A good article about Bush's choice for attorney general.
The President's Yes ManPosted by Maria at November 22, 2004 05:04 PMBy Alan Berlow
In nominating Alberto Gonzales to be the next attorney general, President Bush has selected a man with a long record of giving him the kind of legal advice he wants. Unfortunately, that advice has not always been of the highest professional or ethical caliber.
Gonzales is perhaps best known for a controversial January 2002 memorandum to the president in which he argued that Geneva Convention proscriptions on torture did not apply to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, and that the conventions are, in fact, "obsolete."
This interpretation of international law, which many have linked to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, will no doubt be a focus of confirmation hearings. Senators might also want to quiz Gonzales about a less well-known June 1997 memo involving another treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Written when Gonzales was counsel to then-Gov. George W. Bush, the memo puts forward the novel view that because the state of Texas was not a signatory to the Vienna Convention, it need not abide by the treaty. Or, put another way, Texas is not bound by Article VI of the Constitution, which states that U.S. treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land."
That memo was written to dismiss State Department concerns about the impending execution of a Mexican national whose rights under the convention had clearly been violated by Texas police. And it is on the subject of executions that Gonzales's most questionable legal writings may be found.
Bush approved 152 executions during his six years as governor. For each of the first 57, he made his judgment based on a three- to seven-page "execution summary" prepared by Gonzales and on an oral briefing that typically lasted no more than 30 minutes that the chief counsel usually presented on the day of the execution. In nearly all these cases, Gonzales was the only person standing between the executioner and a governor who made it abundantly clear he had little or no interest in granting clemency.
Where some might view this as a terrifying and formidable responsibility, Gonzales's "confidential" memos suggest that he saw his role as more of an expediter of his boss's preordained conclusion. Far from presenting an evenhanded or nuanced discussion of the case for and against clemency, Gonzales's execution summaries display a consistent prosecutorial bias. Not once does he attach a clemency petition in which the condemned put forward his or her best case for a reprieve. And Gonzales's summaries repeatedly play down or fail to report the most important issues at hand: claims of ineffective counsel, conflicts of interest, mitigating evidence, evidence never presented to a jury, even evidence of innocence. Not surprisingly, a disinterested observer relying solely on Gonzales's memos would probably do exactly what Bush did: deny clemency in every single case.
Consider the case of Terry Washington. Gonzales's three-page summary misleadingly suggests that there was doubt about the central issue in Washington's plea for life: the fact that he was brain-damaged and mentally retarded. But the state of Texas did not dispute the fact that Washington was retarded. Gonzales doesn't inform Bush that Washington's incompetent attorney never called a mental health expert to testify, never advised the jury that his client was retarded, or that he had an IQ between 58 and 69 and had been beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, fan belts and wire hangers as a child. Nine hours after Gonzales's briefing, Washington was executed. The Supreme Court has since found executions of the mentally retarded to be cruel and unusual punishment.
In the case of David Wayne Stoker, there were enough red flags for a May Day parade, yet Gonzales spotted none of them. For starters, a federal appellate judge had concluded that the state's star witness was just as likely the murderer as Stoker. Gonzales's 18-sentence summary also failed to note that a key witness recanted after Stoker's conviction (explaining that he'd been pressured by the prosecution to present perjured testimony) and that the state's star witness received a financial reward for fingering Stoker, had felony drug and weapons charges dropped and therefore had an obvious motive for accusing Stoker. Gonzales also didn't tell Bush that this witness and two police witnesses lied under oath at trial, that the state's expert medical witness pleaded guilty to seven felonies involving falsified evidence and that the state's psychiatric witness, whose testimony was essential to securing a death sentence, never even interviewed Stoker. The psychiatrist had since been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for repeatedly providing unethical testimony in murder cases.
Senators might want to know how none of this public information made it into Gonzales's report. And they might ask how Gonzales's office could be prescient enough, a full week before Gonzales wrote his summary and briefed the governor, to inform Stoker's attorney that there would be no grant of clemency.
One could, of course, argue that the client calls the shots, and that Gonzales delivered exactly what Bush wanted. But the 57 cases Gonzales summarized were all matters of life or death. They included people such as Stoker, who may have been innocent, and others such as Washington who had something less than a fair trial. Given the stakes, one must ask whether a fair-minded or ethical lawyer would simply do as he'd been told.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
The people of the State of Texas sentenced those men to death, not Gonzales or GWB. To suggest that Gonzales and/or Bush are responsible or their conduct unethical is dishonest.
