13 thoughts on “Torture Gonzales Out”

  1. Surprized that AIPAC permitted this resignation, actually. Gonzales has turned the methodology of American justice into a virtual duplicate of Isreal’s and that ought to be rather pleasing, I would suppose. The news conference likely will produce the logic, “I-couldn’t-function-because-of-the-distraction”, but Gonzalez had little to fear from those tigers, the Democrats. If anything, Senate GOP pressure was most certain to have been decisive. But I wonder if anyone checked with Tom Lantos.

    John Lowell

  2. Betcha the next AG will end up going after Bush and Co. as part of a GOP plan to earn the party some street cred, while putting distance between the ’08 candidate and the inept scofflaws who make up the current administration.

  3. Mr. Gonzales sanctioned the torture of prisoners of war, and authorized the warrentless wiretapping of Americans. I urge that he be arrested and put on trial as an international war crimminal and a national traitor because of his intentional disregard for the Geneva Convention, the Nuremburg Canon, and the U.S. Constitution.

    1. He will probably do the same thing that the other high ranking criminal bureaucrats out there. Write a crappy book, go on some speaking tour, then get a cozy position at a University and make appearances on Fox News as a “Senior Analyst of Some Crap”.

  4. Things could go from bad to worse….why? Bush’s reported top choice to replace Gonzales is none other DHS Chief Michael Chertoff. So, considering what a bang up job his agency did when Katrina hit New Orleans two summers ago and the “funny feelings” he’s been having this summer about terror attacks inside the U.S. this summer, I guess incompetence and fearmongering are now prerequisites for assuming the mantle of power in Washington these days.

  5. I wonder if the dems passing the wire tap law before the recess freed him from possible prosecution. If so, this makes perfect sense.

    1. While I’m not exactly sure whether or not the surveillance legislation just passed exempts Gonzalez from a wiretap related problem, the MCA certainly got him off the hook on torture. Your point is very well taken, however, and almost certain to be accurate. What tickles me about your observation is that after all the high and mighty talk from supposed “rights” and “anti-war” Democrats since the last election, a gas-bag like Jim Webb – who likely has fulminated about Gonzalez – voted for this bill just as Sherrod Brown voted for the MCA in 2006. It just goes on and on. We need a second Constitutional Convention.

      John Lowell

  6. I disagree. We don’t need a constitutional convention…it would be far too dangerous considering the jibcut of the current crop of politicians, both Federal (with a few notable exceptions) and to a slightly lesser extent, State. Too much social welfare/warfare ideology lurks beneath the surface on both sides of the aisle…and too few of the booboisie seem to care. No…the current Constitution would serve just fine if enforced as the framers envisioned. The only possible improvement would be a return to The Articles of Confederation which would sound the death knell of leviathon and an end to centralization. Alas…too late for that.

    1. My call for a new constitutional convention never contemplated the involvement of anyone with previous political experience, D.J. Weber. To the contrary, what I had envisioned specifically would exclude such persons. In my view, it is of the utmost importance to make a clean break with the past, to turn mother’s picture to the wall as it were, and to begin anew. Retention of the old document, it having been brought low in the way that it has, would seem almost toxic in such a context. Reform having proven itself consistently unattainable, everything needs to be re-thought and reformulated. There can be no looking back.

      John Lowell

      1. You’re entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, John Lowell. And mine remains that a constitutional convention would be far too dangerous. Strict constructionism is not reform…it is the form, and considering how low the constitution has, in your words, been brought…or usurped…complete reversion to constructionism would be a Revolution Within The Form. And thus, in my opinion, the only non-vioent and therefore, acceptable means. And I fail to see how persons with previous political experience could be excluded…or censored…so to speak. As citizens, however deplorable, they too have a right to speak…or at least they did under the original document. One must be careful of what one asks for…one just might get it!

        D.J. Weber

        1. D.J. Weber,

          You say:

          “And I fail to see how persons with previous political experience could be excluded…or censored…so to speak. As citizens, however deplorable, they too have a right to speak…or at least they did under the original document.”

          Eventually, perhaps, persons with previous political experience might be readmitted to the ballot but that could only follow a period of public trials and appropriate sentencing. Even today as thieves and felons are punished and denied the privilege of the vote, so it should be after the implementation of the new Constitution. The criminal definitions will need to be much more precise this time around.

          Following WWII, of course, Germany experienced a profitable period of internal political cleansing, albeit not without considerable resentment and certain regrettable imbalances. Something similar will need to be done with our own National Socialists and with those who by their calculated inaction have aided them but, this time, with every effort being made to avoid such inconsistencies. All of this presupposes, naturally, that fundamental change will be brought about by massive peaceful demonstrations carried out along the lines of those in Ukraine last year. I’m speculating in all of this, of course, but absent a similar kind of public enthusiasm, we’re clearly doomed to continue along familiar lines forever with all of the attendant resignation and ennui.

          John Lowell

Comments are closed.