I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
...and how do they go about doing that?
Good points. People ought to go back and look at the tapes of how the Republicans conducted themselves in House committees in 1992-1993, just before they swept to power in the 1994 mid-term elections. They were totally obstructionist.
It's the torture, stupid.
Use the Gonzales hearing for a full public airing of Abu Ghraib (and Gitmo, and the other secret prison camps the CIA is running all over the world). We need to get the full story out.
I agree. Bush could do much worse than Gonzalez. It's actually a shame he's going to head Justice, because I would have preferred him on the Supreme Court. He's probably as moderate as you are going to get from this administration.
Downtown Lad (Gay Conservative)
As long as the Dems expose him, call him to account for his disrespect for the rule of law, hold him and his clients accountable for creating a situation that encouraged torture, and then actually vote , all 44 of them, against him, I agree that a filibuster would probably have a net negative effect. I don't want the Dems, however, to go along in anyway with the nomination, because if they do it will come back to haunt them.
Sounds like it's not going to matter what Democrats do in response to this.
very inappropriate, like a kick and smirk in the nuts. cheeky bastard that bush is. on the other hand if it were me, i'd want a boy like albert watching my flanks.
like i've been saying, i see the situation as getting bad or worse. and all the early indicators are pointing to worse.
I heard on NPR that Gonzales confirmation hearing would likely bring to light all 88 of the memos he wrote, most of which Congress has not been allowed to see.
If that's the case, then this is a good thing.
Doesn't look like they are even going to try. Doesn't look like they even understand how bad this is going to look to the rest of the world that the AG wrote the torture memo.
I have never felt so leaderless.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like right wing Christian jihad is going to bring him down for being too pro-choice. We should say our piece and then sit back and let them have at it. Save our energy for the next round.
Sounds like it's not going to matter what Democrats do in response to this.
Probably not. Best to use the platform to shame and embarrass him over his support of clandestine torture.
Have to disagree profoundly, Atrios. Torture is not a "process" story. Gonzales advised the commander-in-chief in his professional capacity to disregard the Geneva conventions. I've got the memo on my desktop.
If someone in the Democratic Party doesn't block this nomination, they may as well fold up the tent.
I'm dead fucking serious.
yep,
exactly,
if they filibsuter him they may just bring up an even worse nominee that they will not be as able to stop cause they already wasted their capital.
But who do we have in teh senate with the balls to make this guy look like the piece of shit he really is?
just got done watching teh HBO "letters" show, even mor epissed off than I already was...
Bush sent all those people to die.
what a waste.
I am an atheist, but I almost wish he was right about his religion, cause if he is, he will surely burn in hell.
Wait until Gonzales is appointed to the Sumpreme Court and then filibuster the crap out of the Republicans.
It will happen.
If someone in the Democratic Party doesn't block this nomination, they may as well fold up the tent.
Hatch will just change the rules. Watch. They'll use the nuclear option.
The Rude Pundit has this to say about Gonzales:
Now, with Alberto Gonzales, a man for whom innocence is an irrelevant fact in death penalty cases, the right is praising his fealty to George Bush. And Bush his fealty to Gonzales, who once got the then-Governor out of Texas jury duty on a drunk driving case in order to avoid revealing Bush's own drunk driving record. How about this - instead of a nice, orderly Congressional hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the good Senators get to strip Gonzales nude, put a hood on his head, force him to masturbate, and then attach electrodes to his flaccid genitals and put a leash and collar on his neck. Then, with Patrick Leahy on the switch, let the questioning commence.
Sounds fair.
I tend to agree fillibustering is the wrong idea. The point should be to get the truth out there. As much of it as possible. You can't really do that with a fillibuster. We need to simply state what we are for and against, harshly criticize both Gonzales and Bush even tolerating a torturer (by aiding it, according to the MPC, he is just as guilty as the torturers), vote on party lines, and let the Right eat their own as they are wont to do.
any nominee is going to suck. do you really think he's any worse than ashcroft? i don't, and they didn't fillibuster him.
not that the senate democrats care what any of us think, but they should save their ammo if/when he's nominated for a lifetime position.
...crap!
I just sent a note to my representative and senators to deny confirmation. Now I gotta tell 'em to nail him during hearings?!
...politikin' is hard.
Hammer him on the Plame outing and the execution of minors and retarded people.
What does he know about the Plame?outing Has he discussed it with Bush? Will he interfere with the ongoing investigation? Can he take it back to the DOJ now that Ashcroft is gone? Ashcroft passed on it because of conflicts. Now that he is gone what's up?
How does he feel when children are executed? What does Jesus say about executing people that are innocent or retarded?
Just picked up my first bottle of Stoli--citrus flavored. Guy behind the counter likes me and only rang it up as $6.66 instead of $19.99.
he he
Gonzalez is NOT the worst nominee
they can come up with?
I doubt it, but even so -- the Dems
should be fillibustering everything
the Republicans do.
That's what they'd do to us.
Frankly, at this point, four years
of paralysis is not a bad option, given
the alternative.
Total war. Scorched Earth. And who
gives a fuck what the media says.
Of course, I could be wrong....
YIKES! $6.99!
Abu Graib Abu Graib Abu Graib
The Dems should use every minute alotted to them to nail this guy on how his weasling out of the Geneva Convention led to the torture at Abu Graib. Then they should just get up and walk out. Perhaps register a single nay vote for procedural purposes, then have a press conferance on the Capitol steps. This guy is a clear threat to our national security.
I can see it now:
Dems oppose the Hispanic nominee!
Sure bet that the gelding media will allow the RNC to vomit that into the discourse.
According to AMERICABLOG.org, the Fundies don't like Gonzo either, because he isn't anti-choice enough.
Or is that 'isn't pro-zygote' enough.
Whatever
There must be a way to use this to our advantage. If all we can do is use it to peel back the Abu Ghraib memos, then we should do that.
If we can do more -- if we can peel off the one-page summaries he wrote for pre-execution briefings when he was Bush's Texas counsel, even better.
The thing is, this "culture of life" thing ... well, I mean, once you get beyond the cult of the fetus ... it's a sham.
Now, I believe that there are cases where the death penalty is appropriate as a deterrent simply because you deter, permanently, that offender from recidivism. I don't honestly think that the death penalty as it is currently administered is either wholly just or much of a deterrent to anybody other than the one offender in question.
It's kinda the way you have to put down rabid animals so the disease stops with that case.
Someday maybe we'll have better technology and knowledge, and then we'll have alternatives. For now, not.
But if Atrios' post below doesn't prove to you that it's a sham, if Abu Gonzales' record doesn't prove it ...
how do we get through to the people who don't want to know the truth?
Atrios, ol' pal: Don't you think you're giving a little too much credit to the feckless, compliant, wishy-washy (when they're not being traitorously collaborationist) Dumbocraps in Congress and elsewhere? They haven't stood up--or even stood--for any principle in at least the last 20 years, to my certain knowledge...
Filibustering him isn't going to work.
But there's nothing to stop them from filleting him slowly in a public hearing. Use it to put the light on Abu Ghraib. Rake him over the coals and chimpy with him.
Make him fucking sorry he ever stepped foot in Washington.
And I don't want to see one single fucking vote for him. Not one.
Incognito, my baby ~ you're drinking devil's vodka! $ 6.66 is not the price you want to pay for Stoli! Hecate, help cure him, now!
I wish konopelli wasn't right. But it's true. We all wish our mouthpieces in the Senate weren't so feckless, but they are. I think it's sad that the only people mentioning torture are the talking heads on tv and radio, NOT OUR SENATORS. Yeah, Leahy said that the GOP could probably confirm Atilla the Hun, which was a nice shot across the bow, but then he softened by saying that he was glad they didn't. Senators talk too much. Learn to shut up at the right moments. That would be point #7 to my post on another thread.
SHOW. THE. PICTURES.
He must be questioned and then blocked from office.But how do you question a Chupacabra?Its never been done.
Yes, asking pointed questions and waving his own insidious writings in his face would be good.
But seriously, somebody just needs to "render quaint the protections of the Geneva Conventions." And they need to do it all over his wretched fascist ass.
That, or lock him in a room with Lynne Cheney for 72 hours. That shrieking bloodless harpy would destroy anyone's mind after so much prolonged contact.
Look, I've been getting a lot of emails about the coming revolution and things. Seems to be a lot of interest in it. So I will be starting my own website and blog in the next month and all. On it we will be discussing the pros and cons of different assault weapons and guerilla techniques and other such matters. Oh, and I will be starting my own mailing list to keep the people informed.
Stat tuned....
Have to disagree profoundly, Atrios. Torture is not a "process" story.
I'm dead fucking serious. // On the Clock // 11.11.04 - 10:18 pm
Agreed, but that wasn't his point. The point was that the TV pinheads would focus on the "process" of obstruction, as opposed to focusing on the actual reasons for the obstruction... because that would, like, you know, require asking uncomfortable questions and stuff.
"if they filibsuter him they may just bring up an even worse nominee that they will not be as able to stop cause they already wasted their capital."
What does this even mean? When our Senators and Representatives arrive on Capital Hill are they handed a little baggie labeled "Political Capital" and told not to spend it all in one place? Why do people repeat meaningless shit that they read somewhere. Our "political capital" is boundless! We need to spend it continuously and endlessly, or, if you prefer, liberally. We need to fight the GOP every time they are wrong, which just happens to be most of the time. If "Democratic capital" is not heaped high over Gonzalez's worthless ass, then our representatives in DC our officially of no use to us. This ought to be one of the easiest fights to win that they are going to face. It's necessary, and by God, it's the right thing to do.
Wait, do we have any high profile Senators with a serious, thoughtful demeanor and a record as a tough investigator?
Cuz someone like that would be perfect.
The repukes want war, they got it now.
Ooops, forgot to sign.
Incognito ~
I really hope it doesn't come down to weapons...
Rake him over the coals and chimpy with him.
Alberto Gonzales, slow-roasted. Thank god I can stream video on my office computer. Cuz I'll be putting my feet up and watchin' that.
I'd like to think that Democrats are smart enough to be planning this. Or at least smart enough to read blogs.
Joe,
John F. Kerry.
fot, good point. what the hell is this political capital bullshit? No one thinks we have any, so it doesn't cost us anything to fight.
so atrios.
Has the DNC contacted you yet about running things?
You want I should write them a letter?
Pie is right.
Show. The. Film.
I heard on NPR that Gonzales confirmation hearing would likely bring to light all 88 of the memos he wrote, most of which Congress has not been allowed to see.
If that's the case, then this is a good thing.
Congress seems to be in the dark. A big light shining on stuff would be good.
this is a hearing that should be strung out as long as possible. Every question should be asked by every senator time and again. Every second of alloted time should be used to ask and repeat each question.
The democrats only have the chance for a death by a thousand cuts both to derail this nomination (unlikely) and more importantly to turn this country around,
The republican mafia will smash any direct attempt to kill nominations by fillibuster but they cannot stop due diligence except by the most obvious and patently currupt means.
