DUMB QUESTION: why more vocal outrage over Gonzales firings than torture memos?

[yurbud]

The torture memos set an administration policy of violating the Geneva Convention. It came up during his confirmation for attorney general, but didn't bother enough senators to keep him from being confirmed.

I'm glad he's getting the heat for this firing thing, but the other seems an order of magnitude greater.

Is it just that we are farther from 9/11 and pols know public opinion has turned on Bush?

[Virginia Dare]

1. I don't think it's a dumb question, I thought the same thing..

I guess it's just another example of the bizarro world we're living in right now.

[mmonk]

2. Because there is the belief we really aren't torturing anyone

or if we do, they are sure fire terrorists who are about to kill every American.

[yurbud]

14. that was after Abu Ghraib photos came out and similar info Bhagram and Gitmo

[helderheid]

28. Especially the last part of what you said.

[Greeby]

3. The nay vote on Gonzales was 36, IIRC nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. In my view it is easier to undersatnd for a dumb down nation

also less than 1% of our people serve, they are the ones who get it. They are also the ones directly affected

[yurbud]

15. I have a theory that to most Americans foreign countries aren't real

Things that happen here are most real, fictional TV shows and movies are less real, and things that happen in other countries are like alien abduction stories--it might have happened, but you doubt it and don't care anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I agree with you

but hte US has always been ratheri isolationst and inward looking... why she makes a LOUSY empire

[yurbud]

37. Europe seemed like Middle Earth or Narnia to me until I went there.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I don't think that's a dumb question

I've wondered about that, too.

The torture memoes should have been used to keep him out of the AG's office in the first place. The documents can and should be used to bring Gonzales before an international tribunal chanrged with crimes againsst humanity.

I don't have a good answer to your question.

[yurbud]

16. I couldn't believe ANY Democrats voted to confirm an admitted war criminal

[blm]

6. It was a huge issue to those who were vocal about it.....

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales--President Bush's selection for Attorney General of the United States. I will oppose this nomination for several reasons. Judge Gonzales's deep involvement in formulating the administration's detention and interrogation policies and his refusal to candidly answer questions about these matters concern me.

As White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales played a pivotal role in shaping the administration's policies on the detention and interrogation of enemy prisoners. In 2002 Judge Gonzales advised the President that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to terror suspects, and described some of the treaty's provisions as ``quaint.'' This dismissive approach to our international commitments laid the basis for President Bush's decision to treat terror suspects as ``unlawful enemy combatants.'' In casting aside the Conventions, Judge Gonzales opened a Pandora's Box that brought the country and American troops less security.

Separately, the Department of Justice circulated a memo it had written-- at Judge Gonzales's request--that provided an extremely narrow definition of torture. The memo was widely condemned and contrary to the plain language of the U.S. anti-torture statute and all legal precedents. When asked about this memo at his confirmation hearing, Gonzales said he did not recall, ``whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis.''

Do these revelations necessarily mean that Judge Gonzales is directly responsible for the prisoner abuse scandal that has damaged our national security and tarnished our Nation? Of course not. But his actions--at the very least--helped to create the environment in which the Abu Ghraib scandal took place. The result is less certain intelligence and more danger for American forces around the world.

I was struck during the hearings on Judge Gonzales's nomination when Senator Leahy asked if leaders of foreign governments could torture U.S. citizens if they thought it necessary to protect their own national security. Judge Gonzales replied: Senator, I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by. And I think it would--I'm not in a position to answer that question.

I wrote to Judge Gonzales asking him to clarify his answer. He responded, in fact that: international law forbids the use of torture. All parties to the Convention Against Torture have committed not to engage in torture and to ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under their criminal law. But it does not address the heart of the issue. Judge Gonzales interpreted U.S. and international law to suggest that U.S. citizens could conduct torture when the President of the United States gave them authority to do so. In doing so, he undermined the legitimacy of the very international norms he asserts would protect U.S. citizens. His assertions collapse under the weight of their own flawed logic.

This is not simply my judgment alone, but the judgment of some of America's most distinguished, retired military officers--including General John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Hoar, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, and Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, the former deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. In an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they wrote:

During his tenure as White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. Today it is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.

