Why are we savaging good Democratic senators over that pissant Gonzales?

[Padraig18]

And while I'm on the subject, why are we savaging good Democratic senators over that pissant-ess, Condoleeza? Was I in the hospital when the call to muster the circular firing squad went out?

:wtf:

[rooboy]

1. If a senator doesn't fight Rice or Gonzales...

then HOW THE HELL does that make them a GOOD senator?

[Padraig18]

3. Tell me how it does NOT. n/t

[newsguyatl]

4. it SHOULD be self-evident

[Padraig18]

6. It should, should it?

:eyes:

[newsguyatl]

7. umm, yeh

that's what i said. :hi:

[Padraig18]

10. Well, it isn't.

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

12. Perhaps not to you

but to most here it is. :hi:

[Padraig18]

19. Ahhh, the 'majority is always right' principle.

I understand now. One word disproves that: 'lemming'.

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

22. most here also think bush is an idiot

so it's not so much about "the majority is always right" as it is common sense :shrug:

but don't take my word for it :hi:

[Padraig18]

25. So, the majority is always right?

What an interesting concept... Makes that whole Bill of Rights thing sort of uneccessary, eh?

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

27. interesting, too

:hi:

[Padraig18]

29. Thanks for catching the typo.

When one's argument is weak, I supose one goes with whatever one else has...

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

30. when one's argument

is pointless and past the point of rationality, one humors oneself by annoying the other.

:hi:

[Padraig18]

32. False premise.

Thanks for playing...

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

34. and thank YOU

for the chuckle

:hi:

[rooboy]

9. Better yet...

you tell me how confirming these people makes a senator good.

[electropop]

75. The fact that Rice and Gonzales are mental midgets

makes them MORE worthy of fights, not less. The consequences of installing the torture guy and the head neocon are too important to just let them in. If Dem senators can't oppose the most vile, evil, nominees yet, why are they wasting space in the Senate?

[drummer55]

2. Please define what you mean by good democratic senator

[Padraig18]

5. Oh, I'm silly-- I tend to focus on more than single issues.

I've always tended to believe that Freepers were more the single-issue types than were Democrats...

[rooboy]

11. Freepers also follow their leaders blindly without dissent. n/t

[sandnsea]

67. Yeah and look who's in control n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

72. by cheating and endangering our country.

i don't believe 'win at all costs.' it's usually a fool's bargain for the sake of appeasing pride.

be careful appeasing pride. 'when you dance with the devil you don't change him, he changes you.' the rewards are not worth it...

[drummer55]

13. your answer doesnt make sense. could you please give your definition

of what makes a good democratic senator?

thanks

[Padraig18]

17. I'm not going to play 'gotcha'.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Supersedeas]

74. plz do the same-plz do-in fact, take your scared to confront 'gotcha' &

have a nice week...nice month...nice year...nice 4 year Republican term.

Meanwhile, folks with genuine issues to discuss can make their concerns known to Dem. Senators who want to tow the Republican party line.

Or you can just toe the 4 year Bush line for that matter.


May all your fictional firing squads surround you, &
Good Day.

[Eric J in MN]

14. Torture, believing a president can do whatever

he wants in war.

Those are two related issues.

Two good reasons why Senators should filibuster against Gonzales.

Phone [phone] (Capitol Hill Switchboard), ask to be transferred to the office of your Congressperson, and leave a message requesting that he or she filibuster against Alberto Gonzales for Attoney General.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The Constitution says appointments shall be made with

the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

If they won't stand up against a torturer like Alberto Gonzales, when will they stand up?

Tell both your Senators to filibuster against Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.

Phone [phone] (Capitol Hill Switchboard), ask to be transferred to the office of your Senator, and leave a message requesting that he or she filibuster against Alberto Gonzales.

[Padraig18]

15. Gonzales is not a torturer, hyperbole nonwithstanding.

Bush* asked for a memorandum of legal points and authorities to support his position that the Geneva Convention should not apply to 'illegal combatants', etc., held at Guantanamo. Gonzales, who was his lawyer, did exactly what Bush asked him to do. To have NOT done so would have violated his obligation to his client.

A basic understanding of the law, and the lawyer-client relatonship, rather helps in separating fact from fantasy on this issue.

