White House memo criticized

[Spazito]

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday rejected suggestions by critics on Capitol Hill that the recent abuse of prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) could have stemmed from a memo he wrote in 2002 that said foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan (news - web sites) were not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

snip

The memo was mentioned in some news stories in 2002, but it was revived in the context of the prison scandal by Newsweek magazine this month. It led some members of Congress to challenge whether it set the tone for harsh interrogation techniques that have come under scrutiny in the Iraq prisoner-abuse scandal.


That has drawn Gonzales, a longtime confidante of President Bush (news - web sites) mentioned as a possible Supreme Court appointee, into the widening abuse scandal and into questions of whether the administration evaded international law. Gonzales said there is no link between his memo and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

snip

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), said he wants to know whether the memo gave "a green light for American operators to go outside the law" in dealing with Iraqis. He has asked Gonzales for the final memo he prepared. "There's a very strong suspicion that a signal was given (to troops): You go ahead and operate the way you want; we're giving you deniability," Leahy said.

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=9&u=/usatoday/whitehousememocriticized

[maddezmom]

1. Say No Gonzales and NO to Haynes nominations n/t

[jmcgowanjm]

2. Rummy, Powell, Rice and Ashcroft should've resigned by now

Civil War will be backdated to sometime in this
decade.

Probably the next "Terror" Attack" that the "Beltway" is
certain will happen.


The Imperial strategy will fail for America just as it failed
for Rome. Joseph Tainter notes that "As the marginal return
on investment in Empire declined, major stress
surges appeared that could scarcely be contained with
yearly imperial budgets. The Roman Empire made
itself attractive to barbarian incursions merely by the fact of
its existence."

It truly is "déjà vu all over again." Today, the US Army
describes itself in Iraq as "a magnet for terrorism," while it
is becoming clear to many that American policies are not
making Americans safer, but rather endangering the
entire planet as America's increasing energy dependence
to maintain its obscene consumption levels demands the
violent expropriation of the wealth of other societies;
ultimately futile investments in death.

http://www.countercurrents.org/po-kerr090803.htm

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm

[amber dog democrat]

7. Hail Cesar Imperator !

Te Salutamus Morituri.
We who are about to die salute you !

Maybe the empire was doomed from the start. The US appetite for unsustainable ammounts of energy and natural resources has to be at the heart of this.
Once we began focusing on maintaining a standard of living and security, the us became doomed to follow the same progression of past empires.

We have not even glimpsed at the worst to come yet.

Hey, you may enjoy reading ORYX & CRAKE by Margaret Attwood. Well maybe not enjoy. It seems like another plausible path but this is just an opinion.

[jmcgowanjm]

19. Thank you, I'll get the book. There is good news...

Looks like there won't be enough oil to
produce Global Warming. Yeah US!

[Tellurian]

21. kick~

[gratuitous]

3. Lo siento, Alberto

These things start somewhere. They always do. Somewhere along the line, maybe somebody's just spitballing, shooting the breeze, speculating idly. Whatever you want to call it, they broach some unthinkable subject. In this case, it's torture of persons in custody.

It starts off small, a memo or an email. But when it's the White House counsel, there are those up and down the food chain who take that as a signal that they should be doing some serious work on it. The scenarios spin out. Well, torture would be a last resort, to be used in only the most extreme circumstances. Practiced by the most conscientious, humane officers under exacting conditions.

Then the exceptions begin to creep in. Well, what if . . . ? And, of course, in this situation, we'd have no choice, but to . . . While some isolated mistakes might be made, they'd only happen to the worst of the worst, the most vicious terrorists imaginable, and who really wants to defend them anyway?

Then the exceptions give way to imperatives. We can't take a chance, you know. That person may just be very, very clever in hiding his terrorist sympathies. Sure, he looks like just your average Iraqi, scooped up in a sweep because we couldn't find the guy we were really looking for. His name's Ahmad, not Ahmed, but maybe we got the name wrong to begin with? What if he's really the one? He's denying everything, but you can't tell. If we release him, and he goes out and commits some atrocity, how could we explain that or justify it? Well, maybe we should run him around the block just once. You know, soften him up a little bit. He seems awfully nervous and scared, though. Would he be that nervous if he didn't have something to hide? I'm really starting to dislike his manner. And his screaming is getting on my nerves. We can't release him now, what if he talks to someone from Amnesty International?

So another body shows up in a report somewhere. Too bad, so sad. But there's really nobody to blame, nobody that's responsible. We don't know where it all started or how it could have come to this.

Memorandum
From: Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel
Subject: The Acceptable Use of Torture

[progressivebydesign]

4. Okay.. wasn't Gonzalez the family lawyer that handled Bush's DUI?

Am I confusing him with someone else? I keep thinking he's a Bush loyalist out of Texas, that has rather banal credentials, other than being pulled up by the Bush family for his loyalty and discretion over the Bush's personal legal problems. Am I confusing him with someone else??? If he's who I'm thinking of, since when does HE have the background to determine proper treatment of international prisoners?