Let us use this to shine a light on what is obviously the administration's policy of torture. In the process, let's see if we can get Hegel and McCain and any other (rightly) furious Republican to step up against this bullshit and further drive a wedge into the Right's crumbling facade.
the dems have the duty to hand the rethugs as much shit as possible forever and then some...do any of ou remember the shit storm over the blow job that stopped the world...fuck these dipwads...filibuster...phoney fire drills anything legal that upsets the bastards for the next four years...its only fair that we follow the path so ably put forth by newt and the cat killer and deny from sugarland...there is no reason to give an inch on anything for the next four years...out every findable smear on any rethug and get the media on the stick...they may be lapdogs but they rise to a story...
the loyal opposition is needed to show that all is not lost...59 million is no majority in a country of 300 million...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...11/11/17491/
694
A DKos poster saw Sy Hersh speak last night, and Hersh doesn't seem to think Gonzales will be confirmed:
Following on the previous point, the good news I took from Hersh's talk is that he doesn't think Gonzales will be confirmed, and it's going to turn on the testimony of as many as eight retired 1 and 2-star generals from the JAG Corps who are prepared to testify during the confirmation hearings that Gonzales torture memo was a complete cluster-fuck.
Give me a break. Are we setting the bar low on the Dems because they are cowards and we know they will cave -- or because the media doesn't do its job?
If the problems is the media, they aren't going to waste any freaking time covering hearings. Shit, its almost "whats the hot toy for Christmas" time. So the media isn't going to waste time with boring old hearing - its hard work.
At least a filibuster would be a blip on the screen and garner some attention.
I think the truth of the matter was summed up by Biden's reaction in the post below.
>If "Democratic capital" is not heaped high over Gonzalez's worthless ass, then our representatives in DC our officially of no use to us.<
The Dems need to understand that timid, lazy, and republican lite is not going to get them one penny from us from now on.
I really hope it doesn't come down to weapons...
Vicki Stein
Me too, because they're the ones with all of them. That's where things are headed more and more without any let-up.
Steven Freeman's article seems to hold water. I wanted to do the same analyses but I couldn't get the data that he has which appears to be the unadjusted exit poll data. The hypothesis that the exit polls were off due to random errors is rejected for all three states he looked at. So either the exit polls were biased or the elections were.
...and it's going to turn on the testimony of as many as eight retired 1 and 2-star generals from the JAG Corps who are prepared to testify during the confirmation hearings that Gonzales torture memo was a complete cluster-fuck.
Oh, my.
A good thorough grilling before the Judiciary Committee could force a withdrawal of the nomination or even spring loose enough Republican Senators to get him defeated. A filibuster would just make the GOP close ranks. We're at the point now where wedge tactics are most appropriate.
the dems have the duty to hand the rethugs as much shit as possible forever and then some...do any of ou remember the shit storm over the blow job that stopped the world...fuck these dipwads...filibuster...phoney fire drills anything legal that upsets the bastards for the next four years...its only fair that we follow the path so ably put forth by newt and the cat killer and deny from sugarland...there is no reason to give an inch on anything for the next four years...out every findable smear on any rethug and get the media on the stick...they may be lapdogs but they rise to a story...
the loyal opposition is needed to show that all is not lost...59 million is no majority in a country of 300 million...
"I can see it now:
Dems oppose the Hispanic nominee!"
Yes, which is exactly the tack that the Republicans will take, hoping for the usual successful outcome where the Democrats back down because they are scared of being labeled by the GOP. This time we need to help make sure they don't back down. Loudly, vocally, continuously - letters, E-mails, phone calls. Demonstrations later if necessary.
I'm setting the bar low because the dems in the senate are spineless cowards who will cave.
What, are you anti-hispanic or something?
cosplay:
doesn't it feel weird to even act like a conservative? once, i pretended to be a troll, by the name of i love bush, and i said a horrible thing, and i felt so gross. it was weird.
My point exactly!
Look, if they filibuster this, it is pointless. There are so , so many other useful ways to exploit this.
When the first hysterical democrat told me about this nomination with cries of, "He's terrible! This is awful!" I really wanted to smack him.
I couldn't be happier. Please, let's discuss every detail of who asked him to do what in preparing the memo about Abu Ghraib. Please, let's name names. I am begging. Let's find out about any evidence he may have seen of other misconduct and any recommendations he may have made.
Please, all Abu Gharaib, all the time. Live on CNN and MSGOP.
Use up ALL the political capitol you think you have, oh mighty Republicans, on this one dumbass payback-for-Hispanic-votes nomination, and THEN try for a Supreme Court easy confirmation.
Doesn't anyone recognize that Christmas just came early this year?
I don't think it will take particular skill to accomplish this, Atrios.
I just pray to God they don't completely fuck it up.
One more thought....
The dems must stand as a block against any problematic nomination. They have nothing to lose and at this time they have a solid 48% base. Is it likely that by standing en masse against this administration's likely nominees is going to split the democratic base? I think no, The worst that can happen is that it will cause Bush to triangulate (it used to be called compreomise) to split some dems off - that will cause his base to vomit in their sleep.
On my blog, I'd like to share my expertise on weapons and I'd like to have the input of others and their different experiences with different weapons and the topics of the day.
Forgot to add the linkety link and to say that this is all OT, though it isn't really OT.
Here's the link but it's a pdf file and you need to have Statistics101 to read it:
The unexplained exit poll discrepancy
Steven Freeman's article seems to hold water. I wanted to do the same analyses but I couldn't get the data that he has which appears to be the unadjusted exit poll data. The hypothesis that the exit polls were off due to random errors is rejected for all three states he looked at. So either the exit polls were biased or the elections were.
Perhaps.
What is reality anyway?
I'm getting senile.
Is it at all possible that Gonzales is a feint?
Great idea Atrios. The hearings will be highly visible and will presnt a good opportunity to bring to light their nature. Make them own their deeds.
I just pray to God they don't completely fuck it up.
I will wager that they do. They probably buy into the bullshit that Bush is popular with Hispanic voters. Gozales is probably too far to the left for the New and Improved Senate Democrats.
Zell Miller for DNC chair anyone?
Without the media scrutiny these people just continue to skate.
If only AAR could evolve into a television network.
I can't believe someone is not smart enough out there to see the market. At least half the country is progressive and the network wouldn't have any competition.
What is reality anyway?
Please, Pie. I have "The Matrix" on in the background. I'm too confused as it is.
Perhaps all the Dems in the Senate should simply abstain from voting on him.
Three for three.
OT: But this is an amazing story... remember the 'Republican Kicker'? Well, it seems he was rewarded for his fine work putting the boot in. The Second Coming of Prince George can only mean a great career for Scott Robinson:
From the Daily Pennsylvanian, a reader writes:
When I got to the voter registration desk, I became a witness to a confrontation between an election official and a Democratic poll watcher whose name unfortunately escapes me. The election official was behaving very aggressively, and telling the poll watcher that, among other things, she must not speak to any of the voters, or to him, and if she did, he would call the police. She was visibly upset and a little overwhelmed, but she kept her cool. Though they were peers, she called him "sir" to try to diffuse the tension. (I admire her patience, something I don't have nearly as much of; were I in her place, I would've called him anything but sir.)
I learned soon afterwards that this had not been the worst of it, and that it had been going on all morning. At one point, the election official had verbally intimidated a homeless man, causing him to leave without casting his vote, and had prevented the poll watcher from intervening. When the election official involved me in the confrontation, addressing me and blaming the poll watcher for the delay, I said something brief in her defense. She then asked me if I could give a statement of what I had just witnessed to a couple of lawyers, and I gladly did.
This is when I was shocked to learn the identity of the election official: Wharton junior Scott Robinson, better known as the alleged convention kicker.
Perhaps all the Dems in the Senate should simply abstain from voting on him.
Sort of like in High School - when the senior class decides to blow off a day because "we can't all get suspended". But you are the only sucker who does blow off the day. D'oh!!
No time just yet for me to read the other comments. I just want to say this:
I said something similar to this (less eloquently, of course) the other day when his name popped up. Let's get Alberto into a seat, shine a bright light on him, and ask him about this "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President" business he penned in his infamous memo.
I think there are bureaucrats who will be more than happy to leak lots more dirt on this "imperial executive" crowd. Those whose allegiance is to the Constitution did not switch allegiance in the past nine days.
Sorry to have barged in that way, but I'm really excited. I have taught college level statistics and this guy has the raw exit poll data and essentially he finds that it's not from the same universe as the election results. This rules out the explanation we often hear that polls just aren't that reliable in general. There is something more going on here, and the possibilities are either that the exit polls were rigged or that the election was. Pretty much. With the qualification that his data is real and assuming that for some odd reason they survey didn't ask enough Republicans.
For me this is the first factual point for looking much deeper into the question.
I can't believe someone is not smart enough out there to see the market.
Jon Stewart suggested it to a room full of media types (CSPAN covered it back in early October). Told 'em it would be a huge moneymaker.
They stole the election and now will be enshrining my permanent second-class citizenship and others like me into the Constitution. Nah--not going to happen. I'll die before that. This government holds no legitimacy over me now or oath.
Well... you know... I'm of a mind to be about the meanest, badest, and least agreeable person in the Senate.
I say: obstruct, delay, and spill a message to the 56million Kerry supporters that says: "we aren't playing along like sheep."
Go get 'em dems, and if someone in our party decides to play nice... then whack 'em with no committee appointments.
And yes, that includes that bozo Schumer from NY.
OT--but here's what's going on in Iraq thanks to this maladministration:
US troops were drawn into a new offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul yesterday to tackle a tide of insurgency unchecked by the military assault on Falluja.
In Baghdad at least 17 Iraqis were killed in a suicide car bombing as gunmen set up checkpoints on roads in the west of the capital and fought battles with US troops.
Rebels also took to the streets of the northern town of Baiji, home to Iraq's main refinery, clashing with security forces.
The violence suggests the four-day operation in Falluja may have cleared out the most important insurgent stronghold in Iraq, but has done little to curb the burgeoning militant movement.
For two days insurgents have defied a curfew to rampage through Mosul, attacking or setting fire to at least seven police stations as well as government buildings.
Masked gunmen stole bullet-proof jackets and Kalashnikov rifles from police stations and were roaming the city centre yesterday setting fire to police cars and taking control of bridges. The five bridges over the Tigris were later closed to civilian traffic.
This is just a nightmare.
Gah, it should be:
With the qualification that his data is real and assuming that we can rule out the possibility that the survey didn't include enough Republicans for some odd reason.
I've expressed my opinion on this issue in another thread so I won't rehash. But isn't it probable that the administration will be fully prepared for the Gonzales hearing by having him claim some sort of "can't disclose because it will endanger the war on terror" excuse and completely stonewall every question.
Again, the McCarthy tactics. Any senator who dares press the points or reveal new footage or photos will be the enemy of the troops?
Please, tell me I'm wrong to worry! (I just keep replaying Ashcroft refusing to give up the memo - I know this is a different scenario, but... they have their ways...
