Now here's some cheap partisan nonsense: The fact that Gonzales's legal opinions directly led to the abuse and torture of prisoners is an open secret.

In the first place, to hell with the weeping and gnashing of teeth over all this so-called "torture." Most of the supposed horror is pretty mild. It's utterly ridiculous to label stuff like the Lynde England pictures as "torture."

Beyond that though, Mr Gonzales is an administration lawyer offering legal opinions in Washington, not anywhere in any chain of command. He didn't torture anyone, or tell anyone else to. It's ridiculous to blame him for the relatively few actual severely inappropriate acts against prisoners.

And you can definitely shut up with that dishonest horseshit about "the death of American democracy." We had an election. Bush and the Republicans won. I didn't vote for him, but he won far and square running on his record and saying exactly what he intends to do.

Democracy isn't dead. It's just not turning up the specific results that you want. You're confusing democratic with Democratic. They're not synonymous.

However, you're welcome and encouraged to keep trying to Bork the new attorney general, and every other nominee for anything that Bush puts forward. The constant obstructionism and cheap shot tactics the left has been engaged in for years now have been SO successful for you.

Keep up the good work.

Good comment Al, but it is like pissing into the wind with these guys, and facts never get in their way to bash someone.

This is an excerpt from here that says it all:

All of this heavy breathing is grotesquely misplaced. The two "offenses" with which Gonzales is charged are:

1) he received a memo written by the Justice Department on the question of what conduct would violate a statute that prohibits torture and other cruel and inhumane activity. The Justice Department's analysis of that statute appears to me to be sound, but, in any event, it was their analysis, not the nominee's.

2) He received from the Justice Department, and passed on to the President, a memo from the Justice Department (pdf file) on whether the Geneva convention applies to al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. The Justice Department concluded, and Gonzales agreed, that the Geneva convention does not apply to those prisoners.

Hi Al,

Thank you for your comments. Your write that "most of the supposed horror is pretty mild. It's utterly ridiculous to label stuff like the Lynde England pictures as 'torture.'" Here you and I disagree. Members of Congress who saw the entire collection of pictures from Abu Ghraib characterized the acts displayed within them torturous. President Bush, the International Red Cross and the The Schlesinger Committee all had similar reactions.

Secondly, the "open secret" I was referring to is the rather direct (and documented) connection between the legal opinions of this administration (which went through Alberto Gonzales) and acts of torture at both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

As for democracy, practicing it to its fullest requires more than simply showing up every four years to cast a ballot. In that sense, it is alive and kicking, even though half the country doesn't bother. Still, in a true democratic state (and yes, that's small d) citizens hold their leaders accountable. Unfortunately, this is not happening here in the U.S. I strongly encourage you to read the reports mentioned in the post.

Yours,
Igor Volsky

Igor, thanks for your considered reply to my perhaps somewhat harshly worded comments.

However, I don't care what some wussy congressman thinks of these photos- I'll make up my own mind. I somehow doubt that many congressmen were really that put off by most of these mundane acts.

Of course, no congressmen wants to risk even wrongly being accused of being "pro-torture." I might suspect a congressman of putting their own PR concerns ahead of the imperative of supporting our troops.

Also, in fact the Geneva conventions as written and agreed to by the United States certainly would NOT include irregulars like Al Qaeda. I'd be disapproving if Gonzales had been inclined to bend to the pressures of politics to pretend otherwise and help tie our soldiers' hands rather than giving an accounting of the treaty as written.

Now, not being covered by the Geneva convention does not mean that there are no legal limitations. We have our own US laws that put limits on what we do. It's not just anything goes.

The use of techniques to extract information to protect the lives of innocent everyday people, either here or abroad, in my opinion, should be left to the professionals. We all know who they are, usually identified by three letter organizational acronyms in various agencies in the service of our nation.

The problem in Abu Ghraib was these idiots were not professionals... so at the very least this was abuse which, from what we gather, had been encouraged to "soften them up" for further interogation. Hardly "torture" in the classical sense. The officers of that unit are responsible for either looking the other way or encouraging it. If indeed it came from the Sec of Defenses office, it is one more example of poor judgement. They asked for it by leaving it in the hands of the untrained.

Accept it or not, there are dedicated individuals in the employ of our government, thank God, who put their life on the line in "clandestine" operations for the good of all of us. People need to stop looking at the world though such rose colored glasses. War of this kind is not "sanitary". How would you tell a few 100,000 NewYorkers, "the Geneva Convention kept us from obtaining information" if a nuke should go off in downtown Manhatten? Don't think twice about whether or not our enemies will not exploit are weaknesses. The problem in Abu Ghraib were these idots were stupid enought to put it on film or entrusted the embedded reporters. For the most part it was "abuse" which should not be accepted. Professional interrogation, by whatever means is legally permissable, and in some cases, where the President may order it, legal or not, it should be his call. Just like the shooting down of a commercial airliner with innocent people aboard to avert an even larger catastrophy. He has to live with the decision, that's the cross that a President bears, and why electing the right people in office is critical. (No comment on the current administration - just a reflection of the paradox). One of the most difficult things any leader or manager needs to do is to determine when a situation many justify the suspension of a "rule" in order to serve the greater good. That's the paradox of leadership.

Sorry if this post became to philosophical, but at least this writer believes our armed forces need to take the high road and follow their rules of engagement and leave the Psychological Operations to the professionals. What and how they do it should be a matter held close to the most senior officals for the good of our national security. Sounds scary? Yes, but which image is more frightening? These are the cards that have been dealt to the world leadership! Only until hatred between peoples who are different from each other is erradicated, will this spectre be removed. How to accomplish this is an entirly different discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing