Consortiumnews.com

Readers Write More on Gonzales

January 23, 2007

"Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during 'a time of war,' even one as vaguely defined as the 'war on terror' which may last forever."

This statement by Gonzales and war on terror forever should make it clear that there has to be a new investigation for 9-11-2001 to show that the neocons created their own definition of terror. I am so disturbed that this government is allowing this President to control the whole world and is destroying our Constitution. How can one man control all of us and not be accountable for his crimes. This is sad that the USA has 300 million people and not one person is able to stop this Administration from destroying us.

I must say that the overt Liberalism you espouse is disgusting. When you print columns by people who routinely use the word NEO-Conservative and the like, you show your INTOLERANCE to a differing opinion. SHAME ON YOU!! I am not reading any more of your biased BS as long as i live. who needs journalists anyhow? I can watch 100% of a speech or an interview with ANYONE and be able to see EXACTLY who and what they are and what they mean. you assholes need to stop with the friggin interpretation and just report the friggin news, as it happens, when it happens without inserting conjecture, opinion, or argument.

James E. Martin
Oak Ridge, TN

This is in response to Mr. Martin from Oak Ridge, who has vowed to never read "overt Liberalism" columns again. So, pulling the rabbit hole in after himself with his "intolerance," will likely deprive himself of this or other opinion.

Mr. Martin takes exception to the use of the word neoconservative. Merriam Webster lists two definitions for neoconservative:

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means

This determines that there is purposeful reasoning behind the use of the word which allows the reader to understand the politics of the person and their actions. This is a part of the real world of politics. Denial will not make it go away. (Darn it.)

Now, I would like to take exception to Mr. Martin's word choices, which I consider name-calling. Why must Mr. Martin call someone with opposing opinions an a--hole and label their beliefs as BS? Could it be that he has no viable response? In dealing with those who defend everything-not-liberal-or-progressive, I've experienced similar reactions; no argument of substance or fact, simply angry rhetorical name-calling that wants to deny me my Constitutional right of free speech because I speak what I believe is truth with facts and figures, as well as emotion, to support my beliefs.

The past six years, the mainstream media has routinely reported on "the news" from the White House- without "interpretation," without question- with seemingly loyal, near-biased acceptance. We are now feeling the negative effects of that "reporting." The future doesn't look better for us and for much of the world as we follow this administration's course. The obeisance of the press has helped lead us to these conditions... God forgive.

Mr. Martin, Closing your ears to opposing views only pushes us farther apart. Is that what you want? Surely not.

Fairview Park, OH 44126

I know that Bush's radical expansion of powers draw largely on 'the time of war" provision. I would construe this phrase to refer exclusively to a congressionally declared war, since the framers could not anticipate the modern invention of the "police action", etc.

E. Baxter

While the interpretation of the Constitution is open to debate, there have been few challenges to it by people who had the best interest of this nation as a base to rest on. I believe that history will show us a sad chapter as far as this administration goes. I'm at a loss to describe the events of the past 5 years, however, corruption, power-hungry, inept, arrogant, where will the list end? And with a pat on the back from the White House Mr. Gonzales spits out an endless stream of Executive power rights that are not in the daily norm of the Commander in Chief. Sad, and in time, I believe will be shown to be incorrect and likely very illegal. If this happens, I hope they pay to the full extent of the law for the abuses they knowing and willfully carried out!

Perhaps he could explore in more depth the concept of unending war. It could be the case that the current commander-in-cheif wants to drag out the Iraq war, not to actually win, but rather to prevent it from actually ending...............thus perpetuating his c-i-c status and allowing him 2 more years to disregard the Constitution.

How do we know when the Iraq war is over? If the US withdraws troops in a phased plan, moves them to other locations, i.e. "over the horizon", would not Bush and his cabal claim that the "war" is not over, but merely part of a new strategy to win? To be truly over, would Congress need to approve a peace treaty? If so.....with whom exactly?? It could take a decade to form a functional government there, capable of executing any treaty. Would Bush, et al, ever consider such action...I think not.

One thing should be clear............the Iraq war will last at least 2 more years, through the end of his administration ( unless impeached first), and therefore, Gonzales et al will continue their flagrant disregard of the Constitution for that same period. Will they thus "speed up" the kangaroo court process to accomplish as much as possible before the power ends? Can individuals like Gonzales, Addington and John Yoo be held accountable for their unconstitutional activity?

When does the war on terror officially end???????????
This is even more problematic because there is no governmental body to negotiate peace or a treaty with!!
No politician, of any party, would "declare" such a war over.....thus it will go on in perpetuity!! Thank you Mr. Cheneybush!!!! Even if more stable minds capture the White House in the next election, and given that our system swings back and forth, eventually another group will come along who would also covet the unrestrained power of the "war time president".