*
Two Words: Copper Green
eight retired 1 and 2-star generals from the JAG Corps who are prepared to testify during the confirmation hearings that Gonzales torture memo was a complete cluster-fuck.
Oh for God's sake. Don't you get it? That's more reality-based community stuff. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all. Well, not to the Repubs in Congress, anyway.
OT -- I need to steam. I - GASP -- listened to a Christian radio station in the DC area tonight because a Christian friend wrote a book and it was being reviewed on a show. During a break in the show, someone read an opinion sent to the station. The comment claimed the media failed during the Presidential campaign by not delving into the issues and supplying enough info for a real American public debate over what is going on in our country and the Middle East.
The host said that he agreed. It was all -- he said, she said -- and not much more. He said it was the dumbing down of America and was caused by our media AND our public school system!!!!!
Echidne, yes yes yes!
This is OT, but it's a big deal:
Look, we have a simple fact that needs explaining: the exit polls didn't match the vote counts.
One explanation for this: the exit pollers fucked up. But how? Keep in mind that we have always relied on exit pollers to help "call" states for candidates, and it's always worked before.
Another explanation: fraud.
Another: some kind of non-intentional problem that systematically undercounted Dem votes -- e.g., hanging chads.
The contradiction (b/w the polls and the count) is so glaring and mysterious that no one seems to notice it.
.
Okay. I'll wait till TDS is over to get some response to that.
*
Did the Democrats block Clarence Thomas? They did their best to shine as much light on the ugly corners of his life as possible. It didn't hurt Democrats with black voters. It also didn't change the love affair the Busheviks and Little Green Raelians have with Thomas. {do ya think that Thomas and O'Reilly talk on the phone much?}
On the other hand don't Freemen see themselves as part of a Free Republic and reject the US Federal Government? As non-citizens, I'm sure Gonzales beliefs on constitutional protections for non-citizens might be interesting to members of the Free Republic.
If you watch hearings these days you know that when the Dems ask questions they will get long filibuster type answers to take up all the time. The Repugs just throw big fat softballs.
jasin--
Here's another little grain of sand to add to all the others:
Election equipment counted straight-party votes for Democratic candidates as Libertarian votes, an error that could affect election outcomes in as many as nine counties, the Richmond Palladium-Item reported today.
Atrios has convinced me this is the right tack, rather than a filibuster.
I certainly hope Kerry's prosecutorial skills are still sharp. Don't attack him at first. Set him up. Because the best thing would be to combine the exposure--of the torture memos, the royal prerogative, and sleazy TX ties -- with a nice hot cup of perjury and contempt of Congress.
Fillibuster everything.
I mean it.
If the Republicans introduce a
resolution saying apple pie is good,
fillibuster it (not my original idea,
but apologies to who suggested it
last week).
Complete total legislative paralysis. It's better
than the alternative.
No more Vichy Democrats!!!
PS: Anybody who wants to takes odds on
this actually happening, please get in
touch with me via e-mail. I'd let to
bet against myself.
And I guess I want to emphasize something not clear in my last post.
While the torture enablement is horrendous, there is another gem in that memo that people are likely to overlook in their horror over the torture and the pictures which bring that horror home.
Alberto said "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President."
By all means, we must scream about the torture. But DO NOT forget that part of the memo. It's the dismantling of the entire premise of our beloved Constitution.
At the risk of being shrill, I feel confident in at least saying that the results of Nov. 2 are completely inconclusive.
The election was too close, and problems with the voting process to numerous, to trust the vote count.
I don't know whether Kerry really won or not. I also don't know if Bush did. None of us do. We simply didn't get an answer on Nov. 2.
A lot like last time.
Shit.
Alberto said "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President."
That's what I called the royal prerogative--unbounded executive power. Repudiating it is the sole and entire reason this nation exists.
I don't know whether Kerry really won or not. I also don't know if Bush did. None
of us do. We simply didn't get an answer on Nov. 2.
A lot like last time.
Shit.
jasin | Email | Homepage
I've said this before but --
The Democrats have to make the voting
machines one of their two or three top
issues. I'm not talking invalidating
2004 (or even 2002).
I'm talking No More Elections With
Unverifiable Results.
No paper trail -- no legitimacy.
atrios, right on. great post - absolutely agree.
no point in giving the whore media the red meat they want in the form of a sure-to-ultimately-fail filibuster.
better to put the big coleman lantern on their shitbaggery.
i only hope the values morons still have enough humanity in them to give a shit about things like torture and capital punishment.
bets, anyone?
jasin, this guy (a professor at UPenn) proves that getting three exit polls like the ones in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania if the reported election polls are correct and the exit polls properly done is this likely: 250 million to one.
Whatever else this means it certainly means the need for a thorough investigation.
The Republicans are going to try to play a game of fillibuster chicken with the Democrats, and its a lose-lose situation for the Dems. They don't have enough cars to play. The Repos have the nuclear-option truck.
So the Dems have to change the rules to a new game: "20 extraordinarily well throught out Questions." Ask about Abu-Graib, but always substitute "If this happens to an American civilian" for "this happened to an Iraqi civilian."
Find the strongest quotes from big Bush supporters (i.e. the 'these were just frat pranks'), describe the 'prank' in detail, and ask if it would be ok under the Geneva conventions to do this to captured Americans. Force him to either indirectly insult the Bush supporter, or to explicitly ok those 'pranks' against Americans.
Make sure that senators have tested the questions and have coordinated so that he isn't asked redundant or boring questions, and that if he avoids answering an important question once, he gets asked it again.
jasin
Minimum assertion
Despite the warning signs of the 2000 election, nothing has been done, at least correctly, to temper the credibility gap in the election process. In fact, from all appearances, the holes in the process are larger and indicate an ability for the system to either melt down or be manipulated quite easily.
That is long winded, but if anyone wanted to start a meme now while people are still examining this election, this fact would do.
Bush has done nothing to improve upon and ensure the veracity of the process.
Tactics:
Out every prominent gay republican pol
who supports anti-gay legistaion.
Scorched earth. Total war.
And fuck what the media says. Out
them too.
Alberto said "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President."
That's what I called the royal prerogative--unbounded executive power. Repudiating it is the sole and entire reason this nation exists.
jennyFTB,
I think the scenario you describe in very possible, and the strategy the dems going into the process should account for the possibility. We will have to see.
Is anyone familier with the senate rules, or can send me to a place to find them. If not fine, I'll look tomorrow, but the idea is that I wish to familiarize myself with them as well as the comittee assignments and get a better idea of who can do what, and how to leverage this knowledge.
I might even suggest that we establish resident comittee "experts" so we can have a better idea of what is coming down the pike and how best to fight it.
Smallbottle -
I only caught your post about "royal prerogative" after I wrote mine and refreshed. I'm glad that you note that, too, and I think this needs much, much more emphasis.
The torture is so horrendous, it distracts in a weird way from the utterly treasonous rationale for it.
If that is left to stand, then the situation would be much, much closer to those German "lawyers" who re-wrote German law under you-know-who.
You know one of things I wonder about? Remember that C. Powell (he who makes me puke now) once wrote a paper for the War College, or some other such military institution, setting up a scenario for military students' discussion -- about a military coup which takes place because of a run-away executive. God only knows what Powell thinks about that paper he wrote, but it's out there, and people discussed it.
I wish I could be privy to the thoughts of those in the gov't and military who truly love our Constitution. I wish I knew what they plan to do about that love and allegiance.
Leaks have been going on for quite some time. There is also such a thing as "noncooperation." It's one of many techniques described in the analyses of successful nonviolent resistance movements. I wonder what else they contemplate.
My sentiments EXACTLY. I've been saying that all day...
Stop reading my mind. It's damned creepy.
Is it at all possible that Gonzales is a feint?
watertiger
WT, you have a devious mind, would you be interested in joining the judiciary
commitee watchdog brigade?
jasin, this guy (a professor at UPenn) proves that getting three exit polls like the ones in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania if the reported election polls are correct and the exit polls properly done is this likely: 250 million to one.
Dang!
(Runs off to buy a lottery ticket.)
Kevin Drum has a post on the Penn professor's paper.
Surprise, surprise: he disagrees with it.
Kevin Drum annoys the shit out of me. He goes out of his way to defend the bad guys. Tried to explain away Bush's "no casualties" comment to P. Robertson.
I'm looking at the PDF right now.
.
Kent -
Thanks. I just wonder, after the way even Sen. Warner has been stonewalled by the administration on the documents he has repeatedly requested (for instance, the thousand plus missing pages of the Taguba report), why would there be full disclosure now? They're not going to fall into some trap. No question this has all fallen into Rove's slimy little hands and they're prepared for the confirmation hearing.
*
Look, this confirmation will be Harry Reid's chance to prove himself...as Daschle lite no doubt.
we sure as shit needed a junkyard dog in the Senate Minority leader position. I think what we got was a yorkshire terrier.
Old Hat,
I appreciate the argumentation, but again, process pales before the charge of sanctioned torture. I could respond that Hatch will go nuclear anyway whenever that first filibuster comes along, but it sullies the bottom line: the US cannot sanction torture without destroying itself.
If Hatch wants short-circuit the august Senate, that can be his legacy, and I can't stop him. But responsible senators saw the Abu Ghraib video--all of it--and if they want to debase themselves and their institution in defense of sanctioning and codifying torture as US policy, I will recognize it as their historical burden and blunder.
This is the Democratic Party's Savio moment, as God and Rove intended it. Gonzales' position on torture is as plain as his signature. Some senator (it can be a savvy and/or principled Republican, for all I care) has got to throw their body upon the gears of this machine, upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and make it stop.
Blogswarm has "Abu Ghraib Gonzalez" ads up, calling for a filibuster.
If we are the opposition, then our job is to oppose and our sucess shall be measured upon our protection of basic American values. This guy wrote the torture memo, we aren't letting a war criminal rule the Justice Department.
On the Clock -
Yes, I hear you.
And I also want to point out again the separate issue:
The memo could have been about something non-Geneva-Convention-related. It could have been about military procurement practices.
The fact that it contains the statement "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President is enough for every red-blooded patriotic American to throw him/herself upon the gears of this machine.
Otherwise, there is no republic left to save.
JennyFTB,
Yeah, not a pretty scenario, which is why your original question prompted the desire to learn more about the minutia of the process. There are always angles, and Rove can't have them all covered.
In fact as time goes on, he becomes more likely to telegraph things, but I could be pissing in the wind. You seem to have a clue, interested in joining the watch dog squad?
kent -
I too need to learn about Senate and House procedural matters. And am also looking for a relatively simply described, coherent layout of it. Tell you what:
if I find it first, I'll send you the link. If you find it first, will you send it to me?
"
The fact that it contains the statement "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President is enough for every red-blooded patriotic American to throw him/herself upon the gears of this machine.
"
I agree, but I can guarantee that those who pride themselves on being red-blooded, patriotic Americans -- i.e., gay-hating pickup-drivin' Red staters -- will not give two shits about this.
