Gonzales-Bush Loyalty A Two-Way Street

Washington Post Analysis: Examining The Career Of The Attorney General Upon His Resignation

(WASHINGTONPOST.COM) 
Gonzales lacked experience in many federal laws or national security matters, and many of his colleagues described him as a relatively passive participant in the sometimes acrimonious discussions that were driven - and often won in the months after Sept. 11 - by Vice President Richard Cheney's ideologically hard-line legal counsel, David Addington.

Gonzales was "unassuming, pleasant, and quiet," said a former official who sat in interagency meetings on terrorism matters. "He never made an impression on me." The suspicion that Gonzales served as a passive or disconnected figurehead while other, more politically-minded officials decided events would later resurface among lawmakers in the controversy over the prosecutor firings.

But it was Gonzales, as White House counsel and later as Attorney General, whose name appeared at the bottom of some of the most controversial classified documents justifying harsh CIA and Defense Department treatment of U.S. detainees suspected of involvement in terrorism.

Two months after the 2001 terrorist attacks Gonzales and Addington jointly drafted an order authorizing those captured on the battlefield in the counter-terror fight to be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian courts. Under the Pentagon's initial tribunal rules, conviction would come from a two-thirds vote, appeals would be extremely limited, and all facts and legal issues would be adjudicated by the military.

The Supreme Court said last June that the tribunals were neither authorized by Congress nor required by military necessity, and it blocked them from proceeding. The court also repudiated a second Gonzales legal claim, made in a Jan. 2002 memo embraced by Bush, that the president had the authority to exempt detainees captured in Afghanistan from the human rights protections mandated by the Geneva Conventions.

Gonzales had sought to justify his position by claiming the counter-terror effort made the convention's strict limitations on detainee treatment "obsolete," a viewpoint that outraged then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers and other senior military officials. A Defense Department panel would later conclude that Bush's decision to accept Gonzales's advice played a key role in the establishment of abusive interrogation practices at for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

When the Supreme Court ruled this position illegal last June, it affirmed that the Geneva Conventions must be applied to detainees held by the United States anywhere. So Gonzales and his deputies last fall persuaded Congress to raise the threshold for criminal prosecutions for violating the conventions, and allow the military to introduce evidence from confessions obtained through "cruel, unusual, or inhumane" interrogations by the CIA or the military before 2005. Congress is now discussing whether to change that law.

Gonzales also was closely associated with a controversial loosening, in Aug. 2002, of the U.S. definition of what constitutes prohibited torture. The underlying legal opinion was written for the CIA by the Justice Department, but it was briefed twice to Gonzales at the White House before its final adoption. Those sessions included detailed descriptions of the suffering that detainees would experience during CIA interrogations that incorporated such methods as simulated drowning.

Under the new definition, only physically punishing acts "of an extreme nature" were considered prosecutable, and those using torture with express presidential authority or without the intent to commit harm could be considered immune from prosecution. These conclusions were later cited approvingly in a Defense Department memo authorizing "exceptional interrogations" at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where FBI agents claimed that abuses were occurring.

Most legal experts have long said that global torture prohibitions allow no exceptions. But Gonzales expressed no objections to the proposed interrogation methods and did not suggest major changes to the Justice Department memo, according to officials familiar with the briefings.

After the memo's public release sparked an outcry among human rights and legal scholars around the world, former Gonzales deputy Timothy E. Flanigan called the memo "inappropriate in a sort of sophomorish way" and Gonzales himself called its conclusions "unnecessary, overbroad discussions" of abstract legal theories. In Dec. 2004, the administration withdrew its key passages, but without explicitly addressing where the "bounds" of presidential power lie.

Gonzales - who had repeatedly asked, "are we being forward-leaning enough" in policy discussions on interrogations - admitted no personal error in those events. "Sometimes people do things that they shouldn't do," Gonzales said at his confirmation hearing in Jan. 2005. "People are imperfect...and so the fact that abuses occur, they're unfortunate but I'm not sure that they should be viewed as surprising."

