[Mb-civic] letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein re Gonzales' nomination

[Hecate Gould]

Dear M. Gould:

       Thank you for contacting me regarding President Bush's
nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United
States.  I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

       I voted against Alberto Gonzales' confirmation and have
enclosed the full statement I made on the Senate floor explaining why.
Please know that I appreciate your views and hope that you will continue
to keep me informed of your thoughts.

	Again, thank you for writing.  If you should have any other
comments, or if you have a question I can answer, please feel free to
contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.

STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
on the Nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be
Attorney General of the United States
February 1, 2005

     Mrs. FEINSTEIN.  Mr. President, I thank the ranking member.

       I rise today to explain why I deeply regret I cannot vote to
confirm Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General.

       I believe as a general rule the President is entitled to the
Cabinet
of his choice.  But one Department, the Department of Justice, always
deserves special attention from Congress because it does not exist
solely
to extend the President's policies.

       Though the Attorney General serves under the President, he must
independently interpret the laws as written by Congress and be truly the
country's chief law enforcement officer.

       I cannot emphasize this enough.  The Department of Justice must
be independent from the White House.  The FBI must be independent.
The U.S. attorneys must be independent.  The Criminal Law Division,
the Environmental Law Division, the Civil Law Division must all be
independent.  The Solicitor General's Office, which argues before the
Supreme Court, must be independent.  The Office of Legal Counsel,
which is charged with interpreting the law of the executive branch, must
be independent.  The Civil Rights Division must be independent.

       These departments are charged with nothing less than following,
interpreting, and implementing the law of the United States of America.
The Department of Justice is in charge of defending the Nation in court.
It is in charge of advising the rest of the Government about what the
law
means.  It is in charge of overseeing the investigations of the FBI, and
it
is in charge of deciding when to prosecute criminals and send them to
prison.  This is obviously a big portfolio.

       The head of the Department of Justice is the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States.  As such, the Attorney General
is in charge of 59 separate divisions within the Department of Justice,
which cover more than 110,000 employees.  In my view, before we vote
to confirm to put someone in charge of all this awesome power -- and it
truly is awesome-- it is important for us to know what that individual
thinks about the major policies the Department will be implementing.
And that is where I have been disappointed by the confirmation process
for Judge Gonzales.

       When President Bush nominated Judge Gonzales, I think many
of us were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But the
hearings crystallized how little we knew about his own policy views,
how little we knew about his qualities for leadership, his policy views,
his management style, his strength of character, and his personal
beliefs
in those areas where he sets the tone and the policy.  I think this was
a
great missed opportunity.

       John Ashcroft served 6 years in the Senate.  We knew his service
on the Judiciary Committee.  We knew about his views.  One could
decide about his personal views, yes or no.  Judge Gonzales has spent so
many years serving President George Bush.  If confirmed, this will be
the
fifth job George Bush appointed Judge Gonzales to over the past decade.
The hearings were his first real opportunity to show his own views.  I
think this is why the hearing process became so important in many of our
views.

       This was a crucial opportunity for Judge Gonzales.  Many of us
were prepared to vote for him.  If there is a single issue that defines
this
confirmation process, it is what Judge Gonzales thinks about torture and
brutal interrogation practices.

       He reminded us again and again that both he and the President
condemn torture.  But as we know from the Bybee memo of August
2002, for at least 2 years, the Federal Government followed a definition
of torture that was excessively narrow.  In fact, it was considered so
incorrect that the Department of Justice revoked it on the eve of Judge
Gonzales' hearing.

       That memo defined torture as: equivalent in intensity to the pain
accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment
of bodily function, or even death.

       For me, in addition to its clear legal and moral importance, the
issue of torture became the main way for assessing this next Attorney
General.  And it was very important for him to state in unambiguous
terms what he thought.  It was as important a way for us to assess how
he
approaches a problem as any.

       In his opening statement, Judge Gonzales offered a clear,
absolute condemnation of torture.  He said flatly: ATorture and abuse
will
not be tolerated by this administration.@

       At this point, at the beginning of his testimony, there were no
ifs,
ands, or buts.  But after that, his testimony, both verbal and in
writing,
was full of ambiguities.  It seemed intended not to make his views
clear,
but to shield his views, and it seemed to narrow the definition of what
counts as torture.