They agree with it. They WANT a leader who will seize absolute control.
Mindset of Red America = fascism, plain and simple.
.
Happy day. I have had LTEs accepted re: gonzales to the Seattle Times and probably also at the Washington Post. Will it block his confirmation? Not a chance. But at least it will be in the record and remind democrats that they can make a minor fuss and force chimpy to spend some of his political capital to push his boy through.
kent -
I am intensely interested and concerned about this appointment. We cannot stand for Gonzales in that position. It's a shout out to the world that we elevate an enabler of torture.
I will follow the hearings closely and will read your posts with much interest. Since I am up to my neck in alligators, though, I don't think I'd be very much help as part of a research team.
I feel like a real shit for saying that, but it's true. It's people like me, cheerleaders, benchwarmers, that do very little to change the world.
Go, Kent!
*
In the process, let's see if we can get Hegel and McCain and any other (rightly) furious Republican to step up against this bullshit and further drive a wedge into the Right's crumbling facade.
I know E-Mails are basically useless, but I in fact just got through shooting one off to Senator McCain (who has the honor of being the only Republican I voted for this election) urging him to vote against Gonzales and fight him as vocally as he can.
I know E-Mails are useless, but I expect if McCain's secretary tells him he's gotten a few thousand from constituents begging him to fight Gonzales's appointment, he'll take it under advisement.
I wrote about 20 emails to McCain, Warner, Lindsey Graham, et al., urging them to continue the Abu Ghraib torture hearings. No response, because they are not my representatives.
It was most disheartening.
*
Critical point, Kate. Both ways *and* means are unacceptable beyond parsing.
What was it that Sen. Sam Ervin said? "I understand the English language as my mother taught it to me." You don't have to be a law professor to get Gonzales' meaning.
I wish you'd all get real. We lost the election badly so it means 2 or more likely 4 years of careful strategy. Total obstructionism just makes some false moral parity between everything. Well everything's not equal. A horrible young Supreme Court justice is far worse than an AG who's probably better than Ashcroft. There will be a place for obstructioninsm and filibustering but it will rarely work and you have to pick your spots carefully. elections have consequences and this has ugly consequences. We need to use brains and cautious strategy and hope not too much permanent damage is done before election results turn out better.
Also you have to realize where the country is. Discussing evading the Geneva Convention for supposed terrorists is never going to have a lot of resonance with much of the public as disturbing as some may find that
I never said anything about a filibuster to begin with. But exposing alberto for the murderous enabler he is, among other things, is the only tactic that makes sense.
It's a lot easier to say "I told you so" when you DID!! Duh!
And then you've got a marker that says not here, not in this place, not in my house. Dogs do that thing. Now c'mon, don't you want to lift your leg up to some bush? You know you do, go for it.
Oh, and I hear they have PICTURES!!
Legalize torture? no way in hell. Having said that, I will ask if terrorist have protection under the Geneva Convention as I believe it to be for the protection of prisiners of war. To be considered as prisoners of war they would have to be lawful conbatants(regular armed forces) of the nation we are at war with. If found to be illeagle combatants then the rules of the geneva convention do NOT apply.
Any military leagle beagles wanna take that on? Will wait but not hold my breath on this. Snark not intended but if ya think so....
I feel really talky tonight; Gonzales (with an s) will be confirmed but if the democrats don't ask him a lot of questions, such as asking him if he still thinks the Geneva Convention is "quaint", then I may secede from the party, but where will I go? We have to get tough.
The new AG studied law at the prestigious School Of The Americas. He's well qualified to become our next Grand Inquisitor. Plus, he's a direct descendant of Torquemada.
I never said anything about a filibuster to begin with. But exposing alberto for the murderous enabler he is, among other things, is the only tactic that makes sense.
It's a lot easier to say "I told you so" when you DID!! Duh!
And then you've got a marker that says not here, not in this place, not in my house. Dogs do that thing. Now c'mon, don't you want to lift your leg up to some bush? You know you do, go for it.
Oh, and I hear they have PICTURES!!
Jenny from the Blog
dont worry about it, I have no idea if I will be prepared by the time this comes to pass, as far as my goal of having a fairly extensive grasp of senatorial procedures and rules, or whether I can get through more than 5 pages at a time without falling asleep.
I guess the first place will be roberts rules of order, or something like that. And then on to the Senate rule book. I am just planting a seed in my own mind, and if anyone else is interested, yeehaa. I just want to get to the point where I can watch senate hearings and find myself throwing a shoe at the TV while yelling "bullshit, and being able to call the bastard on a point of order or procedural impropriety, or take note when someone fails to avail themselves when a gift horse stumbles into the room.
They say that one of the things that makes the Bugkiller delay such a force is that the guy knows the house rules up and down.
I am not close to there yet, but hope to be. But it would be very cool if we could have layman watchdogs, assigned to every comittee in the house and senate, and these people ultimately might be part of our farm team.
I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I agree with Merle way up top - don't filibuster, but don't go along. In my opinion we've gone from bad to worse with Gonzales, but filibustering needs to be saved for the Supreme Court nominee if he's just as bad as we think he'll be.
Liam Yore, MD,
Good for you, congratulations. let us know when they run.
MW, I can think of 56M people who could get behind the idea of not legalizing torture of *alleged* terrorists. The rest can join us, or get out of the way.
>There's little value in filibustering Gonzale
Wow, looks like Atrios has gotten Stokholm syndrome too.
Seriously, the dems have to revamp their party as an opposition party and this would be a good first step. Playing Republican-lite cost you guys all three branches of government.
>then I may secede from the party
Well, they'll have some formalities so they don't look too bad. But they wont really oppose anything. I mean, Dick Durbin saw the Abu Grhaib videos and didnt make an issue out of it at election time. Now we're putting the torture-enabler in one of the highest seats of power and the democrats are ready to roll-over for this. They should have fought Ashcroft's nomination with a fillibuster and, sadly, they wont with this guy either.
Like I wrote above, these guys don't have it in them to be a real opposition party. They're selling your civil rights right now. The Democratic blogs are too tied to the party to say much. I mean even Atrios is hot to trot to put this guy in office.
Man, its so over for the Democrats. Maybe something interesting will happen by 2006, but it looks like they are trying to lose.
Sorry about el doble post. And since I'm here...
But, um, Gordo, are the prisoners at Abu Ghraib "terrorists" at all? Because, you know, Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. That was al Queda, a bunch of religous fanatic freaks, mostly Suadi Arabian on the planes, not Iraqi's. And while it is true that some of the resistance, insurgents, freedom fighters, whatever, in Iraq are foreign born, most of them are, get this, Iraqi's.
And in fact, most of the men in Abu Ghraib weren't even that, but people swept up off the streets. Sure, they're probably simpatico with the resistance now, but then, who knows?
I gotta say that there's one less leg for ya. Now, are you suggesting that torture is acceptable for terrorists? And if so, to what purpose? Shits and giggles? Information? Like, where are the missing WMD's? Nevermind that "torture" doesn't work except in the minds of techno thriller writers. What is the purpose of torture? To cow people that have been tortured and invaded for thousands of years, who have worn the yoke of suppression for thousands of years, who FUCKING BLOW THEMSELVES UP into a million pieces for their god?
Torture can be a double edged sword, literally, Gordo. Which was one of the reasons the Geneva Convention outlawed it. Partisans and Chetniks did it, and what did it lead to? Another war of retribution and ethnic cleansing and murder and rape and torture for what?
Gordo? Any thoughts?
I think the big issue here is that the rest of the world is going to watch whether the party it almost unanimously supported stands up against someone whose stock in trade is coming up with ever-new and more pathetic ways for the chief executive of the US to avoid paying heed to international agreements his country signed and turned into law.
If the Dems don't stand up against Gonzales, it'll be spitting in the face of people who hope for some kind of opposition to Bush. Oh, and it won't reflect well on Democrats abroad, either.
Gonzales took the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and wiped his ass with them. As you might expect, this doesn't come across well.
Don't forget, that legal brief gonzales wrote has no standing, it's just an opinion that justified whatever rum drunk and cheny you wanted to do. And its wrong.
Alberto said "the power to set aside law is inherent in the President."
That's what I called the royal prerogative--unbounded executive power. Repudiating it is the sole and entire reason this nation exists.
To be considered as prisoners of war they would have to be lawful conbatants(regular armed forces) of the nation we are at war with.
Gordo - I'm not JAG, just a former officer. From my reading of the GC, the Taliban fighters would almost certainly be considered the regular armed forces of Afghanistan if any of their cases made it to a legitimate court. Likewise, the insurgents in Iraq would be protected, as a levee en masse. But it's upon our lawyers to prove otherwise; captured personnel are given benefit of the doubt under the GC.
You say they haven't been treated as POWs? Well, what do you expect from a regime that condones torture?
The problem the Democrats have is that they have already blocked the likes of Pickering, Owens and Estrada (a Hispanic by the way) with the use of a filibuster. Now we have a man in Gonzales who insists torture is okay by him. Where do the Democrats draw the line on blocking nominees? In my view he would much worse as an AG than any of the above individuals noted would be sitting on a Federal Court of Appeals. I agree Democrats must have a strenuous and very public line of questioning. I believe though, Democrats have started this type of obstruction and must stand their ground.
This is how I would like to see the questionning of Gonzales go down. It would be soooo worth it.
Transcript of Condi Rice 9-11 Commission hearings
RICE: What the August 6 PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...
BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.
RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...
BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.
RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.
BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.
no filibuster, get every fact out about Gonzales about Abu Grharab etc. out in hearings. The problem is the media. I think the next two years the most important thing the dems can do is get an in with the media so our side will be heard, i.e. get the ear of the editors, otherwise what we do is useless. Do something dramatic to get congressional inquiries covered on evening news.
Oh, and there's a difference between a filibuster and a month-long hearing that turns into an open Senate hearing on Abu Ghraib, since it's been buried these past months. I want this to be a kind of purgation.
'So, raping this boy, Mr Gonzales [click of slideshow]: is authorizing that against Americans legally valid, in your opinion? Setting the dog on this man [click]: would an American service-member being protected from this, in your opinion, "quaint"?'
Political capital doesn't just have to be spent. It can be invested. Here's the perfect opportunity. Because it tells the rest of the world that some checks and balances still exist in America. Put some people in Abu Ghraib garb outside Senate Dems' offices, to get this through their thick skulls.
And it'd make the point that Kerry's commitment to internationalism doesn't go away amongst his party colleagues just because the Dems are in the minority.
>month-long hearing that turns into an open Senate hearing on Abu Ghraib
Why wasnt this done during the 9/11 commission? Sorry, but "the comeback kid" theory didnt work for Kerry and it wont work for the senate Democrats. They dont have the fight in them and they will keep a low profile and try to win some marginal seat or two in 2006, all the while "liberal" commentators will more than applaud Gonzales' AG stewardship.
Sorry for the double post. I have yet to appreciate the power of "refresh." 
