Ends justify means?


4 comments posted
Gonzales, quaint provisions, and tortue - MSNBC

It's outrageous that Alberto Gonzales would be nominated for any cabinet post. An article, I quote in part from [url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/]MSNBC[/url] on "The Roots of Torture" states:


Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a — high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this [i][b]new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."[/i][/b]

. . .

Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. [b][i]His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. [/i][/b]

. . .


[i][b]Emphasis mine.[/b][/i]

A man who is an apologist for torture? This man clearly is not fit for the office to which he has been nominated.

As one government official said off the record, "the Bush Cabinet has set a tone. It has spread corrosively from the top down. What happened in [the torture of prisoners] comes directly from the top."

We don't need any more corrosion at the top.

I hope the US Senate does its job and blocks this guy, but fast.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 26 January 2005 - 1:55pm

Of course we know that won't happen. Beltway politics trump morality. The GOP will back "their guy" and many Dems will go along, because they don't want to make the all-powerful elephant mad.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 January 2005 - 2:20pm

The law and constitution must be interpreted and enforced literally - that is, unless it doesn't go along with what the administration wants.

High placed source say that Gonzales' underlings were shocked by his legal opinions on torture as no one below on the staff, reporting to Gonzales, could find any legal justification for his position.

Is this what we want at the top?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 26 January 2005 - 2:34pm
Of course we don't want that

But, as Bush said to an ordinary citizen who did not have well-funded access, "Who cares what you think?"

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 January 2005 - 2:51pm