Last week, in the pages of Student Life, Ryan Winograd attempted to defend the honor of Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against the “left-leaning organizations on campus.” He did not succeed.

Mr. Winograd claims that we should not be concerned with the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by Gonzales’ Justice Department. After all, Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys during his first term, so what’s wrong with Gonzales firing only eight? The problem with this argument is that it is standard practice for the president-elect to replace the appointed attorneys of the previous administration. According to David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, “historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan. Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. Attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. Attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. Attorneys in his first two years.” However, it is not standard practice to fire U.S. attorneys once they have been appointed.

This is what happened in the case of Gonzales: all eight of the fired U.S. Attorneys were Bush appointments. Furthermore, many of the attorneys appear to have been fired not because they were incompetent, but because they were insufficiently loyal to the Republican Party. Paul Charlton, for example, was in the process of investigating Republican congressman Rick Renzi for corruption when he was dismissed. The childish “but Bill Clinton did it first” defense cannot withstand scrutiny.

Mr. Winograd does not even attempt to defend Gonzales’ complicity in illegal warrantless wiretapping-he only points out that Democrats have capitulated to the Bush administration by allowing this disastrous legislation to pass through Congress. This is a fantastic argument for explaining why congressional Democrats are failing in their civic duties, but it is hardly a compelling defense of Gonzales. Mr. Winograd writes, “A lot of Democrats must think that listening in on the conversations of terrorists is a good idea.” I think it is more likely that they are afraid of the common accusation that they are soft on terror. Furthermore, just because the cowardly congressional Democrats fail to outlaw warrantless wiretapping does not mean that all liberals suddenly have to agree with it. The argument against this power is simple: governments will abuse the power of unlimited surveillance of their citizens.

Finally, and most importantly, we have the issue of torture. Once again, Mr. Winograd attempts to dodge the issue by claiming that if waterboarding is so bad, then Democrats in Congress should pass a law to ban it. I’ve already shown that the behavior of the Democrats is irrelevant. More importantly, it is absurd to expect Congress to outlaw each specific act of torture. Under U.S. law, torture is defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” Is it OK for U.S. military personnel to pull out the fingernails of detainees or administer painful electric shocks because these specific acts are not prohibited by this law? Based on his previous reasoning, it would be hard for Mr. Winograd to refute this. It is simply undeniable at this point that the U.S. has committed acts of torture (the head of the CIA recently admitted this) and that Gonzales has been one of the most egregious enablers.

Gonzales is not merely immoral; he is also hopelessly incompetent. The Senate hearings regarding the attorney firing scandal revealed to us a man so clueless that he couldn’t even remember why he had authorized his staff to fire the attorneys in the first place. In a single day of testimony, Gonzales insisted no fewer than 71 times that he could not recall what had happened. It’s a miracle that he remembered his name. And who would have ever thought they would live to see the day when the Attorney General of the United States would claim that the writ of habeas corpus is not protected by the Constitution, as Gonzales has?

Alberto “I don’t recall” Gonzales is an embarrassing disgrace to the Justice Department and the United States. That such an incompetent clown could occupy the most prestigious legal position in the country is a testament to the cronyism and indifference to the rule of law that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration. Protest away, “left-leaning organizations on campus.”

Bill is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, February 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.