His interpretation of the GC, while controversial, wasn't formed in left field. Whether the USSC shares his sentiment has yet to be seen. It's quite the stretch to link him to Abu Ghraib, though.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 05:34 PMah yes, take credit for what goes right (which is very little) in iraq (mission accomplished) but absolve yourself from all of the fuck ups (blame some low ranking non-com) and claim you have no connection to it.
I tell ya, it is the mantra of the republican party.
Um, no, that's the United States Judicial system. You know, jury of your peers and all that.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 08:03 PMa jury of our peers did not get to try the right people in thw torturing of POW's. They only got to try the bottom feeders.
Posted by: nunya at November 22, 2004 08:05 PMLet's go back to talking about Texas death sentences. Geoffrey, I don't think you read the article. Gonzales did not do his job. He took a blatantly biased stance in EVERY CASE. He presented things in a totally one sided manner which left no room for a do-do like Bush to weigh all of the facts before making a decision about whether to grant clemency. Which is probably a big part of the reason HE NEVER DID.
If you disagree with this writer's take on Gonzales, that's your business, but you can't deny that the man operates with heavy bias.
Posted by: Maria at November 22, 2004 08:21 PMI never said he didn't have a bias. Everyone has a bias. I said that your implication that Bush is responsible for the deaths, and in some cases wrongful deaths, of those whose sentences were capital is wrong. They were convicted and sentenced by the people of Texas, not Bush '43.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 08:27 PMit is/was bush's job to appoint people to that bench who were to operate in an unbiased fashion. since he did not do that in these cases, than he was at fault for not correcting that error. that makes him responsible.
Posted by: nunya at November 22, 2004 08:34 PMand since gonzales is heavily biased, that sort of makes him an "activist" judge - the very thing you hem and haw about.
Posted by: nunya at November 22, 2004 08:35 PMGonzales didn't try or sentence him. The people of Texas did.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 08:43 PM"I said that your implication that Bush is responsible for the deaths, and in some cases wrongful deaths, of those whose sentences were capital is wrong. They were convicted and sentenced by the people of Texas, not Bush '43."
I don't quite see how you derived this single implication from this article. Not only did you mangle the context, you overlooked everything that is relevant about this article. It is a statement of who Gonzales is. Whatever you got out of it about "Bush '43" is insignificant when the point is to look at Gonzales, not Bush.
So did you have a thought about Gonzales to add or did you just come to throw down about any implications that are being made about your friend George Bush, when those things are so far from being the overt topic in this piece of writing?
Posted by: Maria at November 22, 2004 08:48 PMYou must have missed my first comment.
I'll spell it out for you again:
The people of Texas convicted and sentenced those criminals. The judicial system ruled on their appeals.
The author of the article is crying just to cry. To take it a step further, so what? Why the hell would the President appoint someone as AG who disagreed with his policies?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 09:00 PM*Sigh* oh Geoffrey, what are we going to do with you?
Posted by: Maria at November 22, 2004 09:32 PMMake me King?
Tie me up and spank me?
Sponsor my bid for NASCAR?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 22, 2004 09:37 PMI'm serious Maria.. I wish you would too do as Karen asked.
This is preposterous.
Take a look at that thread in my honour at DSD yet you keep him here. No thanks doll. You can lay down with these dogs if you choose. Have your fascination with them. Your blog. But I think it's reprehensible in the first order.
You need to choose up sides here. There's a level of elevated thought that needs to prevail but there can be no question.. on some level you enjoy this. Cul offered his help yet you find some odd negative appeal in letting that 'thing' remain.
He's all yours.
Posted by: Richard at November 22, 2004 10:59 PMI really liked the conversation about Gonzales a lot better than the personal one that has sprung up.
Anyone else want to weigh in on Bush's pick for attorney general?
Posted by: Maria at November 22, 2004 11:22 PMRichard, I sent you an email.
Posted by: Maria at November 23, 2004 12:21 AMMaria.. I responded.
Posted by: Richard at November 23, 2004 12:29 AMYeah, Maria. Bush is surrounding himself with amoral yes-men. An idiot surrounded by sociopaths. This guy could make Mitchell, Meese and Ashcroft look almost... nah.