[Eric J in MN]

18. No, he could have advised that the Geneva Convention protects

human rights, not that Bush can declare the entire Afghanistan War exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

During the long Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzales said "I'll get back to you" when asked if torture is legal.

[Padraig18]

20. That wasn't what his client asked him to do.

If you ask your lawyer to do A, he does A, or he is not discharging his duty to you. Would you pay a plumber for installing a sink, when you asked him to fix your toilet?

[Eric J in MN]

26. This isn't a matter of fixing something broken.

This a matter of following human rights law.

Someone in any profession should refuse to do something unethical for a client.

Though your assumption that Bush was the initiator of this, is something I doubt.

[Padraig18]

28. No, it wasn't.

As I stated previously, it was the matter of Bush's* lawyer doing what he was asked to do and what he was ethically obligated to do.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Gonzales did what he was ethically obligated NOT to do,

misinterpret law in way which will cause people to be tortured.

[Padraig18]

33. Care to cite me the ethical canon he broke?

I can wait while you Google it...

[Eric J in MN]

36. Gonzales took the position that the president can declare

entire wars exempt from laws against war crimes.

This misinterpretation of presidential power caused people to be tortured.

For more on this, visit my blog at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_08_alberto_gonzalez_has_no_respect_for_the_law.asp

[Padraig18]

39. That's not an answer to the question I asked.

I will repeat it: Can you cite me which canon of legal ethics he broke?

[Eric J in MN]

42. I'm not a lawyer.

I don't know what the term "canon of legal ethics" mean.

I do know that misinterpreting laws in ways which cause people to be tortured in unethical.

[Padraig18]

46. All lawyers are obligated to act ethically.

The American Bar Association has a model 'Canon of Legal Ethics' that lawyers must observe, and every state has adopted it and applied it to attorneys admitted to the bar in their state.

[DearAbby]

59. What he was ethically obligated to do was to tell his client that the use

of torture is illegal. Pertaining to the Treaty signed at Geneva. To purposely grey the issue to skirt this law is ethically wrong.

[DemOperative]

40. A basic understanding of the law?

Would get you far , friend. When a lawyer is asked by a client to prepare a defense for a contemplated illegal act, if he complies, if he fails to point out the illegality of said act and assists his client, he becomes an accessory to that act.

Ipso facto, Gonzales=torturer.

Since when do we further American principles by forsaking them entirely?

[Padraig18]

44. You assume facts not in existence, counselor.

'Contemplated illegal act' has not been proven. While we may believe it's illegal, has any court of competent jurisdiction so ruled?

[DemOperative]

50. I'm not sure how you missed it

Several international bodies, governments and the Geneva Conventions all reference specific illegalities and specify acts of torture as illegal. Even statutes of most States ( maybe all, I haven't read North Dakota's for ex.) in the Union prohibit torture by an individual and a representative of the law under the specific sections known as "mayhem".

[MoonRiver]

57. Ahh, just what we need a Gonzales apologist right here in River City.

:wtf:

[dsc]

64. Gonzales is not Bush's lawyer

he is the White House counsil with is a very different thing. While I agree that as White House counsil he had to do in this case what Bush said that is by no means a blanket statement. For example there is no lawyer client priviledge between them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. Who's the client? Bush or the United States?

Speaking as one who has been a member of the Bar for 23 years -- Gonzales wasn't supposed to be acting as Bush's personal attorney; his job wasn't to present an argument for why it was OK for Bush to authorize torture. His job was to represent the interests of his real client, the United States of America. He wasn't supposed to be an advocate for Bush's personal hard-on to find an excuse to abuse "enemy combatants." One could make a damn good argument that he actually betrayed the interests of his client, the United States, by twisting the law to support the political goals of the pretzeldent.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I'm not going to condemn them to hell or anything, but

it is extremely disappointing when Dems vote to approve a torture advocate and an incompetent. It doesn't matter that these people will be approved anyway. The Dems should have the courage to express their disapproval, or else what do they stand for?

Bush could appoint a serial killer to a Cabinet post, and with the Republicans dominating everything, he could get away with it, but shouldn't the Dems have the guts to take a public stand and say, "Serial killers in the Cabinet--not such a good idea."

The Republicans have voted against Dem nominees on much shakier grounds.

ON EDIT: In reference to Gonzales merely being asked to write a justification for torture, he had an alternative. He could have resigned, which would have been the ethical thing to do. Or he could have said, "There is no legal basis for torture. Forget it, Bub."

