Washington > Transcript: Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/politics/06TEXT-GONZALES.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=”>The New York Times > Washington > Transcript: Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): … When he was designated for this position by the president, Judge Gonzales said he’s looking forward to continuing to work with friends and colleagues in the White House in a different capacity on behalf of our president. But you know, there are going to be times, there may well be times when the attorney general of the United States has to enforce the law and he can’t be worried about friends or colleagues at the White House; his duty is to all Americans — Republicans, Democrats, independent — all Americans.
At a time when the Republican Party has control of all three branches of the federal government, my worry is that our system of checks and balances may become short-circuited by too few checks on assertions of executive branch authority. My concern is that during several high-profile matters in your professional career, you’ve appeared to serve as a facilitator rather than as an independent force in the policy-making process.
The job of attorney general is not about crafting rationalizations for ill-conceived ideas; it’s a much more vital role than that. Attorney general is about being a forceful, independent — independent — voice in our continuing quest for justice in defense of the constitutional rights of every single American. …
So these hearings are about nomination, but they’re also about accountability. From the outset of public disclosure of the Abu Ghraib photographs, the Bush administration maintained that any wrongdoing was simply a case of a few bad apples. But as bits of information have been made public, not by the administration but by the press over the last year, it has become clear to all that these incidents at U.S. facilities around the world are not just the acts of a few low-ranking members of the military; rather, in the upper reaches of the executive branch, a process was set in motion that rolled forward that produced scandalous results, almost like somebody opening the floodgates in a dam and the water flowed downstream until it overwhelmed everybody below. …
But senior officials in the Bush White House, the Ashcroft Justice Department, Rumsfeld Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, our policies, our international agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and later Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals but also international law.
Former CIA Director Tenet requested and Secretary Rumsfeld approved the secret detention of ghost detainees in Iraq, did that so they could be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. And still unexplained are instances where the U.S. government delivered prisoners to other countries so they could be tortured.
We have to ask: Where’s the responsibility and accountability for these abuses? …
As White House counsel, Judge Gonzales was at the center of discussions on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the legality of detention and interrogation methods that have been seen as tantamount to torture. He oversaw the formulation of this administration’s extreme views of unfettered executive power and unprecedented government secrecy. I hope that things will be different if you are confirmed, Judge Gonzales. I hope that you will be accessible to members of this committee and be more responsive than your predecessor. …
—–
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Now let me just say — before I ask some questions of Judge Gonzales, I’d like to just take this opportunity to once again recognize the hard work, the dedication and many accomplishments of our current attorney general, John Ashcroft. He has been a terrific attorney general. He’s done a terrific job down there, and I think the way crime has come down and a lot of other things have happened for the betterment of the country are, frankly, because of his leadership. Frankly, it has not been lost on me that many of those who are opposing you today are people who have, in many respects, unfairly vilified the current attorney general over the last four years.
—–
SEN. KENNEDY: [T]he administration claimed during the hearings that we had with General Taguba that the Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples; there was no higher level of support or encouragement for the mistreatment of detainees. Then we learned that the Defense Department’s working group report of April 2003 had provided the broad legal support for the harsh interrogation tactics and it dramatically narrowed the definition of torture and it recognized the novel defenses for those who committed the torture. Then we learned that the legal basis for the working group report had been provided by the Justice Department in the Bybee memo. Now, that is what’s come up from the administration, that has come up — including the president of the United States. This committee, the Armed Services Committee has asked for these memos. We have depended upon what’s been leaked, what’s been put on the Internet, and what’s been obtained in the Freedom of Information and by various attorneys. So there’s a certain kind of sense by many of us here that the administration — and you’re the point person on the administration — has not been forthcoming on the whole issues of torture, which not just were committed at Abu Ghraib but is happening today, today. Now, the Bybee torture memoranda, written at your request — and I’d be interested in your reactions to this — made abuse of interrogation easier. It sharply narrowed the definition of torture and recognizes new defense for officials who commit torture. For two years, for two years, from August 2002 to June 2004, you never repudiated it. That’s the record. You never repudiated it. …
Now, the Post article states you chaired several meetings at which various interrogation techniques were discussed. These techniques included the threat of live burial and waterboarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed under water, wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown. The article states that you raised no objection, and without consulting military and State Department experts — they were not consulted, they were not invited to important meetings….
—–
MR. GONZALES: [W]ith respect to specific areas that I probably would like to have special emphasis on, of course the first one is the war on terror. I also, because of my background, believe very much in the protection of civil rights, the protection of our voting rights, the protection of our civil liberties. I continue to believe that we have too many drugs in our society, and that should be a focus. I am concerned about the violent crime in our society. I am concerned about the use of certain kinds of weapons in connection with those crimes. I think obscenity is something else that very much concerns me. I’ve got two young sons, and it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to pornography. And so those are a few things that I would be focused on. But again, I think the Department of Justice is unique and that my goal, as impossible as it may be, or it may seem, is to try to ensure that justice is administered across the spectrum.
—–
Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.
MR. GONZALES: I believe that I said in response to an earlier question that I do believe it is possible, theoretically possible, for the Congress to pass a law that would be viewed as unconstitutional by a president of the United States. …
SEN. DURBIN: But you believe he has that authority; he could ignore a law passed by this Congress, signed by this president or another one, and decide that it is unconstitutional and refuse to comply with that law?
MR. GONZALES: Senator, again, you’re asking me where the — hypothetically, does that authority exist? And I guess I would have to say that hypothetically that authority may exist. …
SEN. DURBIN: … I’m troubled that you would think, as our incoming attorney general, that a president can pick or choose the laws that he thinks are unconstitutional and ultimately wait for that test in court to decide whether or not he’s going to comply with the law.
—–
Human Rights First | Human Rights First Blog – The Gonzales Confirmation Hearings
Testimony of Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USNavy): Even amidst war we should treat our enemies humanely, to do so is a sign of strength, to not do so is a sign of desperation.
I’m here to speak against the nomination of Gonzales because he does not understand that. His analysis is wrong, morally, legally and practically. It endangers our troops and makes our nation less safe.
His analysis of GCs shows disregard for rule of law and human rights. … I remind the committee that we’re conducting 40 or more death investigations of detainees in American Hands.
28 years in the military taught me: there are 2 indispensable aspects to military: chain of command and accountability…. Government lawyers including Gonzales let down US troops by their ill conceived advice. At the top of the chain of command they set the conditions so that many of those troops would commit serious crimes.
Damage has been done, but it’s never too late to do the right thing. If Gonzales goes on to be the chief law enforcement agent after this. We’re at a fork in the road – this nomination has given you the opportunity to tell the world what you think about those abuses…