Gonzales gets the boot

[Kaftan Barlast]

Bush ally Gonzales resigns post

 

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Alberto Gonzales is a long time friend of the president

 

Gonzales thanks Bush

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, embroiled in a row over the sacking of eight US attorneys, has formally announced his resignation.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6965602.stm

 

 

Bush made comedy when commenting "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons". What about those 8 guys Gonzales fired... for political reasons?

Edited August 27, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Sand]

Its about bloody time. Now they just need to get rid of Rice, Cheney, and Bush now that Rove and Gonzo is out of the way.

[Bela]

Gah! And Daily Show is a repeat?! :sad:

 

Until then ... Gonzales to Spend More Time Eavesdropping on His Family ... if only ...

[taks]

Bush made comedy when commenting "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons". What about those 8 guys Gonzales fired... for political reasons?

uh, no different than any other political appointee, and their names weren't dragged through the mud in the media. we wouldn't have even heard of them till somebody decided to take gonzales to task over the non-issue. so, sorry, your hypothesis that these guys were "dragged through the mud" is nonsense.

 

taks

[Sand]

They were fired for political reasons, but yes they weren't dragged through th mud. Just hung out to dry. :D

[Meshugger]

Gah! And Daily Show is a repeat?! :sad:

 

Until then ... Gonzales to Spend More Time Eavesdropping on His Family ... if only ...

 

 

For someone that said that the Geneva agreement "obselete", especially in his position, i am glad that he's gone.

[taks]

Just hung out to dry. :D

really, not even that. i mean, they took the job under a democrat, likely replacing republicans from a previous administration that suffered an identical fate... it's not as if they didn't know it was coming, sheesh. congressional meddling in this affair was the real tragedy. they're really trying to overstep their constitutional bounds with this one. well, more so than they usually do i guess.

 

taks

[taks]

For someone that said that the Geneva agreement "obselete", especially in his position, i am glad that he's gone.

it is, actually. i mean, exactly who out there do we engage that abides by even reasonable rules of war anymore?

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I don't think it's that unfair. The Convention is designed for wars between states. Wars these days are between states and non-state actors.

[kirottu]

For someone that said that the Geneva agreement "obselete", especially in his position, i am glad that he's gone.

it is, actually. i mean, exactly who out there do we engage that abides by even reasonable rules of war anymore?

 

taks

 

I thought this was one of the reasons to fight against them.

[Pop]

He's got a point, though. Even outside the scope of counter-insurgency, what good is any declaration of universal human rights if it's not strenuously enforced? They only just started trying war criminals at the ICC, there are plenty of people out there who've yet to be caught. And it's difficult to act, even, without eliciting cries of "world police" or "imperialist". Do we just run roughshod over borders and through cultures in pursuit of war criminals or do we wait until it's convenient to act before we do so? Is it really practical to seek justice in either case?

 

But that's all beside the point. I had Gonzalez pegged for gone when he showed his complete contempt for the Congress during the Wiretap scandal. I remember when he had just come on, a lot of people were optimistic that he wouldn't be a crony, and apparently those people were wrong.

 

I've heard rumors of Michael Chertoff being tapped to replace him. I do hope that's a joke.

 

Nonetheless, $20 says Gonzales fails to recall his resignation and shows up at work for at least a few more weeks.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Pop

[Meshugger]

For someone that said that the Geneva agreement "obselete", especially in his position, i am glad that he's gone.

it is, actually. i mean, exactly who out there do we engage that abides by even reasonable rules of war anymore?

 

taks

 

Call me idealistic and naive. Hell, my 90-year old grandfather have tales from WWII when questionable acts occurred at the front lines (He doesn't imply that it is useless, just hard to follow). But i see it as an ideal that any country who calls itself civilized should strive for

[Sand]

But i see it as an ideal that any country who calls itself civilized should strive for

 

I agree with Meshie.

[Walsingham]

I agree with Sand agreeing with Meshie.

[Tale]

Wait, so he argued the the convention was obselete in addition to trying to argue that there is no promise of habeas corpus?

 

Good riddance, should have happened sooner.