Kate, the royal prerogative goes hand-in-hand with the torture. It's two sides of the same coin; remember "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"
And to other folks, please think about the filibuster. That's not our best result. All the press will show is stubborn Democrats reading the phone book. And we could lose the filibuster for the Supreme Court, when it really matters.
We have to expose the torture memos. And the claim of absolute power. Sear them into the nation's mind. That's the top priority. And it's not incompatible with being a strong opposition party.
Don't we keep saying, look at the long term?
The president is not a king. He seems to forget that and Gonzalez does too. Scary.
Great damn idea. All they really need to do is grill this bastard about those torture memos. He has two possible answers: 1) Yeah, so what? In that case, they can hit him on "what if other states (or non-states) use those same techniques against us?" OR 2) My underlings wrote the damn thing. We've already heard thes grumblings, but what kind of management skills, much less leadership, does that give this joker? And we want him in charge of the most powerful law enforcement position in this country?
IF the Dems are up to performing the duties of their positions then this should be a done deal. I hope I'm wrong when I say that might be a big "IF."
Crucify him in the hearings. Maybe some responsible conservatives won't approve of him. or maybe they will.
America abhors the actions at Abu Ghraib. Would the GOP look bad if they opposed their dear leader on this appointment?
"Alberto said 'the power to set aside law is inherent in the President.'"
Beware the Enanling Act (a change in the cloture rules?):
"The Enabling Bill which was laid before the House contained five clauses. The first and fifth gave the Government the power for four years to enact laws without the co-operation of the Reichstag...The third provided that laws to be enacted by the Government should be drafted by the Chancellor, and should come into effect on the day after publication." The Enabling Act was forced through on March 23, 1933. Then everyone saluted and sang the Horst Wessel song. (From "Hitler, a Study in Tranny," Alan Bullock,195
First this guy is not a Trial Attorney so he has always sat in comfy chairs pontificating (somewhat authoritatively from what I understand) about the law.
Get a criminal defense attorney to help prepare. Cross examine him on each and every minor aspect of his career. Crim def. attorneys cross-examine trained liars (law enforcement officials) all the time. If the question is asked correctly and the Senator adequately controls the examination Gonzales will be exposed to the light of day.
Comment then question. The questions should be something like this:
"Treaties are the highest law in the land. No one should respect the law of the land more than the Attorney General. The Geneva Conventions are a monument all decent people who believe in the dignity of all men and who believe as our founders did that 'All men are created equal'...
Mr. Gonzalez do you admit or deny that your legal opinion is that Treaties may be violated if the person who wishes to do so is powerful enough to ignore them."
If he doesn't say, "I admit it" or "I deny it" without more interrupt this prick immediately. "Sir, I am sure my Republican friends in this committee will give you a full opportunity to explain your answers...just answer what I ask...I'm not here to listen to speeches or excuses, we hear enough of those." If he reponds with anything other than silence or a "Yes Senator." launch into him. List his sins, DON'T BE FAIR! throw everything big and little demonstrably true and rumor. Rumors should be placed soon after the beginning with the most demonstrably true allegations first and last. That way he looks foolish picking out an issue in the middle to dispute. If he makes that mistake, concede that you may have got that one wrong but the rest must be true since he didn't object, and keep going and going.
It will be a "I paid for this microphone" moment (for those who remember that staged little theater). It will be played over and over on the news with Fox News complaining that Senator X was out of line. Who cares what Fox says...bring the Politics of professional (not personal) destruction to the R's. Americans will hear..."this guy believes torture is okay even for our enemies to commit", "this guy covered up Bush's criminal record." Ask him if he helped GWB conceal any other criminal conduct. Ask him if he revealed Valerie Plame's name. If he denies it say, "I'd like to believe you Sir, but someone in the White House did it and they are all denying it. Someone is lying. Bush 41 called this conduct treason. You are telling us that you are not the traitor. Ok then. Do you know who the traitor is? You're not concealing this like you concealed the President's criminal record are you?" When the R's cry foul, act utterly shocked that they would condone such conduct. F' this one way street collegiality crap.
Also, at the start mention how great it is that he is the first Latino nominated to be AG then
continued...
ask him if he thinks he should be treated differently than any other non-hispanic would be treated. He has to answer, "No." Then hammer the prick, but first kill the "Democrats are racist" crap right away.
There's always:
'Mr Gonzales, the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in common law suits where the "value in controversy" exceeds $20. Do you believe that inflation since 1789 renders this provision "quaint"?'
:maybe some responsible conservatives won't approve of him
Haha. Now we are asking the GOP to save us from the GOP!
Here's what we do:
filibuster, but make it clear that we would be DELIGHTED to allow a vote--just as soon as the White House turns over the Abu Ghraib & "ghost detainee" documents they've been withholding, or our esteemed colleagues on the right issue subpoenas.
"Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
I think the democracts have to stop worrying about "how it will play in the press" and about even if they will be seen as the bad guys.
I wish they would even take lost causes and fight if they were the right causes. The guy who helped pave the way for ignoring the Geneva Convention has no business being AG, as far as I am concerned. Whether it "looks baad" or is framed as such matter not one bit. Democracy isn't always convenient, or even popular lately. If Democrats want to prove to the people that they have heart, that they stand for something, they need to do it even as a minority.
Another thing, caving only emboldens the WH. They want this guy so bad, let them put something on the line instead of snide remarks. Take the argument to the people! Tell them clearly why he is not the man for AG.
We need to stop letting the media frame it all...we need communication lines to people to tell them exactly why and how this is a bad choice.
No more playing to "the peanut gallery". It has been the losing strategy for too long now.
Even if it is unpopular, it is more honest, as it gives people the choice to vote for a party that they know where they stand.
(From "Hitler, a Study in Tranny,"... // Leif // 11.12.04 - 1:56 am
That brought a smile to an otherwise bleak thread.
Eligere sez:..."We should say our piece and then sit back and let them have at it. Save our energy for the next round."
That's our position atm...painted into a corner. I agree that we should throw out a damaging salvo and sit back and watch the fireworks. If the newsmedia will get off their duffs and start to do their Constitutional-protected job of reporting the news as an observer, not a participant, then, maybe, the story will take on a life of its own.
A time will come later to give a full broadside..when there is an opening on the Supreme Court. Better save our best evidence and legal manouevering for then..where it really will matter.
BTW...I've been out of touch with the human side of life for a week...why did Asscroft step down?
regards
.
Tom Joad sez:..."No more playing to "the peanut gallery". It has been the losing strategy for too long now."
Sorry to differ with you, mate, but the Republican's have been slowly hand-picking their agenda for the last 10 years...picking fights they know they can win. Especially against ther Democrats with the cooperation of the press!
If the Democrats wish to gain a political foot-hold in the Government again, they're gonna have to hand-pick their fights and manipulate the press and public...just like the Republicans did.
Case in point...most hard-core Republicans have a litany of complaints against Democrats...none of which are true, but merely re-worded facts that sound true that paint a far different picture that the truth. We saw it in the way in which Bush ran his campaign.
Facts are, the hard-core Republicans will not believe anything that Democrats say...so the media will have to show how the "real truth" will really hurt them.
For instance, if foriegn investors stop buying US Bonds that prop with the deficit, or OPEC changes from using the Dollars-for-Oil to Euro-for-Oil, there's gonna be a world of hurt put on everyone...you're political affilation will not protect you.
Sorry for the rant, but my point is that the Democrats can't undo what Bush has already done, but they sure can point out the pitfalls on the horizon that can put the US economy into a recession and/or depression and what the government will not be able to do because of Bush's policies.
regards
.
I posted this in a thread below, but it was near the end. Again, I'm late to the party. As I said below, it isn't just Gitmo, etc.--it's in our backyard, even in blue states.
This is a story that's scheduled to air 11/17 and 11/18 on All Things Considered:
NPR's Daniel Zwerdling has spent the last five months investigating cases of abuse of immigrant detainees who have been held in US jails and prisons overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. Since Congress revamped immigration laws in the 1990s, tens of thousands of non-citizens who have ever committed a crime, even fairly minor crimes, have been rounded up and detained in jail for months or years waiting for deportation. Zwerdling's investigation reveals that some of these detainees have been held in brutal conditions. Guards have
allegedly beaten prisoners and deliberately terrorized them with dogs, even ordering dogs to attack them.
The first of Zwerdling's stories takes place in Passaic county jail in New
Jersey - one of many facilities around the country that houses immigrant
detainees along with criminals from this country. According to eye witness
accounts, and documents obtained by NPR, guard dogs attacked inmates. Prison officials and officers involved in the incidents refused to speak with NPR. The Department of Homeland Security expressed confidence in the way the prison is run.
In Part Two, Daniel Zwerdling investigates a case at the Hudson Jail in New Jersey. Guards there are accused of beating two handcuffed prisoners earlier this year. Once again, the alleged victims were
immigrant detainees who had been locked up on grounds they committed a crime which makes them "deportable." Daniel Zwerdling also traveled to Egypt and Guyana to speak face to face with alleged victims. He has medical reports and spoke with eyewitnesses that corroborate their stories. Zwerdling's report reveals a lack of oversight at these facilities and the difficulties detainees face in seeking justice.
Ooops, forgot to sign.
ide
thanks -- I post all the anons here. Don't ever use the default from haloscan.
Ooops, forgot to sign.
ide
Yeah you f@ckin' moron, don't use the default. I am the anonymous around here. That previous anon yahoo is a name stealer, but he's right about the default setting. DON'T USE IT!
I also disagree strongly, Atrios.
We should fight Gonzales with every weapon at our disposal, including filibuster.
He's evil.
We ought to be fighting tooth and nail.
And to brush off his appointment the way you do makes me want to ask again- who's bankrolling our party? Who's your daddy?
Ooops, forgot to sign.
ide
You are all idiots and fools. I am the real anonymous - don't even think about using part of my handle in nc. We are primative, rude folks here and you do not want to see what I would do if I catch you using the default again.
totally agree. filibustering is useless when there are, unfortunately, thousands of ashcrofts out there waiting in the wings.
I think everyone is missing the point here. If Rover were planning for us, he wouldn't be concerned with facts. He'd be putting out rumors of Gonzales' homosexual proclivities or adulterous affairs. Or calling into question Gonzales's credentials to practice law. By the time Gonzales sat down for confirmation hearings, no one would care about anything except the salacious gossip; a vote for him would be considered a vote for adultery/homosexuality/lying and Gonzales wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of confirmation.
Again, the argument is: Do we play by their rules or keep being members of the reality-based community and hoping things suddenly shift our way?
"....his nomination proves that George Bush doesn't actually give a shit about the lives of our soldiers in Iraq."
What a useless fuckwad this coward "atrios" is....
Look if hispanics take offense at the attack on Gonzalez, which I believe has to happen b/c of his bend over stance on torture, why don't we just ask them why they're missing the real injustice here? Proposition 200 passed in AZ. It strips immigrants of many rights. As a result a number of other states (as many as 30) are looking at proposing it themselves. Yet this is flying way low under the radar. Check out http://dniewert.com for additional information.