[Padraig18]

21. Legal ethics, or personal ethics, LL?

They are not the same.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. No, but each of my suggestions works for one set of ethics

The personally ethical thing to do would have been to resign, probably the less effective course, since Gonzales would, of course, have been prevented from ratting on Bush, due to attorney-client privilege.

The legally ethical thing would have been to say, "There is no justification for torture under international law." An attorney can facilitate a client's evil intentions ("Look, here's a loophole that will let you dump your toxic waste in the lake"), but is he obliged to, especially if, as in this case, it seemed to involve making up "legal principles" as he went along?

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. Why are supposedly "good" Senators savaging this party and this country...

...to defend these two criminal pissants?

I believe that's a more relevant question.

[Padraig18]

24. 'Criminal' is not a word to toss around lightly.

I see no Democratic sentaor 'savaging this party and this country'.

[Eric J in MN]

37. Yes, they caused people to die, but since they will never be

prosecuted, we must not use harsh words like "criminal," even on a message board.

</sarcasm>

[DemOperative]

41. Good men doing nothing

is the most savage of acts when evil is run amok.

[Eric J in MN]

45. Alberto Gonzales did worse than nothing. He advised

Bush that the 1996 federal laws against torture didn't apply if Bush said they didn't:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_08_alberto_gonzalez_has_no_respect_for_the_law.asp

[LittleClarkie]

35. Smile when you say that, pardner (click, click)

Dang, out of ammo again.

Agreed, Padraig18. I'm not happy that the guns have been turned on Feingold for one. These people are better than just their last vote.

We loved Feingold when he voted against Patriot, and tear into him when he doesn't vote against Condi. Swap that for Boxer. What's up with that? Terribly short-sighted.

[Padraig18]

38. Exactly!

This whole mindless 'flavor of the minute', knee-jerk crap is WORSE than pointless, it's destructive as hell. We have another GE in less than 2 years, and the last thing we need is a party ripped to shreds over a couple of pissant confirmation votes!


:thumbsup:

[DemOperative]

47. I guess expecting a united oposition to all that is unholy and evil

is reallly a stretch these days, huh? Gosh, someone might get their feelings hurt.

[LittleClarkie]

52. How can we expect them to present a united opposition

when we don't either. In fact we get mad at each other if it is even suggested that we should present a unified front. "Oh, so I'm not allowed to criticize?"

Not to mention that if what we are fighting is unholy and evil, then why aren't we fighting that rather than each other?

[gottaB]

43. Now is the time to oppose Gonzales

I'm not savaging anybody, but I'm watching the confirmation vote. If I ever have the opportunity to choose between a candidate who supported Gonzales and a candidate who opposed Gonzales, I will lean towards the one who opposed. My Senators know how strongly I feel about this issue. Those who feel strongly about their indifference also have the opportunity to tell their Senators where they stand. Have at it, fellow citizens:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. This Post is why the Ol' wives tale about "fighting a pig" was invented!

The exact wording I believe is,
"Never fight with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

[w4rma]

49. There are Libertarian types who would take a look at the Democratic Party

if Dems were able to stop Gonzales from taking power on the basis of his pro-torture stance. It would help gain their trust, which is something that Dems really need to fight for from them.

[saltpoint]

51. Padraig, I love your question.

And I love your adjectives.

'Pissant' works for me, no problem, and as usual, you've hung it on the right two Bush flunkies.

May no one on this earth ever tell you to stop making good sense.

Bravo.

[Eric J in MN]

53. US Attorney General is a powerful position.

Please ask both your Senators to oppose Alberto Gonzales.

Phone [phone] (Capitol Hill Switchboard), ask to be transferred to the office of your Senator, and leave a message for him or her to oppose Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.

[saltpoint]

55. Hey Eric J. I have written to all U.S. Senators --

-- except the slackers who don't have their damned webforms up yet. So over 90 have heard from me that I oppose Bush's AG nominee and his SOS nominee as well.

----
I find Padraig18's question to be pertinent and useful and something people can learn from. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has information on U.S. foreign activity that none of us has. Padraig's question allows for that; his detractors in this thread do not allow for that. Are Gonzales and Rice on my shitlist? You bet. But I'm fair to middlin' at confining THEM to the list without picking a fight with men and women I admire, such as Joe Biden and Richard Lugar.

