Recently, Student Union and the College Republicans announced plans to bring former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to campus to speak next semester. The speaking engagement, which will cost $35,000 from Student Union funds, includes $30,000 for Gonzales’ honorarium.
Many students, including those who disagree with him politically, believe that inviting Gonzales to campus is a unique and valuable opportunity. We agree with this assessment. We should, however, note that our desire to see him speak on campus does not mean that we approve of the policies he helped shape and defend while he worked for the Bush administration.
To be frank, our list of concerns about Gonzales is too long to adequately summarize in one editorial. His role in sanctioning the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program has established dangerous precedents regarding executive power. As White House Counsel, Gonzales also participated in an attempt to get Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize President Bush’s domestic surveillance program by visiting Ashcroft at his intensive care hospital room. It should be noted that Ashcroft had previously refused to reauthorize the program citing concerns over its constitutionality.
Our gravest concerns, however, involve Gonzales’ opinions regarding the treatment of enemy combatants. According to the Washington Post, Gonzales played a key role in preparing an August 2002 memorandum advising that torturing alleged al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified.”
Gonzales also played a key role in shaping the Bush administration’s positions toward the Geneva Convention. In a January 25, 2002 memorandum to President Bush, Gonzales argued, “there are reasonable grounds.to conclude that [the Geneva POW Convention] does not apply.to the conflict with the Taliban.” As White House counsel, Gonzales also referred to certain portions of the Geneva Convention as “quaint” and “obsolete.” In his capacity as Attorney General, Gonzales also made repeated statements asserting that the Geneva Convention did not apply to military tribunals for enemy combatants, an argument that was later rejected by the Supreme Court in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision.
We are also concerned by Gonzales’ misrepresentation of facts regarding President Bush’s November 13, 2001 military order establishing military tribunals to try enemy combatants. In defense of this order regarding the “detention, treatment and trial of certain non-citizens in the War Against Terrorism,” Gonzales penned a November 30, 2001 Op-Ed in the New York Times stating this: “Under the order, anyone arrested, detained or tried in the United States by a military commission will be able to challenge the lawfulness of the commission’s jurisdiction through a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court.” In fact, according to political columnist Andrew Sullivan, President Bush’s order states exactly the opposite by directing that these individuals “shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceedings, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on [their] behalf in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.”
Finally, there is Gonzales’ involvement in the scandal surrounding the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The former attorney general’s frequent refrain of “I don’t recall” when questioned by the Senate showed contempt for Congressional oversight of the Justice Department. Gonzales set a dangerous precedent by polticizing what should be one of the most impartial agencies of the government.
For these reasons, we do not support the work of Alberto Gonzales in his various capacities inside the Bush administration. That said, we also believe that his right to speak on campus should not be called into question.
For starters, the decision to invite Alberto Gonzales was enabled by the Student Union Treasury, which approved the additional funds required to bring him to campus. Every treasury representative is elected by the student body in order to make these kinds of decisions, and that is exactly what happened. Unless this was a gross abuse of power, and we have absolutely no reason to believe this was the case, then their actions are meant to reflect the will of the student body. We see nothing wrong with the decision to invite Gonzales.
Moreover, the Washington University community should maintain a certain level of respect for Gonzales during his speech. During a recent speech by Gonzales at the University of Florida, Gonzales was booed and heckled by students in attendance. We must emphatically ask that Washington University students avoid engaging in similar behavior. There will be appropriate venues for protest outside the 560 Music Center, and we certainly encourage students who disagree with Gonzales to exercise that right. But shouting down a man who was invited to speak at this campus in an attempt to drown out his opinion is a disrespectful and shameful action that takes attention away from any valid criticisms of Gonzales.
We do not believe that students should sit back and passively accept his opinions, but there are proper avenues for expressing your disagreements which do not involve rudely interrupting him. Whatever you may think of the man, the least he deserves is the opportunity to speak to the Washington University community.