New attorney general

“Alberto Gonzalez was the Texas trial lawyer untrained in international law who gave Shrub the bad advice on the status of prisoners kept at Gitmo. Yeah, I can see how he'd make a fine attorney general, ... just freakin fine! And Alfred E. Neuman for secretary of state. Jessica Simpson for secdef. The Three Stooges for National Security Council!

I wonder if he'll uncover the statue of Justice that Asscrap covered up because a boob was exposed.”

“Christ.

"His sharp intellect and sound judgment have helped shape our policies in the war on terror," Bush said Wednesday afternoon from the White House.

Torture is a family value.”

“Can I assume from that tirade that Gonzalez wasn't your first pick?”

“He's probably pick you first!”

““Can I assume from that tirade that Gonzalez wasn't your first pick?”
NoProb

Yeah, I can see where having a lawyer who is unqualified to handle the issue at hand and who then gives bad advice is in the best interest of the president you elected. Silly me.”

“Loyal to a Fault?
The Senate should hold Alberto Gonzales accountable for his bad legal advice.
By Phillip Carter
Posted Thursday, Nov. 11, 2004, at 10:35 AM PT



Does Gonzales have what it takes?

There is a great deal to admire about White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, whom President Bush nominated yesterday to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general. His dossier reads like a 20th Century American Dream—born to migrant farm workers in San Antonio; raised in Houston; enlisted service in the U.S. Air Force, then the U.S. Air Force Academy; Rice University; Harvard Law School; partnership in an elite law firm; a seat on the Texas Supreme Court—and now, finally, appointment to the position of attorney general. And Gonzales' meteoric rise may not stop there—he's widely considered to be on Bush's shortlist for nomination to the Supreme Court.

However, before the Senate gives its advice and consent to Gonzales' nomination as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer, he does have some explaining to do. One set of questions grows out of Gonzales' work for then-Gov. Bush as his lawyer in the Texas Statehouse, where critics allege his work on death penalty cases fell far short of what a professional attorney in that position should have provided the governor. The second set of questions arises from the decision adopted by the White House, apparently on advice from Gonzales and other administration lawyers, to set aside the Geneva Conventions and other laws as part of the global war on terrorism. His conduct in both situations raises significant questions about Gonzales' lawyering skills and his apparent willingness to sacrifice the rule of law for the policy positions of his client, George W. Bush.

The state of Texas executed 150 men and two women during Bush's six-year tenure as governor—a rate unmatched by any other state in modern U.S. history. As governor, Bush had statutory power to delay executions and the political power to influence the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute them entirely, where there was a procedural error, cause for mercy, or a bona fide claim of innocence. Then-Gov. Bush assigned Gonzales a critical role in the clemency process—asking him to provide a legal memo on the morning of each execution day outlining the key facts and issues of the case at hand. According to Alan Berlow, who obtained Gonzales' memoranda after a protracted legal fight with the state of Texas and wrote about them in the July/August 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Gonzales' legal skills fell far short of the mark that one might expect for this serious task:”

“

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered additional defenses of President Bush's domestic spying program on Tuesday, as the administration tried to redefine the warrantless surveillance in a way that undermines critics.

Speaking to students at Georgetown University law school, Gonzales said a 15-day grace period allowing warrantless eavesdropping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demonstrates that Congress knew such surveillance "would be essential in wartime."

Gonzales was supplying legal arguments to the president's comments Monday that the effort should be called a "terrorist surveillance program."

Confronting Gonzales during his nearly half-hour speech were more than a dozen young people in the audience who turned their backs to him and held up for a banner for television cameras. The banner, loosely based on a Benjamin Franklin quote, read: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012500497.html

As one of the people on the panel said:

"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.”

“Bravo!”

“Where are those brave Bush wingers?”

“"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Why did they remove "little temporary" from the quote? Prolly 'cause then they could not have used such big letters.

Oh yeah, on edit I'll add that apparently they thought that when BF said "safety" that he MUST have meant "security".

Those "" marks are supposed to mean something.
last edited: 1/25/06 6:40:13 PM”

“That quote is laughable, even if we assume Franklin actually said it.

You cannot have liberty without security. If you take away security you have chaos. Hey! Let's take away the police! Let's all run around naked and rub ourselves on old ladies for fun! Woo-hoo! I'm a free spirited naked do whatever I want liberal nutcase and there ain't no police to stop me and I'm freaking loving it!

Anybody think calling Al Qaeda buddies back in Afghanistan is an essential liberty? Woo-hoo, butter yourself up and smear yourself on the Statue of Liberty 'cos we gots rights folks!!”

“Anybody think calling Al Qaeda buddies back in Afghanistan is an essential liberty?


Doesn't everyone know by now that there is a secret court set up to issue warrants in cases like this? Assuming that is the reason the administration decided to break the law, how does gathering information that can't be used to prosecute dangerous people in our midst make us safer?”

“For some real safety, the tax payer should tap all calls of government workers (anyone that takes compensation from the tax payer)who are the greatest enemy.”