"It strips immigrants of many rights"
You missed the word "illegal", which belongs in that sentence. Nothing in that bill strips rights from LEGAL immigrants.
If they lay their groundwork well now, it will reap huge benefits when he is nomimated for the SC. Look what happened to Judge Owens.
Our "political capital" is boundless! We need to spend it continuously and endlessly, or, if you prefer, liberally. We need to fight the GOP every time they are wrong, which just happens to be most of the time. (tot)
Political capital is never boundless. yes, you can filibuster indefinitely, but (a) you might have legislation that you want somebody else in the chamber to look at someday, and (b) you might have to run for re-election by a populace tired of the fact that Congress appears to be wasting their time and money getting nothing done. (Nothing done for principled reasons doesn't hold water if the opponents spin it as obstructionist.)
I think Atrios has the right idea here. Let the nation see what kind of appointments they are getting from this guy they chose. Let them repent at leisure. Save the filibuster for the lifetime jobs...
I really can't agree with this. I understand the argument about the media coverage, but I don't think the Dems can afford to go at any speed but full blast right now. This could be the first big fight. If they don't stand up now, when will they stand up? Who will he nominate that will be worse? I mean, if "thinks the Constitution is optional" isn't worthy of a filibuster, what is?
Could the Dems go through the hearings and then filibuster the full Senate vote?
As I think has been proven, we need to "attack" them on their weaknesses. Start hammering away to the press on the issue that the far Right is raising the stink that Gonzalez is "pro-abortion" (what a horrible term). They try to highlight us by our "crazies" -- the Commies, tree-huggers, faggot-lovers, etc. I don't think the mainstream Americans see those divisions in the wacko Right. We need to show them what they're really voting for.
See, Atrios hasn't learned why Democrats lost the election. Obviously, the hearings will mean nothing. Gonzalez will pull all the tricks the Bushies know - evading questions etc. - and then, the hearings will be noted on page A18 of the NY Times. And that does that gain? That's like Kerry saying he voted for the $87 Iraq bill to vote against it (or the other way around). You don't gain strength but acting like a little wussie. The filibuster is the only way to put a foot in the door and say "We're not going to let this happen. This guy supports torture, and the results of his advice have made the US a pariah with potentially horrible consequences for US troops." Anything else won't do.
Taking down Gonzales is a faith-and-values issue that we on the left and in the middle can support, people. Torture is morally wrong, depraved, and evil under any moral teaching. The torture memo should be no different from Roe v. Wade in Christian eyes -- a legal support for grave, unspeakable sin. Raise hell with Catholic bishops and Catholic media via letters to the editor, not just in the U.S. but worldwide since the world ought to care that the free world's prime torture proponent is nominated to head our Justice department, for God's sake.
John Kerry, Mario Cuomo, Joseph Califano, Teddy Kennedy, Mary Landrieu, and other Catholic politicians who have endured endless lectures from the Catholic hierarchy need to challenge back -- where's the Church's outrage on this issue? Will the bishops ignore abuse of the least of Christ's brothers -- again? Will the Pope, who so publicly welcomed Dub and Laura to the Vatican, speak out about the intrinsic evil of supporting torture? Will Communion be given to Gonzales supporters?
Those of you who know what to argue that will challenge the fundies on this, let us know.
Hahahaha as if Senate Democrats were that smart.
Play Cards Close to Vest, ready to Pounce
I don't think Dems have to show their cards at this point -- don't announce an intent to filibuster, but don;t announce he'll face no filibuster either (and Schumer and leahy have made some statements that i think have gone too far toward the latter). That ambiguity will serve the Democrats quite well, whatever their actual intention.
That said, the only real argument presented in the Atrios comment is that "we could do worse," followed by comments above along the lines of "there are lots more behind Gonzales." I don't agree with deciding not to filibuster for those reasons. That will be true of whomever ins nominated for the Supreme Court as well; however, conservative, there will be lots more like them. If the fact that there is a less savory replacement is the standard, we'd never filibuster.
That said, I wouldn't recommend filibuster on Gonzales if he were merely conservative (and would be happy with him as a moderate conservative given that Bush is Prez, all things being equal). But at this point, again without having to declare an intent before the hearings even start, I'd lean toward a filibuster. For two reasons. First, granting the Bobby Kennery and Ed Meese precedents, I think institutionally DOJ should be headed by someone that is at least arguably independent of the White House. Gonzales is a Bush loyalist as far back as they come (which is precisely the reason, along with his heritage, that he was selected, given all the potential scandals that are embedded in the Administration). Of course, that institutional concern is a difficult one to get public support behind, so, standing alone, it would not be enough to filibuster.
But the second reason is of course this man's record. A few words sum it up nicely. Torture Man. Enemy Combatants Detained Forever. Enron. This man is not just unsuited of the top law enforcement position in the land, he is singularly unsuited for the position. If we don't filibuster an appointee for the Justice Department with this man's record, what substantive stndards could be applied to any appointment for any post?
I am acutely aware of the identity politics danger with Gonzales. That is the ONLY reason not to filibuster this guy, not his relative "moderation" on a few social issues. If he were a Swede from Minnesota, he'd never have been nominated, and never would be confirmed. Major Latino advocacy groups whom normally lean left have endorsed him. But for mercy's sake, this is one we just can't be intimidated politicially on I don't believe.
It will take significant ability to make the focus of this nomination Gonzales' record, and not his personal biography. If we were as adept at using the media -- and had an echo chamber in place as powerful as the Repubs -- it would be much easier. But, on balance, I'm for fighting this guy assuming the hearings give us the foundation to do so. That's a big assumptio
Play Cards Close to Vest, ready to Pounce (con'd)
That's a big assumption, and, again, one that we need not try to anticipate right now. Don't close any doors, but don't walk through any yet either.
Play Cards Close to Vest, ready to Pounce (con'd)
That's a big assumption, and, again, one that we need not try to anticipate right now. Don't close any doors, but don't walk through any yet either.
"...I think institutionally DOJ should be headed by someone that is at least arguably independent of the White House..."
What you "think" counts for little as the AG serves on the PRESIDENT'S cabinet. Thus has it ever been, Democrat or Republican White House. To introduce this new requirement would be seen for exactly what it is, the last election's losers having a hissy fit.
Get over it and pick your battles more wisely.
Play Cards Close to Vest, ready to Pounce (con'd)
That's a big assumption, and, again, one that we need not try to anticipate right now. Don't close any doors, but don't walk through any yet either.
Play Cards Close to Vest, ready to Pounce (con'd)
That's a big assumption, and, again, one that we need not try to anticipate right now. Don't close any doors, but don't walk through any yet either.
"What you "think" counts for little as the AG serves on the PRESIDENT'S cabinet. Thus has it ever been, Democrat or Republican White House. To introduce this new requirement would be seen for exactly what it is, the last election's losers having a hissy fit."
That's silly (other than the implication that what I think matters little to the process, which is implicit in every comment made on this thread). Your standardless approach for Presidential Cabinet appointments would render the Senate's confirmation role meaningless. Whomever the Presdient wants to head posts within the Executive Branch, he gets. Sorry, that's not how it works.
There is no "hissy fit" here I'm afraid, and I recognized that the institutional concerns are not enough standing alone. It's not true that AG appointments have always been as blatantly partisan as Gonzales, and one around during the Clinton years (and the refusal of AG Richardson to fire Cox during Watergate) might remember as much.
We need not decide at the moment whether to filibuster. But fighting against Bush crony Torture Man for AG is unquestionably a battle worth picking on the merits. Whether it is worth fighting politically is what remains to be seen.
"What you "think" counts for little as the AG serves on the PRESIDENT'S cabinet. Thus has it ever been, Democrat or Republican White House. To introduce this new requirement would be seen for exactly what it is, the last election's losers having a hissy fit."
That's silly (other than the implication that what I think matters little to the process, which is implicit in every comment made on this thread). Your standardless approach for Presidential Cabinet appointments would render the Senate's confirmation role meaningless. Whomever the Presdient wants to head posts within the Executive Branch, he gets. Sorry, that's not how it works.
There is no "hissy fit" here I'm afraid, and I recognized that the institutional concerns are not enough standing alone. It's not true that AG appointments have always been as blatantly partisan as Gonzales, and one around during the Clinton years (and the refusal of AG Richardson to fire Cox during Watergate) might remember as much.
We need not decide at the moment whether to filibuster. But fighting against Bush crony Torture Man for AG is unquestionably a battle worth picking on the merits. Whether it is worth fighting politically is what remains to be seen.
"What you "think" counts for little as the AG serves on the PRESIDENT'S cabinet. Thus has it ever been, Democrat or Republican White House. To introduce this new requirement would be seen for exactly what it is, the last election's losers having a hissy fit."
That's silly (other than the implication that what I think matters little to the process, which is implicit in every comment made on this thread). Your standardless approach for Presidential Cabinet appointments would render the Senate's confirmation role meaningless. Whomever the Presdient wants to head posts within the Executive Branch, he gets. Sorry, that's not how it works.
There is no "hissy fit" here I'm afraid, and I recognized that the institutional concerns are not enough standing alone. It's not true that AG appointments have always been as blatantly partisan as Gonzales, and one around during the Clinton years (and the refusal of AG Richardson to fire Cox during Watergate) might remember as much.
We need not decide at the moment whether to filibuster. But fighting against Bush crony Torture Man for AG is unquestionably a battle worth picking on the merits. Whether it is worth fighting politically is what remains to be seen.
"Your standardless approach for Presidential Cabinet appointments would render the Senate's confirmation role meaningless."
The confirmation process isn't "standardless", but that doesn't mean that "independent of the White House" is one of the standards in place. It would be seen, accurately, as little more than a new requirement introduced solely out of pique.
If you think the “torture man” card is strong, by all means, play it. It isn’t, btw, as his input specifically said the intentional infliction of pain (what reasonable people would call torture) would be unacceptable. If you’re going to make the case to the public that all methods beyond asking “name, rank and serial number” (all meaningless questions to terrorists) and short of the actual infliction of pain should also be out of bounds, you’re going to lose, and lose big.
"his nomination proves that George Bush doesn't actually give a shit about the lives of our soldiers in Iraq"
Bush and his buddies don't care about anyone or anything but money. That's their god.
They couldn't care less about the 59,054,087 dim bulbs who voted to hand the country over to them for another four years.
How much more death and destruction does the US and the world have to suffer because Poppy and Bar liked Jeb best?
Have you heard that Lynndie England had a boy...and the wife-beating troglodyte who knocked her off wants nothing more to do with her or the kid?
I feel sorry for the little guy, to have parents like that. I don't feel sorry for Lynndie. She's a stone cold bitch!
Excuse me....meant to say "knocked her UP."
"Wait until Gonzales is appointed to the Sumpreme Court and then filibuster the crap out of the Republicans.
