on record or especially during their confirmation hearing?

As Antony said - "So are they all, all honourable men,"...

Gonzales, in his Senate hearings seemed to repudiate any belief in torture as a legitimate, legal tactic. This has been one of the thorniest issues around his confirmment hearings.

So, what do people think? Is he pro-torture? Or not?

No.

And given that, as attorney general, that would be his job - why does he refuse to do so for the Senate?

I don't recall that they asked him to define torture during the hearings. He just said he was against it.

Sounds like the gruff grandfather who comes back from church on Sunday.

His neighbor asks, "What did the preacher talk about today?"

"Sin"

Put off by the brief answer, he asks, "What did he say about it?"

"He was against it."

I would bet that torture has a lengthy, legalistic definition that spans tens of pages. I would bet that most people wouldn't understand it if it was read to them.

So, imagine how policy is interpreted in some dark cell in the wide wide world of sports. I am betting that sections of the policy are deliberately vague, and that most Senators and Congressmen are too stupid to be able to spot all the holes.

Even if you and I sat down and were very careful, there would still be holes.

I don't recall that they asked him to define torture during the hearings. He just said he was against it.


Actually, he was asked specifically about certain cases whether he felt they were legal or not. He declined to answer.

Surely the Senate should be allowed to know his opinion on such cases as an indicator of the policy directions he might follow in office?

Besides, his definition of torture was already determined in a memo from his office in 2002 that presented an opinion which narrowly defined torture as pain that led to organ failure or death.

you know, you can do a lot to people without killing them or attacking their vital organs. Technically speaking, hacking an arm off slowly with a chainsaw wouldn't meet that criteria as long as you controlled the blood loss.

He would have had to answer in legalese in order to remain correct.

I remember the Bork hearings. The questions were simplistic (as were the questions posed to Gonzales). Bork made Kennedy look like a law school dropout inside of 30 seconds. Although Bork's answers were technically masterful, they were not perceived as friendly - getting lectured by a strict constitutionalist and having him hand you your ass wrapped in a shroud on national TV isn't taken too well by the average American viewer.

So, would you have been happier had Gonzales proceeded into a 60 minute lecture and disparaging dissection of each question - an answer that would have been not only impossible for the average American to understand, but also sound condescending in the extreme to the Senator who posed the question - and possibly make them look like moral simpletons?

Gonzales seems to be a friendlier man than Bork. But given the past performance of Senators in hearings such as these, it would be extremely tempted for a person of considerable expertise and intelligence to put down the mask of politeness and grind the Senator to a crispy pulp.

The answer might be indecipherable - it may justify torture of certain kinds under certain conditions - it may loosely define torture in such a way as to make the answer sound really nice - and it still might sound so hostile in tone as to make the viewer think that Gonzales, no matter how right or wrong his beliefs, is an asshole.

Better to keep your mouth shut then. If I had been him, I would have anticipated these questions, and I would have written 500 page briefs on the subject - in legalese so dense that no one could have generated a single sound bite from them. I would have handed them out at the start of questioning, and would have said politely, "I believe that within these 20 documents, you will find the answers to the majority of your questions concerning torture. Generally speaking, I am against torture, but you will find within these documents, a more precise rendering of the scenarios that we have encountered in the past, and may well hypothetically encounter in the future."

They would have been buried in 10,000 pages of BS, and had no ability to sound bite me. My answers would have been clean, short, and friendly, and to any hypothetical torture situation, I would have referred them to the document.

Actually, the question was pretty simple: Was this example action by some of our guys legal? Or was it illegal?

The required answer was a single word, "yes", or "no". (or - if you prefer, "legal", or "illegal")

The response received instead was: I'm not going to tell you, and I don't think you should even ask or you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Where have you got to when your prospective Attorney General thinks that the elected representatives of the people have no business asking him for his legal opinion?

Actually, the question was pretty simple: Was this example action by some of our guys legal? Or was it illegal?

The required answer was a single word, "yes", or "no". (or - if you prefer, "legal", or "illegal")

The response received instead was: I'm not going to tell you, and I don't think you should even ask or you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I wouldn't have answered the way he did. But I would have said that the scenario described is too simple to be covered with a simple yes or no answer. Other conditions must exist that may well have bearing on the legality of torture and its definition under international treaty and military regulation. We may start, of course, with an examination of the definition of torture...

I would have burned up at least 8 hours just on that subject, and droned on and on. If pressed for a simple yes or no, I would say that each situation must be examined in detail and in accordance with legal precedence. One cannot say that all situations are exactly the same, for one finds a plethora of other conditions that must apply concurrently in order for something to qualify as torture.

As an example, we might ask if playing a videotape of Barney at a normal volume and making the screen and sound constantly visible and audible during all waking hours is torture. Is it? Are there other factors at work here? Is there actual measureable harm? What proof do we have that the prisoner is actually harmed in any way by this?

(as a matter of note, playing Barney continuously during all daylight hours was standard practice for a while at Guantanamo, and apparently had some effect - you can't watch the same episode of Barney 500 times and not want it to stop).

But is it torture? Is outright deception torture? Is any questioning at all torture (I don't like being treated like a prisoner and being asked questions by my captors - I find that psychologically stressful and I can't handle it).

And after the first 8 hours of what is torture, I would spend another 8 hours drawing the line.

But he DID answer as he did.

He stated that it was inapropriate for him to give an opinion, and also that it was inappropriate that the Senators actually wanted to question the policies of the government.

That, seemingly, is his position on how things should work. "Don't ask, and I won't tell."


Is that in the spirit of an open government "of the people" that the US is supposed to be if even their elected representatives are beign discouraged from discussing policy?

No, there should be open discussion. But it should always be at the highest, most erudite, and seriously debated level.

Bork tried to raise hearings to that level, but the Senators in question were intellectually incapable of answering or questioning in kind. And no nominee since has been of his intellectual capacity.

I believe that if both sides were truly interested in actual, relevant answers, both sides would offer forth men and women of not only character, but illuminating intelligence.

It seems rather dark out there. No one is offering candidates or Senators any brighter than the jocks and cheerleaders who ran for student president in high school.

So, you are defending Gonzales for refusing to respond based simply on the premise that the Senate is too stupid to understand the law? Despite a great number of senators themselves being lawyers?


And what, pray tell, had Gonzales done thus far to convince you of his own "illuminating intelligence" that makes him both fit for the job of Attorney General and superior in mind to the people whos questions he is supposed to be answering?

So, you are defending Gonzales for refusing to respond based simply on the premise that the Senate is too stupid to understand the law? Despite a great number of senators themselves being lawyers?

And what, pray tell, had Gonzales done thus far to convince you of his own "illuminating intelligence" that makes him both fit for the job of Attorney General and superior in mind to the people whos questions he is supposed to be answering?

No, they both seem to be stupid. I find Gonzales less than stellar (but sharper than most Senators). His answers were stupid. It would have been better after all to do the Bork thing, but then, not everyone is that intelligent.

I have a tape of Ted Kennedy's schoolboy asskicking that I play to this day. Intensely memorable stuff.

No, they both seem to be stupid. I find Gonzales less than stellar (but sharper than most Senators). His answers were stupid. It would have been better after all to do the Bork thing, but then, not everyone is that intelligent.

I have a tape of Ted Kennedy's schoolboy asskicking that I play to this day. Intensely memorable stuff.

Yeah, but Teddy was probably too drunk to remember it.