« A Qualified Defense of John Ashcroft | Main | Civil Unions »
Gonzales
Now Albert "Not Only Has The GWOT Rendered International Law Obsolete But That Fact Implies That The President May Now Unilateral Ignore Duly Ratified Treaties Rather Than Seeking To Modify or Abrogate Them" Gonzales would bring the sort of hackery and goonishness we've come to expect from the national security team to the Justice Department. Rumors of his appointment are distressing. He may well be insufficiently orthodox on the "life" question for the right, however.
November 10, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421be5a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gonzales:
» Gargamel It Is from Three Guys
Congratulations, America! We've finally achieved our dream of becoming a rogue state. Now it's time to party. [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 1:31:26 PM
» Against Mushiness, For Law? from Crescat Sententia
I am intrigued-- and not altogether displeased-- to see one of the best liberal Democratic bloggers come out in defense of John Ashcroft and in opposition to Al Gonzalez. I, too, have joined in the Ashcroft-bashing in the past, but... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 2:07:54 PM
» Alberto Gonzales from Teenage Pundit
Meet our new Attorney General!Unfortunately, in the very article ABC News wrote to brief the public regarding their new cabinet member, this disturbing paragraph was to be found:Perhaps even more controversial was the February 2002 memo he wrote in whi... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 11, 2004 12:46:04 AM
Comments
Typical left-wing prejudice against minorities they disagree with. Perhaps Matt would be happy if we appointed Maher Arar or some other terrorist. Plotting the deaths of innocent children is about the only value that the left can get behind nowadays, just so long as they're American children.
Posted by: Al | Nov 10, 2004 1:04:21 PM
Gonzales is Hispanic. There, I have listed his qualifications for the post of Attorney General.
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Nov 10, 2004 1:04:35 PM
Worst possible choice. An uber-loyalist and someone who seems ideologically opposed to the very concept of law itself.
Posted by: praktike | Nov 10, 2004 1:08:32 PM
He'd never get approved by the Democrats int he Senate. They'll block his confirmation. He makes Ashcroft look like a piker when it comes to ignoring civil rights.
Posted by: Jeff I | Nov 10, 2004 1:11:09 PM
If you substitute "The War Against Terror" for the "Global War on Terrorism," the acronym will make more sense in your post.
Posted by: consigliere | Nov 10, 2004 1:18:24 PM
Why wouldn't Bush save Gonzales for the SCOTUS? After all, Racicot was nearly considered over Ashcroft the first time around, and while Racicot isn't qualified for the SC, he's (I suppose) qualified for the AG.
Posted by: Kriston | Nov 10, 2004 1:20:22 PM
Typical left-wing prejudice against minorities they disagree with. Perhaps Matt would be happy if we appointed Maher Arar or some other terrorist. Plotting the deaths of innocent children is about the only value that the left can get behind nowadays, just so long as they're American children.
Cute, Stalker Al.
On topic: needless to say, the Gonzales memo on the legal status of the al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, like the Yoo memo before it, was exactly correct. But I'm sure that the President is willing to have a that fight, if Pat Leahy and the rest want to -- it will simply be another instance in which the Democrats are on the side of the terrorists and the Republicans are on the side of our military. You keep doing it to yourselves, over and over... one would think you'd learn after a while.
Posted by: Al | Nov 10, 2004 1:24:22 PM
"Why wouldn't Bush save Gonzales for the SCOTUS?"
Cause Ashcroft is being recessed appointed to SCOTUS?
At least Meese & Ashcroft were dumb. Gonzalez is a nightmare.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 10, 2004 1:26:08 PM
Cute, Stalker Al.
Funny, Stalker Al. You forgot your typical over the topic antics this time.
The Gonzales memo is a extremely well-written memo. Me and my partners at the law firm have looked over it and admire his expert legal craftsmanship.
Posted by: Al | Nov 10, 2004 1:30:43 PM
damn, i can't tell the two Al's apart.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 10, 2004 1:31:34 PM
The second Al is Zizka.
Posted by: praktike | Nov 10, 2004 1:42:33 PM
What does this mean Praktike?:
"ideologically opposed to the very concept of law"
Gonazalez is an anarchist? Wow.
Posted by: Reg | Nov 10, 2004 1:42:36 PM
Democrats will do very little to oppose this, unless they want to play into Shrubs's hand.
