No on Gonzales

Since Zap and I both agree that Gonzales is a strikingly poor choice for Attorney General (even though we disagree on the most effective or principled method for his rejection), I think it's appropriate to reprint wholesale as part of a "blog petition" the Daily Kos post entitled 'No on Gonzales':

For interested Kosians stopping by, here's conservative Zap's three posts on Gonzales, chronologically:

General Gonzo
Compassionate Cronyism
Confirming Gonzales, Weakening the Constitution

The Kos Petition:

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.

As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Convention, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

Signed, Daily Kos Management (past and present)

[--TJ and Zap]

Comments

[Zap]

Nice, but too weak. If a no vote leads to ratfication, which is likely, then it's masturbatory.

[Torridjoe]

Mr. Polemical! :)

I won't enter into this discussion again here, but I just got off the phone with Senator Smith's (R-OR) office. His staffer said he was originally "yes to confirm, on the condition that he (Smith) needed to review the hearing transcripts again." I tried to connect that stance to the Congressional Democrat grumblings that Gonzales failed to answer several of the questions satisfactorily, and the staffer said that was probably part of Smith's rationale for not committing, but he couldn't be sure.

He also couldn't be sure if Smith had changed his mind, but for certain I got no enthusiasm about a 'yes' vote. If Smith's finger is sufficiently wet, he may be one blue-state R Senator who is feeling new winds of dissension.

[Zap]

Any readers curious about the discussion Torrid will not enter into again here (and I gave him the last word as it is), most of it can be found in the comments under the third link above, Confirming Gonzo, Weakening the Constitution. Our debate is whether he should be filibustered or if dissenters should just vote no, and let the outcome be decided accordingly. I say filibuster. Torrid says vote no.