As this administration does not believe in diplomacy, nor have anyone who can credibly serve as a diplomat, they have maintained a belligerent attitude and bully policy for six years running. They have managed to alienate even our old allies...................and have increased, not decreased, the need for these extreme measures! Even with the most sane and brilliant minds brought to bear in the future, it will take an enormously long time to undo the damage, both internationally and domestically, that this administration has unleashed. And given the rapidly changing socio-political, economic, military and environmental conditions globally, I fear that it will never be possible to return to world as we knew it,
pre-Cheneybush!

Hello: Your latest article, "Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus", is without a doubt, one of the scariest. Isn`t this the kind of stuff that brings nations down. Under the cloak of national security, these guys have managed to begin to destroy the very foundation of our nation. I cannot believe our elected officials, whether they be from one party or another would allow this.

This intense desire for power, should make everyone uneasy. There seems to be a sort of paranoia, hanging over, the power brokers of the former administration. With that assumption in mind, the trial in D.C. is without a doubt based on this. Given the history of how, this administration, dispenses with their adversaries, wouldn`t you believe, their have been those, who have not been in the public eye, that have succumbed to this fate. I`m not particularly affected by fear, but how far will they go. This isn`t about me, but rather, all of us.
Could this be, all about them. There seems to be an overwhelming fear of accountability, and or exposure. I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, but given all the events that have unfolded, with the way they went about, concocting, the reasons for their actions. Wouldn`t you say, theirs was a "conspiracy"?
Not only are they altering our laws and in affect the Constitution, they have even thumbed their noses at "International Law". Is this the way for them to lay the groundwork, to escape prosecution for themselves and all their associates. Some possess dual passports, so I would assume they could escape handily.
Has their actions and threatening nature created a bit of paranoia in a lot of us, or is there pause to assume that, the above could be true? Have they done something really awful?
Bill

Parry may be giving rights' folk a perfect opportunity to bring up "The Texas Clemency Memos" & the Texas Justice (Injustice) system once again. This striking article was featured in The Atlantic in Spring of 2003. The letters to the editor re. this article which followed for several issues after the article appeared are also well worth reading because they offer more data apparently little known by the best of reporters.

This is not a bad time to bring up Gonzales history in Texas since there are the gaping parallel problems in our country with State, Federal & Military Justice (Injustice) Systems. Much of what we face today in our society appears to be largely rooted in Texas.

Incidently, just in case you didn't know, Texas is facing yet another execution on Jan 24th with two more in Texas to follow end of Jan: Larry Swearingen. He maintains his innocence, and the DNA evidence in the case is inconclusive to prove that Swearingen attacked Trotter. Since this is a capital case, and DNA evidence is available, the court should rely only on conclusive evidence. Also, the testimonies of two state witnesses are inconclusive.

An appellate judge wrote a dissenting opinion stating that Swearingen is not eligible for capital punishment...see more on Death Pen very last entry below **

THE TEXAS CLEMENCY MEMOS The Atlantic Monthly July/August 2003
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200307/berlow

You will need a subscription now to find the complete article above & also the Letters to the Editor on the
Memos item. Here is one possible source for the Letters: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Related: Since there is a neutrality dispute at Wikipedia--as often there is due to various stances/opinions/expertise--be sure to corroborate your information,of course, maybe more than usual yet looks like valuable reference including items through 2007 Find here "US Order of Precedence" (& how
persons attain power in US Gov directly under the President & following--chain of command) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_order_of_precedence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

Source Watch: through 2005 responses to nomination, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alberto_R._Gonzales
includes which Dems voted him in?

An excerpt from the Source Watch edition above—also from "The Atlantic Monthly" which found that in the death penalty memos, Gonzales "repeatedly failed to apprise the governor (at that time Bush) of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence." He also seemed to discount such mitigating factors as "mental illness or incompetence, childhood physical or sexual abuse, remorse, rehabilitation or racial discrimination in jury selection."

Bush subsequently allowed 56 of the 57 people involved to be executed, including Terry Washington, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man with the communications skills of a seven-year-old.

It is always interesting to look at Canadian politics through the
eyes of an outsider. I find that his comments about the "nasty"
contributions of the Harper government to the electoral landscape
spot on. But I am sorry that he did not mention the centralisation of
power in the Prime Minister's Office under Harper. Harper is running
a one man show at the moment, in a system that was clearly not
designed for it. Those not in lockstep are kicked out of caucus,
those that have an independent viewpoint are forced to be silent.
Ministers are not allowed to speak about their own portfolios without
the blessing of Harper.

Harper deserves to lose the next election, which he will probably
force this spring, if for no other reason than he is not a man that
wants democracy to work. Democracy needs differences of opinion and
many voices. Harper will only listen to his own voice.

M

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.