Leave the fight for the crucial SC battles.
Posted by: David | Nov 10, 2004 1:42:53 PM
The president is above the law ... therefore there is no law.
Posted by: praktike | Nov 10, 2004 1:44:15 PM
If you look at PNAC and other scattered pieces of evidence, it is actually possible to make sense of the Bush policies.
Historically there have been long periods when a some kind of international order worked pretty well, considerable period when the international order seemed to be disinegrating, and a few sharp transations when one or more of the players tried to completely remake the international order by force. Napoleon is a relatively neutral example. The religious wars of northern Europe ending with the peace of Westphalia was another period of remaking.
Basically I think that the Bush people plan for this to be a major transition period, and as a result they fell justified in ignoring all the rules both of the post WWII order, and even of the Westphalian international order. I think that they see themselves as being on a par with Julius Caeser or the founders of the British Empire. Key words: "Monopolar", "Preponderance", "Window of Opportunity".
Many of the warbloggers seem to understand this, though few of them come out and say it, and Bush never does. From this POV al-Qaeda and WMD are just details. From this POV perhaps we have attained our goal in Iraq, though perhaps more painfully than we originally thought.
The fact that this plan was presented evasively means that the American people will now have to be whipped into line. I think that this will require a redefinition of democracy too. But for Straussians, the American political system, individual rights, democracy, etc., are not absolute goods, but just transient local institutions that worked fairly well for a century or two.
Posted by: Zizka | Nov 10, 2004 1:54:30 PM
The rumor has just been confirmed. On the bright side, (For you, anyway.) just like Bush, he's soft on racial preferences, which you guys seem to like.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 2:10:33 PM
Me and my partners at the law firm have looked over it . . .
If you're a lawyer, just what kind of ambulance do you and your “partners” chase, Al?
"Your honor, me and my partners thinks . . ."
Given your inability to write a grammatically correct sentence, if you are indeed a lawyer, you probably have your at least semi-literate jr. partners write your briefs and/or you're wired in court like Bush was in the debates to make sure you don't step on your tongue any more than is necessary.
Posted by: Jeff I | Nov 10, 2004 2:14:43 PM
just like Bush, he's soft on racial preferences, which you guys seem to like.
"No matter your race, color or creed, you will be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions."
I like it.
In all seriousness, Democrats should oppose his nomination, but not make a serious effort to block him. Let it happen. Let Bush appoint Wolfowitz as NSA, Zell Miller at State. Have him fly Alan Keyes into Bethlehem and appoint him new head of the PLO, for all I care.
We get the government we deserve, and Bush has a Man Date...
Posted by: Brad Reed | Nov 10, 2004 2:14:53 PM
Plus, keep in mind that these people will be gone in four years no matter what (we hope).
We should save our REAL energy for Supreme Court nominee Ann Coulter...
Posted by: Brad Reed | Nov 10, 2004 2:16:39 PM
Porter Goss?
check.
Albert Gonzales?
check.
Can't wait to see who takes over for Powell...
Posted by: paul | Nov 10, 2004 2:18:00 PM
As for affirmative action, I've never quite figured out what you people had against asians.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 2:18:15 PM
Can't wait to see who takes over for Powell...
I have my hopes for Richard Perle. Or Henry Kissinger! Bring back Hank! Let's see Hitchens try to justify that!
Posted by: Brad Reed | Nov 10, 2004 2:20:28 PM
Let's see Hitchens try to justify that!
He'll do it reluctantly, with reservations.
Posted by: abb1 | Nov 10, 2004 2:31:53 PM
David Horowitz for the Secretary of Education.
Bill Bennett for the Chief of Indian Affairs.
Ken Lay for the Head of Securities and Exchange Commission.
Posted by: abb1 | Nov 10, 2004 2:39:44 PM
The GWOT is about bringing hope to a troubled world.
Whoever George brings in is going to be oriented around that objective.
The there is a theocracy that needs fighting. It is not American. Bush is attempting the separation of church and state on a world wide level. In the long run this shift in foreign policy has got to hurt the Republican coalition as the logic of it becomes more prevalent.
I see the social issues of the religious conservatives as being a temporary advantage for the Republicans. More lasting is their support for capitalism and wars of liberation.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 10, 2004 2:51:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