It will happen.
just me"
What are the odds that, if Gonzales is confirmed as AG, and then 3 months from now Renquist croaks, Gonzales is tapped for the Supremes and Frist tries to make the case that since he's just been through a "full and exhaustive" confirmation by the Senate anyway, he should just be approved by acclamation?
I think it comes down to this:
1) do whatever is most effective in revitalizing the 48%
2) do whatever is necessary to make sure the media is forced to cover the story
3) my vote is to go with the religious angle--force the evangelicals to find the parts in the Bible which support the Abu Ghraib approach...
Um, sometimes you have to do what's right, and not what's politically expedient. The message it sends to the world community, to appoint to the nation's chief law enforcement post the man who wrote that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint," and that a little torture is okay? Not a good one to send. Maybe we'd be better off if somebody took a stand.
Mikie, what standards would you use exactly?
If you are right about the torture issue being a loser, the Dems would of course be foolish to highlight it. I look forward to Gonzales' nuanced reading of his legal advice to exempt prisoners in Iraq from the protections of the Geneva Conventions and his legal advice embracing detention practices that have been sharply criticized by federal courts, including the SCt. How those responses play out is exactly what should determine whether the Dems have a foundation for a filibuster.
I do agree with you that the Repubs will use a meme of "liberals want to coddle terrorists, and we don't." We'll see how far that gets them.
I'm all for wait-and-see, but not for the reasons cited by Atrios. It's his relationship with Bush and his record that matter most, not that there are other conservatives waiting in the wings behind him.
Also, at the start mention how great it is that he is the first Latino nominated to be AG then...ask him if he thinks he should be treated differently than any other non-hispanic would be treated. He has to answer, "No." Then hammer the prick, but first kill the "Democrats are racist" crap right away.
Patriot Act Shy | Email | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 2:27 am | #
See how easy it is? Just repeat it a lot.
I still say that the media needs manipulating to get them to do more than bury the story on A18 or whatever. Downplaying and mumbling ain't gonna do it, Chuck, you've got to promise them a show!
There has got to be somebody in the Democrat ranks smart and capable enough to push some buttons, don't you think?
Aren't there pictures of soldiers raping little boys or something? Maybe little lynndie did a video of her and her sperm donor?
The poublic loves pictures, they're so, so, visceral.
I agree filibuster is not the answer. But simply making the case is not sufficient either: the Democrats not only need to make their points about his prior legal opinions (re: torture, DP, and secrecy) but VOTE AGAINST him.
I'm sorry, but there is no point voting in favor of the nomination when you are the minority. Due to sheer numbers, Gonzales will pass out of the Judiciary Committee and receive the requisite votes to be confirmed. Don't block it, but go on record opposing this (and other bad) nominations. I intend to write Dick Durbin telling him I expect him to enforce lockstep conformity on such votes. Believe me ... if he does something appalling, the Republicans will just say "well, the Democrats voted to confirm him." Don't. CYA. Leave a paper trail of objection and then let him hang himself.
I disagree completely.
We need to filibuster everything. Bush didn't compromise at all in his first term. Well, now he's a lame duck. Make his lameness a daily fact of his life. If Bush wants to steamroll, friggin' PUSH BACK! We aren't nematodes.
I mentioned to my 15 year old daughter, who's taking AP European History, about Gonzales' approach to the President's inherent power to set aside laws, and her response was that it sounded like one of the advisors to Louis XIV. She said the French had a revolution to get rid of that kind of thinking. I said that we did, too.
All right, I acknowledge that a lot of Americans are ignorant of American history. I realize that there's a strong desire out there for a "Strong Daddy" to protect us against the evil terrorists. But I also believe that it's part of our cultural heritage that we rose up against George III because we didn't believe in the divine right of kings. We don't believe in the divine right of Presidents, either. There are probably some people out there who believe that there is such a thing as the divine right of the President, but I believe that these people are not the majority and I believe that our representatives in Congress would be ashamed to actually stand up and say that they agree with this concept (if only for the preservation of what's left of the legislative power).
And for the person who said that opposing torture was a losing argument, you misstated his position on torture. Mr. Gonzales took the position that unless the pain caused by interrogation included "injury such as death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions", it did not constitute torture. Considerably different from claimiing that asking for anything more than name rank and serial number would constitute torture, in my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of any thinking person.
It's not possible to protect people from their own mistakes and bad judgment. They only resent you for trying. Stopping the neo-cons from appointing a pro-torture AG won’t result in long term support from moderates. We’d be seen as obstructing, not preserving the integrity of the justice system. If the effort was successful and the neo-cons appointed someone more competent and less controversial, then the Democrats would have less ammunition for the next election and still have a very bad, but stealthy, AG.
I think the Democrats need to simply vote against the nominees and clearly state why. Make it obvious why the nominee is flawed. Make it into a morals issue.
Personally, I still want Vermont to secede from the Union. Arguing over how to stop the appointment of a pro-torture Attorney General is a clear sign that the Union is beyond repair.
"I look forward to Gonzales' nuanced reading of his legal advice to exempt prisoners in Iraq from the protections of the Geneva Conventions and his legal advice embracing detention practices that have been sharply criticized by federal courts, including the SCt."
I think you make a good point and pose a fair question. The response, however, is obvious. He'll say that Al Queada members captured in Iraq don't warrant GC protections because they declined, by means of their methods of operation and failure to identify themselves as combatants, to be a part of the GC structure. They represent a breed not covered by the GC, which has simply failed to stay current with modern conflict.
The public couldn’t care less about courts being critical of detention practices, as over-reaching courts are nothing new to them. The fact is even with detection practices as they are, detainees have resurfaced after being released on battlefields attacking American troops. If anything the majority of the public will believe Democrats have gone from being the advocates of criminals to being advocates of terrorists. Ask Tom Dashle about the consequences of being seen as obstructionist without reason. Unless you’re looking to ensure a 60 seat GOP Senate in ’06, you’ll let this pass.
Bottom line, Bush won, and barring some massive ethical shortcoming thus far not presented, Gonzales should be confirmed. This isn’t the sword you want to fall on.
Bush can get any AG he wants.
Atrios is right. Use the nomination to shine a light on Abu Ghraib, etc.
Vote against the nomination, so it is on record that Gonzales was confirmed on a party-line vote.
The filibuster must be used for battles that are winnable.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm asking my Senators to filibuster this nomination as a matter of principle (we shouldn't have a pro-torture Attorney General) and to send a message (that the Democrats aren't going to roll over for Bush in his second term).
It's not possible to protect people from their own mistakes and bad judgment. They only resent you for trying. Stopping the neo-cons from appointing a pro-torture AG won’t result in long term support from moderates. We’d be seen as obstructing, not preserving the integrity of the justice system. If the effort was successful and the neo-cons appointed someone more competent and less controversial, then the Democrats would have less ammunition for the next election and still have a very bad, but stealthy, AG.
I think the Democrats need to simply vote against the nominees and clearly state why. Make it obvious why the nominee is flawed. Make it into a morals issue.
Personally, I still want Vermont to secede from the Union. Arguing over how to stop the appointment of a pro-torture Attorney General is a clear sign that the Union is beyond repair.
The first time the Democrats try to filibuster anything that the GOPranos really want, the rule that allows filibusters will be voted out of existence. There's no real value in "saving" it for something "more" worthwhile than this.
I have to agree there's little value in filibustering Gonzales, but I don't see much value in not filibustering him either.
About the only thing I can come up with in favor of not filibustering is Downtown Lad's argument at the top: if they filibuster and succeed, Bush will likely nominate someone even worse. Gonzales might be the best we can hope for. (God help us.)
But I'm queasy at the prospect of an AG who thinks laws against mistreating prisoners are "quaint" or "obsolete." After all, many of us could become victims of this new attitude if we try to protest Bush's wars.
"Mr. Gonzales took the position that unless the pain caused by interrogation included "injury such as death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions", it did not constitute torture."
Not really. Yours is an edited version of the sentence. The entire sentences says that in order to fit the legal definition of torture that the victim had to “..experience pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe as that injury such as death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions will likely result”. (pg 13)
IOW, not only are those activities criminal, even inflicting the kind of pain expected to be equal to those sorts of activities are illegal under the law. It’s important to note that the memo was specially an attempt to discuss existing case law and define “torture” at the extremes. It was anything but an endorsement of tort
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...emo20020801.pdf
I basically feel a President should be able to pick his own cabinet without too much interference. That said, I also beleive it would be wrong to just go along for the ride. We should get this guy on the record, under oath, on prison torture, Supreme Court recommendations, Gay marriage and everything else under the sun. Have him explain the word "morality"! We probably can't stop the confirmation, but we can make sure he is quoted everywhere!
Active opposition in the Senate is a good thing, but it isn't enough. While I'd like to see Senators repeatedly asking Gonzales for his reaction to photos from Abu Gharib, showing each one to the cameras, I'm afraid it will get dismissed as grandstanding. We need the Senators to be ripping him on his incompetent lawyering (Texas memos and testimony from JAGs and State Dept.), while flying under popular "air cover". We need left/center equivalents of Bob Jones; people out there in the media screaming that he is a murderer and a torturer. (Heck, he'd even kill unborn children, if the zygotists are right.)
The Dems in the Senate should be able to appear "reasonable" and "cooperative" relative to their "home voters", who want Gonzales jailed and executed, after he gets to be the subject of a one-page memo ignoring exculpatory evidence. We need to be fighting on many fronts, hard.
"While I'd like to see Senators repeatedly asking Gonzales for his reaction to photos from Abu Gharib, showing each one to the cameras, I'm afraid it will get dismissed as grandstanding."
Yep, it would be grandsatnding. Perhaps you missed the news about the people who actually committed the acts at Abu Gharib, who said they knew they were committing criminal acts, getting convicted in a couple of Courts Marshal.
This does nothing but play into the (correct) public's perception that a handful of thugs acting unsupervised tormented prisoners. Attempts to draw a line from that to Gonzales, or Rummy or Bush just haven't washed, and never will.
"We need left/center equivalents of Bob Jones . . ."
Exactly.
Write/call/e-mail the
World Council of Churches,
Amnesty International,
International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (whose president quoted the Pope as stating, "the thought of Jesus being stripped, beaten and derided until his final agony on the Cross should always prompt a Christian to protest against similar treatment of his fellow human beings."),
and Google to find others (Christian + torture).
I don't know who first called him "Abu Gonzales", but that should be the Dems' name for him from here on out. I wish I could disagree with Atrios on the filibuster thang, but he's right, the media would be all over it, and still manage to say absolutely nothing about the issues involved.
It's a shame. Kinda like a boxer who only has one good punch, and everybody knows what it is, and he doesn't dare swing it.
I think the political watchphrase for the Democrats, retroactively to at least 2000, and into the forseeable future (unless we can do something about it) is "It's the media, stupid!"
Oops. That should have said
International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture,
Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, etc.
"This does nothing but play into the (correct) public's perception that a handful of thugs acting unsupervised tormented prisoners."
That's a correct interpretation of what happened at Abu Ghraib and why?
Mikie, you've jumped the shark.