       For instance, at the hearing, at one point, Judge Gonzales told
Senator Leahy, our ranking member, "I reject that opinion,@ referring to
the Bybee opinion.  But at another point in the hearing, he told the
same
Senator, Senator Leahy:  AI don't have a disagreement with the
conclusions then reached by the department.@

       Those statements are clearly in conflict, and leave me with no
idea what he thinks about the Bybee memo.

       I also note that Judge Gonzales clearly did not do everything he
might have done to try to answer the questions put to him.

       In his written testimony, especially to Senator Kennedy, Judge
Gonzales refused to provide the answers or the documents requested.  He
even refused to conduct a search that would have refreshed his memory.

       Let me quote the multiple times judge Gonzales refused to
answer Senator Kennedy's questions, and these are all quotes:  AI do not
know what notes, memoranda, e-mails or other documents others may
have about these meetings, nor have I conducted a search.@

       Point 2: AI have no such notes, and I have no present knowledge
of such notes, memoranda, e-mail, or other documents and I have not
conducted a search.@

       Point 3: AI have no present knowledge of any non-public
documents that meet that description.  However, I have conducted no
search.@

       Point 4: AI have no present knowledge that there are any
documents of the sort requested in the question, although I have not
conducted an independent search for such documents.@

       Point 5: AI have no present knowledge of any such documents or
materials, although I have not conducted a search.@

       Point 6: AI have no present knowledge of any such records,
although I have not conducted a search.@

       The last formulation he repeated in two additional instances.

       These are not adequate answers to satisfy the nomination process
for the confirmation of a person to be the next Attorney General, nor do
they bode well for the Judiciary Committee's and this Congress'
oversight responsibilities for the Department of Justice.

       Judge Gonzales also refused to provide many documents that we
requested.  In specific, I asked him to provide me with a copy of the
final
version of his January 2002 memo to the President.  That is very
important because earlier memos that he had written were different.  It
was important, if this was his final opinion, that we have an
opportunity
to look at it, because that opinion was definitive and dispositive.

       The January memo is a well known one, where he wrote that the
war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on
questioning
of enemy prisoners.@

       If that was only a draft, as he said, as he had emphasized, then
I
believe it is imperative for us to see the final version, and he refused
me
that opportunity.  He wouldn't provide the memo, saying the White
House had declined to allow it.

       To tell you the truth, because of the prior history, that simply
is
not good enough for me.

       Also of importance in the questions that he did answer, he
seemed to continually narrow, again, the definition of torture.  I saw
this
as a retreat from his original condemnation of torture and abuse and I
thought it showed that he was trying more to defend the President's
policies than to demonstrate his own views.

       That, in my view, is the nub of the problem.  Here he was no
longer the President's man, he was going to be the chief law enforcement
officer, independent, head of 110,000 people, with all kinds of major
departmental responsibilities -- environmental law, civil rights law,
the
Solicitor General, as I stated earlier in my remarks.  I saw this
narrowing
as a retreat from his original condemnation of torture and abuse, and I
thought it showed that he was trying, again, more to defend the
President
than to talk for himself.  Let me give an example.

       At the hearing he told Senator Durbin that even under the laws
implementing the Convention Against Torture: Aaliens interrogated by
the United States outside the United States enjoy no substantive rights
under the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.@

       If this is Judge Gonzales' view, it is a significant gap in the
prohibition against abuse.

       I gave him the opportunity to clarify this issue.  In written
testimony he confirmed the thrust of the answer, stating to me: AThere
is
no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas.@

       In another written question, I asked Judge Gonzales to specify
his own views again on specific harsh interrogation methods.  I wrote to
him:
APutting aside legal interpretations, in your own personal opinion,
should
the United States use forced nudity, the threatening of detainees with
dogs, or >water-boarding= when interrogating detainees?@

       That was my question in writing.  He began his answer by
stating:
AI feel that the United States should avoid the use of such harsh
methods
of questioning if possible.@

I was asking for a statement by the man.  "If possible" is a major
loophole, and I truthfully don't know what it means.  I don't know how
big that loophole is intended to be.