As the attorney general, Gonzales continued to serve as a reliable advocate for White House policies. He publicly questioned the reliability of FBI accounts of abusive interrogations at Guantanamo; he also defended the practice of "extraordinary rendition," the process under which the United States sometimes transfers detainees in the war on terrorism to nations where they may undergo harsh interrogation, trial or imprisonment.

[kansas1946]

Few attributes are more highly prized in President Bush''s White House than loyalty
*************
GWB wouldn''t know the meaning of the word loyalty if it bit him in the a**. He is a spoiled, self-centered, brat, that surrounds himself with yes men. (Like Gonzales)
Problem is that Alberto got caught being a yes man and lying to congress. To equate these sycophants to loyalty is dragging the idea of loyalty through the sewer.

[name_verify]

Conservatives didnt give Reno a free pass. The AG needs to be able to take the heat. Gonzales took the worst of the fire and survived. Libs had stalled and were going nowhere with their questioning. The media had become bored with the story. It was a tactical blunder for Gonzales to stand down. It will embolden Libs.

[lars008-2009]

The Real Stars: In Today''s America, Who Are the True Heroes?

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Stars-Todays-America-Heroes/dp/1401911447/ref=pd_bbs_sr_7/102-3108959-6420903?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188392424&sr=8-7

[lars008-2009]

http://www.freedomswatch.org/

[lars008-2009]

LOOK WHO IS TARGETING CIVILIANS!!!

Qaeda warns of attacks ''worse than 9/11''
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070530102648.wuwa6k96&show_article=1

Hizbullah Deputy Sec-Gen Sheikh Naim Qassem: We Have Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out ''Martyrdom'' Operations, Fire Missiles on Israeli Civilians From Ayatollah Khomeini
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD154907

Switching Sides: Inside The Enemy Camp

But then in 2000, well before his arrest, something happened which would make Abas question everything he believed in: a fatwa, a religious edict, was issued by Osama bin Laden.

"It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," Simon quotes bin Laden.

Abas and his fellow commanders were ordered to read the fatwa to their men and make sure they carried it out. The others obeyed, but Abas refused. It was his moment of truth. He firmly believed that jihad was to be fought only on the battlefield in defense of Islam; he had always been taught that the killing of civilians had nothing to do with holy war and that it was forbidden.

The fatwa justified killing non-Muslim civilians everywhere.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/60minutes/main2761108.shtml?source=RSSattr=60Minutes_2761108
American Al Qaeda Member Threatens Attack
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/terror/main2865282.shtml

[likeitis5050]

Sick of all them....Bush and all babybush bu..ttbuddies who actually think they are above all the laws. And they were stupid about it, at that!!! If you''re going to lie, cheat, steal, and conspire to destroy...be smart about it. Yes, the truth always comes out, but this is the stupidest bunch of hillbillies ever to grace Washington. I thought Johnson was disgusting and arrogant...HAH! This bunch has the game and gone! Someone needs to just park a moving van in front of the White House and leave it as a reminder that nothing lasts forever....thank God!

[pepperp1]

"You''re loyal to the mission. You''re loyal to performance. You''re loyal to the country,"


Ahh now you tell Bush, what stopped you from speaking up earlier? It is safe to say Bush has never considered these three criteria when he makes his gut god speak decisions. And it shows, the Bush legacy will be of an amoral man void of a moral center, a vicious wining politician and a failed Statesman whose need of the sycophant came first before country.

[donnie900]

"Stealing elections.." Unbelievable. Democrats used to hang out outside voting booths and pass out free cigarettes to anybody who''d vote democratic! Then they get elected and its: "Don''t smoke".