The first time the Democrats try to filibuster anything that the GOPranos really want, the rule that allows filibusters will be voted out of existence. There's no real value in "saving" it for something "more" worthwhile than this.
Seraphiel
You've got that right!
"That's a correct interpretation of what happened at Abu Ghraib and why?"
Since the convicted said they knew they had to hide what they were doing from their superiors, the burden is on you to prove their actions were anything more than a handful of thugs left unsupervised.
Talk about jumping the shark, the NY Times did that with 50 some-odd straight days of Abu Gharib coverage on the front page.
"I'm asking my Senators to filibuster this nomination as a matter of principle..."
Unless you're in a super-blue state your Senator isn't going to end his/her career on something as trival and narrow in its appeal. Bank on it.
"Since the convicted said they knew they had to hide what they were doing from their superiors, the burden is on you to prove their actions were anything more than a handful of thugs left unsupervised."
It's spendid non-sequiturs like this that I will use at my confirmation hearings. Bank on it.
Sincerely,
Abu Gonzales
Torture Man, well, if that's how you want to dance around the facts, so be it. The convicted thugs said they did it for kicks and that they knew their supervisors would stop them if it came to their attention. The pretrial "My son said he was following orders" claim disappeared when the thugs went under oath.
Mikie, since your posts are troll-like (or troll-lite perhaps), I am tempted not to respond. But here it goes anyway.
Citing the plea transcripts from the soldiers who have pled guilty in plea deals is not a convincing way to apportion responsibility for Abu Ghraib. Heck, at least of couple of these may actually go to trial (I think some were transferred this week to the US for that purpose). Of course the soldiers bear individual responsibility. But that does not mean responsibility -- defined more broadly than legal culpability under the MCJ -- extends well-beyond each individual soldier's actions and motivations.
The official DoD report re: Abu Ghraib issued in August 2004 concludes: "There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities. Still, the abuses were not just failures of some individuals to follow knwon standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." (p5)
As for the DoD's conclusions about a "policy of abuse," compare that with the Army's report on Abu Ghraib, summarized here re: atmosphere fostered by policy of commission and omission developed up chain of command:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2004Aug29.html
My point isn't that individual soldiers were acting under the direct order of Donald Rumsfeld. But that isn't what is required, or the applicable "factual burden" for one concerned about Abu Ghraib to bear. What happened at Abu Ghraib has proven to be not a departure from the tone and tenor of official policy, but an extension of it. And that policy was, in part, reflected in the approach of Gonzales to the Geneva Conventions (an approach consistent with his approach to the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants"). In some Administrations, a Presdient might actually show some leadership by holding individuals up the military and civilian chain of command accountable for Abu Ghraib -- for the policy decisions that preceded and fostered that environment, and for the lack of supervision and control that permitted it. But not in this Administration.
Likewise, in some Administrations, a lawyer whose ends justifies the means approach to the Geneva Conventions and now discredited detention policies might not expect to be rewarded with the highest law enforcement position in the land. But not in this Administration, especially when you've got a talent in CYA'ing for the President.
In the end, you may be right about whether it is politically wise to go after Gonzales. But that argument does not require your dismissive approach to Abu Ghraib, or your effort to limit responsibility for it, or your suggestion that Gonzales was involved in decisions that required only reading case law -- rather than decisions he knew involved making actual policy and prescriptive judgments.
Those judgments were plain
Those judgments were plainly wrong, even if, in the end, you are right that filibustering him is wrongheaded.
Mikie pulled his email... coward.
And the torture memos, redacted Taguba portions are now fair game.
Bring out the generals! Let's get McCain's opinon on this guy.
Someone ask Gonzo about ENRON!
And we can ask him question in fluent Latin (Menendez and Richardson).
Bring It On!
I've come to understand that "troll like" here means wandering from the group think, even if you're polite about it.
"Citing the plea transcripts from the soldiers who have pled guilty in plea deals is not a convincing way to apportion responsibility for Abu Ghraib."
Actually, it is. If the convicted say they knew what they were doing was wrong, and that they knew their supervisors would put an end to it if they knew it was happening, it pretty much destroys the “culture of abuse” theory.
" But that does not mean responsibility -- defined more broadly than legal culpability under the MCJ -- extends well-beyond each individual soldier's actions and motivations."
It only extends further to the extent that these troops weren’t properly supervised.
"The official DoD report re: Abu Ghraib issued in August 2004 concludes: "There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities. Still, the abuses were not just failures of some individuals to follow knwon standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." (p5)"
Exactly, see above. There was not only a failure on the part of the soliders themselves to live up to standards, there was a failure on the part of their supervisors. That’s a far cry from claiming there was some culture of abuse. What there was a failure of leadership. If you want to claim that failure wasn’t just low level NCOs, upper level NCOs, junior officers, commanding officers of the MP and MI Brigades, the command authority at the top in Iraq and ran all the way to the pentagon and the White House, it becomes obvious your agenda isn’t a search for the truth.
"What happened at Abu Ghraib has proven to be not a departure from the tone and tenor of official policy, but an extension of it."
This is where you drift from reality to hysteria. Nothing of the sort was proven. It was, in fact, explictly sited as a departure from policy.
"In some Administrations, a Presdient might actually show some leadership by holding individuals up the military and civilian chain of command accountable for Abu Ghraib -- for the policy decisions that preceded and fostered that environment, and for the lack of supervision and control that permitted it. But not in this Administration."
Lunacy. The highest ranking individual participating in these acts was an E-6. The people who committed the acts have been tried and convicted. Their immediate commanders have been relieved and face further disciplinary action. The General commanding the installation included. This attempt to draw a scandal from the E-6 level, when the participants KNEW they were violating procedures, all the way to the Oval office is just ridiculous.
"Likewise, in some Administrations, a lawyer whose ends justifies the means approach to the Geneva Conventions and now discredited detentio
Likewise, in some Administrations, a lawyer whose ends justifies the means approach to the Geneva Conventions and now discredited detention policies might not expect to be rewarded with the highest law enforcement position in the land.
If that were even remotely true, you might have a point. It isn’t, and you don’t.
But that argument does not require your dismissive approach to Abu Ghraib, or your effort to limit responsibility for it, or your suggestion that Gonzales was involved in decisions that required only reading case law -- rather than decisions he knew involved making actual policy and prescriptive judgments.
Wow, talk about an unsupported leap. First, I’m anything but “dismissive” about Abu Ghrab. It was a horrible black mark that not only soiled the uniform those thugs wore, it gave ammunition to the enemy. That doesn’t mean I have to agree to your conspiracy wiring diagram that says that soldiers at the very bottom, knowing that they’re doing wrong, means the President’s counsel is involved.
Let me give you a real world example to illustrate my point. Shortly after the Earth cooled I was an Army officer, stationed in Germany. I had in my company soldiers that, obviously unknown to me, were selling drugs. My chain of command and I did the usual health and welfare stuff, the inspections, etc. Never found any evidence, never suspected anything, until the MPs caught these guys.
They knew they were breaking the law, they hide their activities. How much blame for that did I deserve? Nada. What if I had been like the derelict commanders at Abu Ghrab and WOULD have known if I’d been supervising properly? A great deal. How much responsibility would my immediate commander have, if he knew I WAS doing what was required to maintain good order and discipline? Nada. Drag that up the chain of command, oh, 15 levels, how responsible was the president? Not at all….
Coward? After only two hours of email from here it was obvious there was no need to continue offering it. What nasty stuff, and I thought I was being polite here. If you have something to say to me, say it here, coward.
I agree, ask Gonzales about Enron. I have no doubt he's every bit as guilty as Bob Rubin, Krugman, Mac MClarty and everyone else who was ever on the payroll there. They're all felons, right? All 75000 of them.
Perhaps you missed the news about the people who actually committed the acts at Abu Gharib, who said they knew they were committing criminal acts, getting convicted in a couple of Courts Marshal.
Mikie | Email | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 2:18 pm |
and then
Shortly after the Earth cooled I was an Army officer, stationed in Germany. I had in my company soldiers that, obviously unknown to me, were selling drugs.
mikie | Email | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 6:31 pm |
I think mikie is funning us. I can't imagine anyone who was a company grade officer referring to courts martial as "courts marshal".
The Gonzales nomination has something in common with the vote count controversy. It's all about muddying the "mandate."
I'm one who doesn't think vote counts in OH, FL . . . are going to overturn the result (sorry if I've missed anything being offline the past 40-odd hours) much as I'd love to see it. But shit DID happen and making it public makes the "mandate" less a mandate. Remember, the point of Watergate wasn't that it swayed the election. The point was that it occurred and was covered up, and a landslide elected president resigned about 30 months later. (I can dream, can't I?)
Likewise the Gonzales nomination can be used, by the good guys (uh, us) to burn up a lot of that political "capital" without going the filibuster route. Just forcing the administation to defend Gonzales arguing for torture, among other things, could be highly effective.
I'll gladly withdraw the troll allusion, given the effort to respond on the merits. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't equate Abu Ghraib, and what the investigations have revealed about it, with concealed drug use, and responsibility for miltary and civilian leaders in this instance should not be limited by the elements of offenses found in the Uniform Code. You apparently think I've lost perspective on the merits, but when it comes to Abu Ghraib and Gonzales' record as White House counsel, I'd have to say the same of you.
In any event, genuinely enjoyed the exchange, and I'm checking out of this thread.
The Dems should filibuster this one. The reason is that the pictures from Abu Garib are the single most important factor in American attitudes about the war. The majority of the population wants desperately to believe that America always does the right thing, and they'll hang the Republicans in the mid-term elections if the Dems can make Abu Garib a Republican policy.
War criminal to replace religious fanatic.
I haven't a recommended approach as yet, but I believe that this continued ignoring by democrats of the reality of what has transpired needs to change, i.e., this failure to acknowledge that a majority of Americans DID know what they were doing when they voted for the Bushliar is going to continue to get us nowhere. As applicable to this topic, what is the purpose of pointing out the inappropriateness of Gonzales when a majority of Americans think it IS ok to torture prisoners. And not to mention that the rest of us already know he is inappropriate. In other words, continuing to try to convince everyone that we are right, we are the true America is a waste of time - a new approach is needed to put our energies into.
Use the hearings? Yes. Attack? Yes. Be obstructionist? Yes!
And if called obstructionist, don't weasel - say "damn straight!"
The only reason not to filibuster is if the Dems don't think they can maintain it long enough to make pests of themselves. Successfully stopping him may not be possible and shouldn't even be the point. Acting like an actual opposition is.
And if you do succeed in blocking Gonzales and the next nominee is "even worse?" Do it again! There's no reason in hell you have to accept a second choice just because you blocked the first.
It's time anyone still deserving of the label "left" realizes that one of the reasons we keep losing is that we're faced with people prepared to go to the mat over just about anything while we keep wanting to "pick our battles."
We're in a political war for the future of this country and it's high time we realized it and started *acting like it* instead of treating it like some high school debate where everyone shakes hands afterwards and goes down the to malt shop.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