Judge Gonzales's interpretation of our commitments under U.S. and international law has been widely condemned in the United States and abroad, including by members of the State and Defense Departments. He is not an appropriate selection for the Attorney General of the United States.

Judge Gonzales's confirmation process presented him with an opportunity to reassure the country that as Attorney General he would uphold and enforce the laws that prohibit torture. Instead he offered evasive and overly legalistic answers. Judge Gonzales's refusal to answer questions about administration policy--either in oral testimony or in written responses to questions--raises doubts about his commitment to the rule of law.

His lack of candor before the Judiciary Committee leaves many outstanding questions about his role in determining administration policy. One can only conclude that either he lacks a fundamental understanding of U.S. and international law, which I believe to be untrue, or he is dismissive of its applicability as it relates to the President.

We have seen this approach taken by this administration before. They do not consult, they do not confer, they do not exercise good judgment and that is the end of the story. The rest of us are left to deal with the consequences. The policies Judge Gonzales favored have tarred the image of America in the world--not made us safer. They have placed our troops at even greater risk--not protected them. The choices he made as White House Counsel showed unacceptable judgment.

[yurbud]

17. it didn't reach the critical mass that this lawyer issue has though

I remember the questioning and some good issues were brought up, but like a lot of things in the first six years of Bush, it just kind of fell to the floor with a thud, and he got the rubber stamp.

[blm]

31. That's the corpmedia, yurbud. It took a category 5 HURRICANE, fer chrissakes, to blow back the

years of category 5 spin the corpmedia was providing for BushInc all these years.

The corpmedia is STILL downplaying many of the Bush scandals - even the Plame outing that should have resulted in Cheney's resignation after the verdict came in.

Until Dems in Congress TACKLE the corporate media problem, NO ISSUE will get fair and honest coverage from that media.

[yurbud]

32. corporate media is one of biggest reasons to impeach. they might choose to ignore investigations

otherwise, but with the impeachment label, it would be too obvious they are ignoring real news.

[me b zola]

23. "...to those who were vocal about it..."

I think that is the nut of it. One of the clearest differences that we have seen between the two cases is the absolute and quick outrage over the federal prosecutor scandel by Dems in leadership positions . For the torture issue, the Dem leadership did a bit of hemming & hawing around the seriousness of the issue, always careful to not appear to be "soft on terrorism" or national security.

I began thinking about this last night while listening to KO talk about the current scandel. KO mentioned that one of the fired prosecutors had jurisdiction in Little Rock AK, the same office that Rove wanted to install his sock puppet. I began thinking last night that the difference in the outrage meter may have something to do with the Dem leadership protecting the wife of the founder of the leadership coup within the Democratic Party.

I, like other posters agree that the federal prosecutor scandel is serious and should lead to the ousting of Gonzo and the impeachment of *. I am, though, cynical as to why the some Dems can find their spines on this issue and not other issues that are just--if not more--serious in their nature.

[blm]

24. Look at Abu Ghraib - shouldn't ALL the Dems have joined Kerry's call for Rumsfeld to go

then in 2003 and agains when Kerry was the nominee calling for Rummy to go in 2004?

Why were so many bigname and influential Dem voices refusing to back him up on that when the evidence was PLAIN that Rumsfeld needed replacing?

Now some of those Dems want to claim that they should be president for their leadership - even though they have yet to show any leadership on any serious issues of the last 6 years.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. I HOPE this is getting more attention just because we might have him on something

he can't explain away.

Of course the torture thing is worse, but people seem to get caught up in what's legal instead of what's right.

Example: When Bush was pushing for the Iraq war, there was a debate about whether he had the legal right to send the troops without an okay from Congress or the UN. My sister (who's definitely a left-wing Dem) still said, "Well, I heard this guy saying he does have the authority..." -- getting sidetracked from the main issue of why is this fucker telling lies to get us into a war.

M$M keeps everyone's head spinning all the time.