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at November 23, 2004 06:07 AMNunya, when you start leaving a valid email address, you too can be privy to the sentiments I expressed to Richard in response to your desire to tell me how to operate and moderate my blog. If you'd like to email me directly, please feel free to do so at bybeautydamned@hotmail.com.
Posted by: Maria at November 23, 2004 09:57 AMCosa! I like that solution. Anything that involves shootin my mouth off...hahaha. I'll be sure to visit the "grange" while I'm in Oregon for Christmas! lol.
Posted by: Maria at November 23, 2004 11:04 AMYeah, me too!
(what the hell is a "grange"???)
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at November 23, 2004 05:28 PMHahaa! It is a place where they sell stuff like animal feed and things like that. I think.
Posted by: Maria at November 23, 2004 05:29 PMYes nunya do as Maria says by all means.
You too can have your hand slapped much in the same blatant fashion as Sandy and I have while Gigi runs rampant with this pad. It's his "home away from home you see".
You must understand, Nunya, two sets of rules apply. One for Gigi and then there are the rules for the rest of us. "Whatever SHALL we do with him"?? He's such a sketch that Gigi.
Do give out your e-mail.. you'll be ever-so-happy with your reply.
Goodnight Irene.
Posted by: Richard at November 23, 2004 05:52 PMheh. I knew what a grange was. I'm from a farm town in Michigan. ;) I may live in Texas, but I'm a Yankee to the core.
Posted by: girl at November 23, 2004 06:56 PMThe Grange started as a farmer's advocacy group. It's more than that now, though.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 23, 2004 07:02 PMLa "Grange" to be literal is the French word for barn.
It's a hold-over from the Huguenot influx to the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries after the revocation of the Edit de Nantes.
It's morphed into Geoffrey's reference. But only after many years vaguely associated with the Masonic Order.
Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2004 12:46 AMThe National Grange is in no way associated with Masonry.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 25, 2004 10:41 AMSometimes Geoffrey in the spirit of 'getting along' does it occur to you to simply NOT POST?
Of course not. Since you appear to require clarification, here you go:
I said nothing of the kind with regard to your "National Grange". If you'd READ my statement you'd realize my statement was based in the historical beginnings of the Grange. God you're tiresome.
I know nothing of your "National Grange" and I suspect I don't want to anymore than I care to learn anything more about the Masonic Order since I'm a generational beneficiary of that order; a mantle I cast off early-on in DeMolay induction.
Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2004 11:10 AMThe National Grange is the body that governs grange halls, which is the topic of discussion. I'm not a member of the grange. I am, however, a Mason.
Your statement that the grange was vaguely associated with Masonry is false. I was merely pointing out that you are mistaken.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 25, 2004 11:21 AMWhy is that creepy?
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 25, 2004 05:25 PMJust is.
Posted by: Maria at November 29, 2004 08:12 PMSafe response.
Makes absolutely zero sense, but when you're talking about a subject you know nothing about, a safe response is always good.
Posted by: Geoffrey at November 30, 2004 07:35 PMWhat makes you think I know nothing about masons? Because you searched my site desperately trying to find a clue as to what I have against masons and came up empty? I might know a little something. Then again, I might not. But since I'm pretty sure that you don't read minds, you'll really never know.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 03:14 PMEven if I wasn't a member, even if I didn't know the steps that must be taken to understand masonry, your answer made it plain that you know absolutely nothing about it.
Unless, or course, you'd like to explain why me being a mason is "creepy"?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 03:24 PMHahaa. Keep digging. I can see this really gets under your skin. Masonry is creepy. It doesn't surprise me a bit that you identify yourself with it. In fact, it all makes perfect sense now.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 03:31 PMYou keep saying that. You don't know the first thing about it, obviously. You saying it was creepy would only bother me if you know what you were talking about.
Your inability to even describe what you find creepy about it only shows your ignorance of the topic.
Do you think this is creepy?
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 03:56 PMWho says I have an inability to describe what I find creepy about it? I simply have no desire to tell you what I think is creepy about it. It's way more fun watching you get your underwear twisted over it. I find Masonry creepy. It's none of your business why I think so. Carry on "brother."
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:00 PMNo that's not what I find creepy about Masonry. Who knew this would turn into a guessing game?
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:07 PMIt's not a guessing game. That IS masonry. That's all it is. I enjoy you watching you show your ignorance. You don't even understand masonry enough to articulate what you don't like about it.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 04:09 PMIt is so funny watching you get so worked up about this. Philanthropy is not all there is to Masonry. There's lots more. Let's not fool ourselves here.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:11 PMReally? What else is there to masonry?