Yes, Lugar. He stood up against that moron Reagan to re-direct U.S. foreign policy on apartheid and he opposed Reagan's support as well of Ferdinand Marcos' murderous doings in the Phillipines. Most of the foreign relations senators are pretty keen minds. I don't take that lightly.

[Eric J in MN]

56. Thank you. (nt)

nt

[Lefty48197]

54. If you listen to the people in this website,

we'd fire all the Democrats and let the Republicans control 100.0% of everything. But that's better than voting for some "impure" Democrat.

[LittleClarkie]

58. But at least we'd feel good about ourselves and our ideological purity

What's more important? Ideological purity, or fighting the Bush bastards with less than perfect folk. If you agree with, say, 70% of what someone stands for, is that enough? Or is it better to stand with someone with whom you agree totally, but who has little power.

[Solon]

60. This has little to nothing to do with ideological purity...

but human decency and rule of law. This is not about perfection, but about humanity in general. How the hell can anyone approve this fucking bastard in the Senate is beyond me. If this bastard is approved, it simply proves to the world that the United States is a pariah nation that should be under sanctions or worse. The fact that we are in an illegal war is bad enough, the fact that Bush and his enablers decided to throw out the Geneva Conventions at the same time makes it an even worse war crime. If the democrats vote for the bastard, they will be rightly critisized, and at the same time, if Bush is charged at the Hague, then they should be as well.

[leesa]

62. Because the world is wairting for us to stand against these rotten people

and not side with their evil. It is CRITICAL that the Dems say "No" to this evil.

Stop minimizing the importance of this. It is CRITICAL to our country's survival that they see there is something left besides the immoral RW thugs.

Quit being so damned petty.

[eg101]

63. Whoa! There are actually GOOD Senators?!

From what I can tell they are all pretty much rightwingers....

just my humble opinion!

[drummer55]

65. Who Knows? I cant even get a definition from the author

of this message what their definition of a good democratic senator is.

[BlueInRed]

66. What sort of nominee would it take to justify a no vote,

in your opinion? I mean, seriously, where exactly do you draw the line? I can only imagine if a Democratic president was trying to confirm 2 nominees with similar histories and the Republicans had over 40 sitting senators, they would be screaming filibuster. It would be on the TV 24/7.

An AG nominee that has produced memo after memo going against constitutional requirements, not to mention the Geneva convention? A secretary of state that lied us into a war that now knows no end? If these are not big enough problems, is there anything that would be a big problem?

It is amazing how LITTLE it takes to unite the Republicans against a Democratic nominee (such as during the Clinton Admin) and how MUCH it takes to unite the Democrats against a Republican nominee. It really is a sad situation.

[Democrat Dragon]

69. Dems need centralized leadership

The Rethugs had it for decades and look how far it has taken them.

[OneBlueSky]

70. personally, I'm just waiting for the Democrats to stand up, . . .

as a group, to BushCo on ANYTHING . . . just to show that there's an opposition party, ya know? . . . right now, they could more accurately be called the Capitulation Party rather than Democrats . . . I want to see some balls! . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Well, if they haven't the guts to fight pissants....

Guess why they're being called for their pathetic display of cowardice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. You know, I recall the case of Lani Guinier

As you remember, Clinton nominated her to be head of the Civil Rights Commission, But the Republican spin machine went after her with such vehemence that Clinton (as usual) caved in and withdrew her nomination.

----
But there was also an ideological agenda at work: promoting Clinton's media-celebrated shift "back to the center." It seemed as if the hiring of Republican spin doctor David Gergen had to be complemented by dumping a representative of the "radical left." "How he deals with Ms. Guinier in the weeks ahead may show whether Mr. Clinton is moving back to the middle of the road," the New York Times' R.W. Apple wrote (5/31/93) in a front-page news analysis of the Gergen appointment.

To make her a proper sacrificial offering, however, the establishment media had to reinvent Guinier -- transforming a sophisticated advocate of racial reconciliation and participatory democracy into a sinister, race-baiting enemy of the American Way.

http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html
--------
So the Republicanites can destroy Democratic nominees with lie, but if Democrats fail to block the nomination of an attorney who makes up fantasy interpretations of international law to justify torture, that's okay?