[yurbud]

21. the evidence here is identical: emails, memos, etc. but offense has less consequence than torture

memos

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Yes, but in the case of the torture memos, is there a clear and undisputed violation of the law?

It damned well should go without saying that we're against torture in this country, but that isn't really the case. Alan Dershowitz, for instance, has argued for torture warrants (implying that sometimes it's okay).

So my point was that while there's plenty of evidence that Gonzo approved the use of torture, there may or may not be evidence that he broke the law by doing so. (And if it goes to SCOTUS, who knows how they'll rule?)

I certainly wasn't defending the piece of crap or his memos.

[yurbud]

30. it is against US law, international law, treaties, and Army regulations.

I don't have all my docs with me at the moment, but each is clear enough that you can tell torquemada Gonzo went way beyond it.

The army has the simplest standard:

Don't do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want done to our troops.

Christians used to call that the Golden Rule. I think their new Golden Rule is silence is golden--the silence of the grave.

[BuyingThyme]

8. It's hard to figure, but it might have something to do with the fact that

there are a bunch of criminals (Puke Congressmen) who want Gonzolaws to step down, thus perhaps shutting down further investigations.

[Virginia Dare]

9. Yes, he's committed the most grievous infraction in their view..

he got caught. It's all about CYA now.

[yurbud]

20. that makes sense actually. Then he can't be compelled to come testify from the Uraguay compound

[wellstone dem]

10. Simple, the dems have some power

no one would dare leak adverse info if the repubs had all the power.

[MADem]

11. It isn't a stupid question, but they are areas for equal outrage

One has to do with our position on the world stage; and the other has to do with our access to the remedy of the justice system, and the fairness (or lack thereof) of the entire US ATTY appointment methodology that we pay for with our tax dollars. Those bastards may be appointed by the Monkey, but WE pay their goddamn salaries. If BushCo can fuck with them, he can fuck with us. We can be hauled up on charges for the crime of being a registered Democrat.

If we don't have access to justice in our own country, we're fucked, and what happens around the world doesn't matter because we can't influence those events.

Charity, and justice, begin at home.

[yurbud]

19. torture, rape, murder, including of children versus ?

[MADem]

22. Liberty, and with that the ability to DO ANYTHING about those other matters.

[cassiepriam]

12. we care more about fancy repug lawyers getting fired then innocent Iraqi

men, women and children being tortured.

As far as I am concerned, it is karma time for the repug attorneys.
They helped Bush establish a dictatorship. Now they can taste
first hand how brutal a dictatorship it is.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Simple, there was an election in Nov. 2006. The torture stuff came out during the previous Congress,

so no body said a word. The firing of the USAs is 'new' and hot. They'll get back to those other miscarriages of justice only if Bush&co. stop making new ones!

[yurbud]

18. see the vote posted above. At the very least, every Dem should have voted against him

and someone should have filibustered an admitted war criminal.

[blm]

25. You didn't hear many Dems making it an issue in 2003 and 2004, either. Recall

that kerry called for Rumsfeld to be fired THREE times, the first after Abu Ghraib, and few Democrats would give him backup, even after he became the nominee.

Face it - there are some establishment Dems who will always side with power.

[merh]

27. Because until someone with the Military or the CIA comes forward

and says "POTUS & VPOTUS gave Rummy the order that we were to torture suspected terrorists or enemy combatants and I saw the Order or heard them give the Order or Rummy told me they so ordered", there is no way to prove the torture was not as this admin and the insane righties portray it "renigade troops gone wild not ordered by this admin"

The USAttorneys, all of whom are republicans, have come forward to give testimony. They are speaking out against the admin.

[yurbud]

34. there was a signed memo from Rummy with a list of approved tortures posted at Abu Ghraib

[TheConstantGardener]

29. Why more outrage on Scooter Libby than WAR CRIMES?

This is how the political class operates in this country. It's barbaric, sure.

[yurbud]

33. Scooter Libby is a war crime albeit a self-inflicted one

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. More chance of something coming of it?

Compare the relative chances of someone being convicted of a criminal offence as a result of the torture memos and as a result of the firings.

People naturally get more excited when it looks as though there's a chance that doing so might achieve something.