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 04:11 PMOther creepy stuff.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:14 PMI didn't think you could answer that.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 04:15 PMOh I could. But then I'd have to go into a laborious description of what's creepy about Masonry, which is almost as difficult to describe as what's creepy about people who play Dungeons & Dragons, so we just won't go there. It's really not worth the energy. Just trust me when I say, it's creepy. Because...it just is.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:24 PMExcellent attempt, although I don't think anyone bought it. Give me the short version. What else is there to masonry that's creepy?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 04:26 PMI sure hope you don't lose any sleep over this Geoffrey. So do you play D&D too?
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:28 PMThat really upsets you doesn't it?
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 04:56 PMStill no answer?
I'm not surprised. I love when you talk yourself into a corner.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 04:58 PMI love when you cry like a little bitch. I had no idea you were so *sensitive* about masonry. It really bothers you that I won't answer your question. If I know nothing about masonry, why would you even be concerned about my opinion? I don't know what I'm talking about right? Just spouting off huh? So carry on. Why worry about uninformed foolishness such as mine? Masons are creepy! Masons are creepy! Hahahaa! Weeeee! Masons are creepy!
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:06 PMThey just ARE! Weeee! Masons are just creepy! Why? Because.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:07 PMAnswer the question yet?
Nah, didn't think so. I knew you couldn't. I love it when you talk yourself into a corner.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:08 PMMasons are creepy! Especially when they duplicate posts because they can't think of anything else to say! Creepy!
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:11 PMAnswer the question yet? I didn't think so. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner. I also love watching you paint yourself a hypocrite.
You cry about people turning your comments into a circus, then you do it yourself rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Pride. It's funny that way. Even when misplaced.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:14 PMDon't you have a D&D game to get to or an initiation ceremony to perform?
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:16 PMStill no answer?
I'm not surprised. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner almost as much as I love your hypocrisy. When I can get them both together, I'm ecstatic. (sorry, I know you'll have to look that word up)
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:19 PMAaaah the sweet, pungent smell of the palpably inextirpable desparation of a weak and hopelessly guileless adversary...
Quiet your weeping. Your tears have a foul odor and your insults are tired.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:31 PMAnswer the question yet? I didn't think so. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner. I also love watching you paint yourself a hypocrite.
You cry about people turning your comments into a circus, then you do it yourself rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Pride. It's funny that way. Even when misplaced.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:33 PMBoring.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:34 PMYeah, you can only say so much when you don't know a thing about the topic.
Go educate yourself and come back. Maybe you'll be able to answer the question then. It's a simple one.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:36 PMWhat a sniveler.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:40 PMAnswer the question yet? I didn't think so. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner. I also love watching you paint yourself a hypocrite.
You cry about people turning your comments into a circus, then you do it yourself rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Pride. It's funny that way. Even when misplaced.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:41 PMYou should really have that checked out.
Posted by: Maria at December 1, 2004 05:42 PMAnswer the question yet? I didn't think so. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner. I also love watching you paint yourself a hypocrite.
You cry about people turning your comments into a circus, then you do it yourself rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Pride. It's funny that way. Even when misplaced.
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 1, 2004 05:44 PM.
Well, I'm convinced, Maria. This thread alone is definitive proof that Masons are creepy. (Especially when they pretend to be Shriners. Bwa-ha-ha!)
You heard it here, first, peoples: Masons ARE creepy.
.
How's the kool aid?
Posted by: Geoffrey at December 2, 2004 04:32 PM[creepy!]
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at December 2, 2004 10:40 PMCosa, the proof is definitely in this here pudding. Funny thing is, my cousin's husband is a Mason and he's currently attempting to enlighten me as to its virtues. But even THAT is creepy! Aaaaahhhhh! Hahahaaa.
Posted by: Maria at December 2, 2004 11:05 PMIf he told ya TOO much, he'd have to KILL ya!
bwa-ha-ha
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at December 3, 2004 12:29 AMAnswer the question yet? I didn't think so. I love watching you talk yourself into a corner. I also love watching you paint yourself a hypocrite.
You cry about people turning your comments into a circus, then you do it yourself rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Pride. It's funny that way. Even when misplaced.
bwa-ha-ha
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at December 3, 2004 08:21 AM