[Mb-civic] EDITORIAL The Senate and Mr. Gonzales

[Michael Butler]

 The New York Times
February 4, 2005
EDITORIAL
The Senate and Mr. Gonzales

The confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general yesterday was
depressing. The president deserves a great deal of leeway in choosing his
own cabinet. But beyond his other failings, Mr. Gonzales has come to
represent the administration's role in paving the way for the abuse and
torture of prisoners by American soldiers and intelligence agents. Giving
him the nation's top legal post is a terrible signal to send the rest of the
world, and to American citizens concerned with human rights.

The 60-to-36 vote for confirmation was also preceded by a depressing debate.
There was the usual comic opera of these Senate votes, with the president's
party piously denouncing all opposition as outrageous politicking and the
opposition piously denying it. But this debate had a sinister overtone as
well: in a ham-handed way, the Republicans tried to portray a vote against
Mr. Gonzales as an act of bigotry.

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, declaring that "I love the Hispanic people,"
warned that Hispanic Americans were "sensing there's something unfair going
on." Using that "more in sorrow than in anger" tone that senators reserve
for their most blatantly political comments, he added, "I suspect there's
more than politics being played here."

Mr. Gonzales has the kind of life story that all Americans should admire,
and that many can find in their families. The value of diversity in the
cabinet is indisputable. But it is also irrelevant here. Mr. Gonzales was a
bad choice for attorney general because of his record, not his ethnic
background.

It was Mr. Gonzales who asked for the original legal advice from the Justice
Department on the treatment of prisoners in the "war on terror." There was
no need to go through that exercise; the rules were clear. But Mr. Gonzales
gave the president the flexibility he wanted, first in the Justice
Department memo outlining ways to make torture seem legal, and then by
offering the Orwellian argument that the president can declare himself above
the law and can order illegal actions like detaining prisoners without a
hearing and authorizing torture.

Republican senators made much of the fact that the White House repudiated
the original memo on torture - after it became public. But this is not just
a matter of historical interest. Mr. Gonzales testified that he agreed with
the substance of the original torture memo, and he still takes the view that
the president can declare himself to be above the law. In written responses
to senators' questions, Mr. Gonzales argued that intelligence agents could
"abuse" prisoners as long as they did it to foreigners outside the United
States.

Republican senators argued that it was unfair to say Mr. Gonzales was
personally responsible for the specific acts of torture and degradation at
Abu Ghraib. That would be a fair defense if anyone were doing that. The
Democrats simply said, rightly, that Mr. Gonzales was one of the central
architects of the administration's policy of evading legal restrictions on
the treatment of prisoners. He should not have been rewarded with one of the
most important jobs in the cabinet.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top