       As I was reviewing the correspondence, I was struck, in
particular, by a letter that the committee received from a group of 12
esteemed former military leaders -- generals, admirals, even a former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

       This letter was signed by Brigadier General David M. Brahms,
Retired, U.S. Marine Corps; Brigadier General James Cullen, Retired,
U.S. Army; Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, Retired, U.S. Army;
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Retired, U.S. Army; Vice Admiral Lee
F. Gunn, Retired, U.S. Navy; Rear Admiral Guter Don Guter, Retired,
U.S. Navy; General  Joseph Hoar, Retired, U.S. Marine Corps; Rear
Admiral John D. Hutson, Retired, U.S. Navy; Lieutenant Claudia
Kennedy, Retired, U.S. Army; General Merrill McPeak, Retired, U.S.
Air Force; Major General Melvyn Montano, Retired, U.S. Air Force
National Guard; and General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.

       Let me paraphrase the letter.  They write as retired military
professionals in the U.S. Armed Forces to express their deep concern
about the nomination of Alberto Gonzales and they urge us in the hearing
to detail his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in
U.S.
detention and interrogation policy and practice.  They go on to say:
AMr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S.
detention operations. . . . It is clear that these operations have
fostered
greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence
gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops around the
world."

       They then talk about the memo Judge Gonzales wrote to the
President on January 25, 2002, advising him the Geneva Conventions
don't apply to the conflict then underway in Afghanistan.  They say more
broadly that he wrote the war on terrorism presents a new paradigm that
renders obsolete the Geneva protections.

       Then they go on to say, and I think this is important: AThe
reasoning Mr. Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many
military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell
who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our
soldiers at greater risk, would >reverse over a century of U.S. policy
and
practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions,= and would >undermine
the protections of the rule of law for our troops, both in this specific
conflict [Afghanistan] and in general.= @

       That is a huge problem out there because at best, these hearings
and the written questions and answers which are voluminous are really
unable to clarify any of the positions of Alberto Gonzales, the man,
Alberto Gonzales, head of one of the largest and most powerful agencies
of the American Government, the U.S. Department of Justice.

       We look at the Department of Justice one way, but most
Americans look at it as being a major citadel of power in the United
States.  And on occasion, we have seen that power exercised.  If you are
going to set the policy, if you are going to set the tone, if you are
going
to be the head of this Department, I want to know what you as a man, or
as a woman, think, and particularly at this time.

       Yes, it is clear that the problems we will face in the future are
most likely to be with respect to non-state actors, and with respect to
torture, which I am speaking about now.  Therefore, it is
extraordinarily
important to know what this man thinks.  If you ask me today, despite
the
hearings, despite 200 pages of questions and answers, I cannot really
tell
you.  I cannot really be sure that if the White House says one thing,
the
head of the Department of Justice would be willing to stand up and say
another.  I just do not know, based on the past jobs he has had and his
past performance, if he is prepared to be independent.

       I have to say to this body that is important.  Every one of us
knows that Janet Reno was an independent Attorney General.  I do not
know that Alberto Gonzales will be.  I don't know his management style.
I don't know the vision he has for this Department.  I don't know the
goals he would set.

       I know he is an extension of the President.  I know that he can
legally enable the President.  I know he gives the President advice, and
I
think much of that advice has brought us into a terrible place where our
military could well in the future be jeopardized.

       I am one, frankly, who believes the Military Code of Justice has
stood the U.S. military in good stead.  I am one who believes the Geneva
Convention -- the Convention Against Torture -- is the right thing.  I
am
one who believes we should follow those, even in this non-state war.

       I want to comment on one other issue, and then I will yield the
floor.

       I think Judge Gonzales is going to be confirmed.  He is a
talented
lawyer and has a compelling life story.  I certainly want to work with
him.

       I want to say one thing about some who may say this is a
qualified Hispanic, and indeed he is.  Nobody should think that the
Hispanic community is unified on this nomination.  I will put into the
Record, if I may, letters from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
certain
editorials from newspapers, the statement of the Mexican-American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, a statement of the Mexican-
American Political Association, a letter from Major General Melvyn
Montano, and other letters.

       I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

       Mr. President, in summary, I very much regret this, but I think
the U.S. Department of Justice is a unique Department.  I think whoever
is the head of it has to stand on his own two feet, has to be totally
independent of Congress, of the White House, and has to be willing to
submit to rigorous oversight by the Senate, by the Judiciary Committee,
and has to set a tone which enables the Department of Justice to
function
as a fair and independent voice of the American people, as its chief law
enforcement officer.

       I very much regret that I will vote no on this nomination.

       I thank the Chair.  I yield the floor.


			Sincerely yours,

			Dianne Feinstein
			United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California
and the
Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov.  You can
also
receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at
http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.