[gratuitous]

5. I don't know if Gonzalez fixed Stupidhead's tickets

But he's been the legal "brain" of Bush the Lesser's cabal since his time in Texas.

[Estel]

10. Gonzalez - BabyBush History

Gonzalez served as general counsel to BabyBush for three years his first term as governor. Then was secretary of state (also chief elections officer). In 1999 BabyBush selected him to complete the Texas supreme court term of Raul Gonzalez. Long history together and definitely a "loyalist."

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Estel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Just Me]

6. Are these people "schooled" in how to avoid/deny/displace,...

,...personal responsibility. Fuck. They are as polished as are criminals at rationalizing away guilt or responsibility. They belong either in prison or a "lock up" psychiatric unit, for the rest of their natural lives.

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Gonzales' Supreme Court hopes are dashed now

Thank goodness.

If nominated, he'll never be confirmed because of this memo.

[TahitiNut]

9. "no link"??

From an adminstration that pretends to see "links" between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein they can't see a "link" between Gonzales' rationalization of lawless behavior and the human rights violations perpetrated by the military in Guantanimo, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

Fucking liars!

[struggle4progress]

11. These Republicans love to babble about "personal responsibility" ...

until it's time to take responsibility for their own actions. They have no integrity.

[Edmond Dantes]

13. 'twill be interesting to see whether...

... Gonzales withholds the memo on the basis of attorney-client privilege. That's what usually happens. The President asserts executive privilege, the White House (or DOJ) lawyers assert attorney-client privilege and no one ever has an opportunity to review the legal justification for the executive action.

The neo-cons like to push the legal envelope: if the contemplated executive action is "legally defensible," that is considered sufficient legal authority from their perpective. The "legally defensible" standard affords them great latitude in interpreting the US Constitution, federal statutes, regs, treaties, etc. In fact, it is almost tantamount to giving themselves carte blanche to rewrite the law as they see fit.

Thus, in domestic affairs, the "legally defensible" standard can effectively violate the constitutional separation of powers. (Sadly, Congress has not been vigilant in fending off this executive encroachment.) In foreign affairs, however, such legal overreaching can only lead to disasterous consequences. The executive branch cannot run roughshod over other countries in the same way that it runs roughshod over Congress. What folly!

[Just Me]

14. The neocons don't just push the legal envelope,...they make shit up,...

,...and, the memo has already been "leaked",...a memo which includes advice that amounts to a CRIME!!! The attorney/client privilege thingy does NOT extend to criminal acts. So, they can spin all that shit to death,...but, when any criminal actions are involved,...they are all screwed, period, EXCLAMATION POINT!!

That is the law.

Of course, these people don't give a rat's crap about "the law". They just make it up as they go along.

Who is going to stop them? Hmmmmm?

[Spazito]

15. You raise some very key questions!

The memo is already out in the public purview but, within a court of law, can it be rendered "off limits", per se, under "lawyer/client privilege" or "national security" is a good question. It will be VERY interesting when, and I believe it is a question of 'when' rather than one of 'if', the bush cabal starts to use executive privilege to try and escape having to face their subversion of the US Constitution.

BTW Welcome to DU!

[Disturbed]

16. Supreme Court

We already have one nutcase, Scalia on the court. Scalia should be impeached ASAP. This guy Gonzalez said Geneva Convention is qaint. Oh, man, if that memo hadn't surfaced and Bushco won the election, imagine what the SC would be like. SC is the #1 reason that Bushco cannot remain in power. It is a frightening prosect.

[Edmond Dantes]

17. Article indicates we have not seen "final" version of memo....

Sorry, I forgot to include this quote from the article:

"Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), said he wants to know whether the memo gave "a green light for American operators to go outside the law" in dealing with Iraqis. He has asked Gonzales for the FINAL MEMO he prepared. "There's a very strong suspicion that a signal was given (to troops): You go ahead and operate the way you want; we're giving you deniability," Leahy said."

So I am wondering if Gonzales will withhold the final version. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/ for leaked version (note upper right hand corner clearly labeled "draft").

Thanks for the warm welcome!

And to Just Me: I don't disagree with your assessment. If "legally defensible" doesn't accomplish what they want, they have no qualms about making up the law.

[Spazito]

18. Interesting. How different, if at all, is the final version, one has to..

wonder. I suspect the "final" version will be leaked as was the "draft" if there was, indeed, any substantive difference. It begs the question, in my mind, even with the USSC being as political as it is, whether they will see the "winds of change" in who will, most likely, be in control of the WH and the Senate, never mind the House, and revert back to actually re-enforcing the Constitution that they swore to uphold. If they do that, executive privilege will not apply with regard to the "final" draft of the memo.

[Tellurian]

20. When Leahy asked if Gonzales has gone outside the law...

typical Rethuglican denial...

"who me?"