[nggr]

"every Mussulman"

i a musselmanlike ahnohld

[nexgen99]

I never liker Gonzales,but what really gets me is that scum like Sen. Chuck Schumer was allowed to stay in office after one of his staff was charge with identity theft stealing information on republicians rivals. And you just know this was done with Chuck the Smucks complete knowledge.

[lars008-2009]

there is no peace with fascist nazi islam%u2026.. there never has been in it%u2019s 1400 year existence%u2026

dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone....

gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses.....

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli''s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
muslim justifies slavery and piracy%u2026
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7

[forthepeopl1]

TO ALL RECRUITS BETTER READ FIRST

"Because if we''''d gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn''''t have been anybody else with us %u2014 it would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein''''s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That''''s a very volatile part of the world.

And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it%u2026uh%u2026the Syrians would like to have in the West. Part of the eastern part of Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north, you''''ve got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It''''s a%u2026it''''s a quagmire, if you go that far in trying to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Uh%u2026everyone was impressed with that fact that%u2026uh%u2026we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn''''t a cheap war. And the question for the President in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got that right."

[nottellin1]

I don''''''''t think there was any issue with the 2004 election. Therefore, the Bush was never elected comment is a little past due."[Posted by nottellin1"

We in Ohio would beg to differ with your 2004 assessment.
Posted by oleander8 at 12:58 PM : Aug 28, 2007

Ok I''ll bite, what happened in Ohio in 2004?

[donnie900]

"Bush never had the right stuff to be president. He has made a hash out of the job and we, the people, get to suffer for it."

I''m not convinced he''s not just a victim of an overblown media.

[oleander8]

Bush is a mediocre man who was used by smarter men for their own personal gain. He ranks right down there with Clarence Thomas and Dan Quayle. Bush did a lot for a lot of people - just not the American people.

[donnie900]

"Hey donnie, how is life treating you in back that computer monitor?"

Oh good.. I''m scratch''n me peckkkker.

[clestes-2009]

Bush never had the right stuff to be president. He has made a hash out of the job and we, the people, get to suffer for it.

So will our children and grandchildren. America''s time in the sun is over. There are very dark clouds on the horizon. Massive debt, broken military, stagnent economy. Immigration, healthcare, education, social security all needed overhauling and nothing happened. Those issues will still need to be addressed next term along with ending the Iraq debacle and repairing our reputation.

We will be living with Bush problems for decades to come.

[oleander8]

"I don''''t think there was any issue with the 2004 election. Therefore, the Bush was never elected comment is a little past due."[Posted by nottellin1"

We in Ohio would beg to differ with your 2004 assessment.

[Syndicate]

Please enough with the stolen election ***. If Gore had won, it would have been because he stole the election. I still get mad when I think about the way he tried to disqualify all the military ballots from our troops and only wanted to recount the votes for him in a county that would "try" to figure out the voters intent. I can see it now " This voter must have sliped and voted for Bush on accident! Thats one more for Gore. Wow everyone voted for Gore" Doesn''t matter anyway. Because in Bush''s reelection he received more votes than any presidential candidate had before. I can make many arguments about Bush brillance. For example letting the Democrats have the congress just long enough to show their complete incompetance. Bush must have used those rigged ballot machines to get the Democrats Elected. I think the rest of you are not quite bright enough to see how smart Bush is. Obviously your blinded by either your hatred or your ignorance. Probably both. Have a nice day.

[nottellin1]

That is,.. beleiving the guy was ever really "elected President"...lol...some beg to differ,... and his performance, his decisions(or lack there of),..and evidence of any real sound judgement,...makes you wonder if these "Conspiracy theorists" who think elections were stolen,...are on to somthing....Cuz this Knuckle-dragger does not seem fit to run a
7-11,... let alone , a Super power country...ah, my 2 cents..lol
Posted by DODAZ at 11:50 AM : Aug 28, 2007

The only way the ''bush was never elected'' excude is valid would be between 00-04. I don''t think there was any issue with the 2004 election. Therefore, the Bush was never elected comment is a little past due.