[taks]

Call me idealistic and naive. Hell, my 90-year old grandfather have tales from WWII when questionable acts occurred at the front lines (He doesn't imply that it is useless, just hard to follow). But i see it as an ideal that any country who calls itself civilized should strive for

that's not the point... calling something obsolete and saying there shouldn't be rules are two different things. for example, one of the primary "requirements" of the geneva convention is the display of a uniform or identifying wardrobe. this doesn't happen anymore. the geneva convention IS obsolete, and gonzales was only pointing out the obvious - he wasn't making any statements regarding what _should_ be in place. heck, it was obsolete after vietnam.

 

taks

[taks]

Wait, so he argued the the convention was obselete in addition to trying to argue that there is no promise of habeas corpus?

sweeping generalization. not true at all. the concept of habeas corpus really doesn't apply to the wiretapping thing anyway.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

the concept of habeas corpus really doesn't apply to the wiretapping thing anyway.

Correct! Hmmm Taks, I thought we went through the whole Habeas Corpus thing with evertone already?

[taks]

probably. if anything, this would fall under the illegal search and seizure category, not illegal detention (which is what the writ of habeas corpus addresses). make a call outside the US, and you've entered into different territory w.r.t. public safety. had they been tapping domestic calls, which i'm sure they do more than we're told (though probably with classified warrants), i'd hold a different opinion.

 

taks

Edited August 28, 2007 by taks

[Tale]

Why are you speaking as if someone thinks it applies to wiretapping? Did I bring up wiretapping? It was brought up in Senate in regards to Guantanamo detainees, not wiretapping.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[taks]

oh, OK. it was immediately after the wiretapping comment so i naturally connected the two.

 

that said, suspension of habeas corpus has always been allowed in cases of extreme public interest, particularly with non-citizens. this is connected to the whole geneva convention being obsolete issue, too. the most obvious case of the gov't's right to suspend habeas corpus is w.r.t. prisoners taken during war activities. however, since the prisoners are not marked as enemy soldiers, indeed what could they be marked by, they really don't fall under the geneva convention. they aren't citizens (well, there may have been a few), so they aren't afforded constitutional protection either. sort of a conundrum.

 

taks

[Tale]

A conundrum that seeks resolution, not exploitation. Simply because one's classification is in limbo does not mean they are without rights. The Constitution and Geneva Convention should be looked at as precedents for the rights of people in general, not something to be avoided when possible and convenient. Now, I'm not to say Gonzales was in support of depriving human rights when convenient, well actually I did pretty much say that earlier. However, after looking into the contexts a little more, I've only moved back to suspicious.

 

I find this a most interesting excerpt:

Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.

 

As he speaks explicitly of citizens. Was his comment merely one of being an academic argument over the wording or was he actually trying to make an argument for a point?

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[Calax]

I'm gonna stay out of this one but,

 

GO TALE!

[Walsingham]

I could use some more elaboration of this point about habeus corpus. I thought that was just us and the Magna Carta.

 

To shift my statement on the Geneva conventions, iirc we already established they only apply to co-signatories, and persons who uphold that signed commitment. As such they are not obsolete, they are just not relevant to guerrilla warfare. The question of guerrila warfare split the conference. Were partisans to be accorded the same rights as regular combatants, or were they to be treated as 'franc-tireurs'* and summarily executed.

 

 

 

* I wonder if this could be the real origin of the word terrorist?

[Guard Dog]

I find this a most interesting excerpt:

Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.

 

As he speaks explicitly of citizens. Was his comment merely one of being an academic argument over the wording or was he actually trying to make an argument for a point?

Either way it was an exceedingly stupid thing for the AG to say. True, the Suspension Clause does give the government oblique authority to disregard HC it in times of "Rebellion" and "Invasion". But 5 times in US History the congress or President has attempted to intrude upon it and the Supreme Court has knocked them down every time, as recently as last year. Now the prisoners in Guantanamo are not US citizens and were not taken on US soil. Additionally the country they were taken in was not a Geneva signitory and the organization they were fighting in (Al-Queda) certainly was not. To me that means they are SOL. But despite that they have been decently treated, much better than a captive in their hands would have been.