*This post was written by the Vice President of the College Republicans, Ryan Winograd.*
Since the moment Alberto Gonzales’ plans to speak on campus were announced, there has been a great deal of unrest amongst many left-leaning organizations on campus. They complain that he “represents almost all of the things that have gone wrong with our country during Bush’s presidency.”[1] That’s quite a broad statement, so I’ll focus on the more specific complaints being mentioned.
Many students are quick to associate the former Attorney General with torture. Gonzales wrote documents clarifying how the Geneva Conventions,[2] the UN Convention against Torture,[3] and US law[4] define torture during his time as White House Counsel. Various governmental organizations applied Gonzales’ and others’ definitions in constructing interrogation techniques that would supposedly not constitute torture.
In 2005, ABC News aired a story entitled “CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described,”[5] in which six “harsh” interrogation techniques are listed. These techniques, which were revealed by former and current CIA officials, include the following:
The most controversial technique to appear on this list is waterboarding, the permittence of which is often attributed to Alberto Gonzales. This is actually a misconception, as permission to waterboard, which has been given only three times, must originate from the President’s office.[6] Nonetheless, there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. As a result, resolving whether or not the US should waterboard terrorists would appear to be a difficult undertaking. The truth is, however, that in order to prevent the use of waterboarding, Congress must simply pass a bill forbidding its use. Congress has failed to do so even with a Democratic majority.
Another extremely controversial issue is that of warrantless wiretapping. Congress is close to reauthorizing this program for the second time. The first authorization occurred six months ago—under a Democratic Congress. Now that it is set to expire, the Senate will soon be considering the RESTORE Act[7], which was recently passed by the House 227 – 189. A lot of Democrats must think that listening in on the conversations of terrorists is a good idea. They’re right.
Now that I have shown that Congress, controlled by Democrats, has either sided with the President or chosen not to take action against him, let’s focus on the biggest controversy surrounding Judge Gonzales—the firing of U.S. Attorneys. Before we do so, a short history lesson may be useful. President Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys during his first term. And he was able to do so because U.S. Attorneys serve at the President’s whim. In other words, there was absolutely nothing illegal about Alberto Gonzales’ actions. To date, he has not been indicted.
Other claims against Alberto Gonzales are laughable. The fact that Gonzales once received money from Enron never affected legal proceedings against Enron and its executives. Claims that Gonzales is to blame for the Patriot Act are also absurd. The Patriot Act was passed by Congress, and its provisions can always be modified or removed by Congress. In addition, most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are not considered controversial at all. Only a handful of the Act’s over 100 sections are controversial.[8] Overall, the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation. Even so, it isn’t perfect. But that is why our government has checks and balances. The Supreme Court ruled the National Security Letters provision unconstitutional, evidence that our democratic system still works.
I have thus far provided strong arguments showing that Gonzales has not partaken in any wrongdoing with respect to the issues of torture, wiretapping, and the U.S. Attorney controversy. There are certainly other claims against Alberto Gonzales, and I’ll be happy to provide a defense for every single last one of them. And I can do so because they simply don’t hold water—the former Attorney General has done nothing wrong.
If what I say is true—that Gonzales has done nothing wrong—then why is there so much controversy surrounding his name? I have a theory about that.
The Democrats took control of Congress as a result of the 2006 midterm elections, and they ran on campaigns of change and fighting the administration. That’s exactly what they did. But instead of working to pass meaningful legislation, which is what they should have done (and should be doing now), they set out to increase partisanship and damage the image of the Bush Administration, thereby deteriorating its legitimacy. One of the tools the Democrats used to accomplish this end was its oversight powers.
The nonpartisan National Journal (not the National Review, a conservative publication) recently published an article supporting my theory:
To be sure, the new [oversight] committee chairmen on Capitol Hill banged their gavels in 2007. And banged them. And banged them again. And it isn’t just ousted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his decapitated Justice Department feeling the echo. A wide array of executive branch chiefs and corporate leaders [. . .] are dealing with, or bracing for, the effects of congressional Democrats’ aggressive oversight.[9]
As the committee attacked the former Attorney General with question after question, the media followed suit, leading to a deterioration of Alberto Gonzales’ image. The amount of public scrutiny, largely based on misleading statements and logical fallacies forced Alberto Gonzales to resign; the Justice Department could no longer function efficiently.
This brings us to where we are today. Why is the former Attorney General so disliked? Is it based on fact or fiction? Did he actually do anything wrong?
My answer to these questions is quite clear, but what’s yours? And avoid that gut reaction. Look deeper into the facts. Do your own research. Find a primary source—come listen to him speak on February 19th.
[3]
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html
[5] http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
[6] http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-grill-mukasey-2008-01-30.html
[7] http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03773:
[8] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107BD3pB0::
[9] “Raise Your Right Hand.” National Journal. 19 January 2008. p24.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
StudLife is now at your fingertips 24/7 - Political news, commentary from Wash. U.’s own pundits and more
| Artist: | The Cure |
| Track: | Close to Me |
| Album: | Head on the Door |
RSS 2.0
