Did Alberto Gonzalez break the law by officially endorsing torture?

[Zhade]

Poll question: Did Alberto Gonzalez break the law by officially endorsing torture?

I've been told by another DUer that he did not break the law, that voting for him is okay as long as Dems can benefit from Gonzalez' arguments once in power.

Well, I'm no lawyer. I'm pretty sure he broke the law, but some say he hasn't. Did he?

Constitutional lawyers are heartily encouraged to respond and elaborate their arguments, either way.

[Padraig18]

1. Wow, this is two polls about me.

I'm flattered by the attention.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

8. Please, don't flatter yourself. Seriously.

If this had been about you, I'd have named you in both threads. As it is, your arguments shocked me - I really was surprised to find you holding such views, and thought that one of us must be out of touch with how most view this administration and Alberto Gonzalez.

This was about testing my own connection to reality, not yours.

[cestpaspossible]

14. LOL

[JAbuchan08]

2. He didn't break the law in making the argument

sure he twisted and subverted the laws meaning until it was no longer recognizable. The people who broke the law were the ones who acted on his incredibly lame and stupid legal advice.

[Padraig18]

3. We have a winner!

It's refreshing to see someone who actually understands the relationship between lawyer and client.

[cestpaspossible]

13. Yes.

To those who think he broke the law: What action did he take that broke which statute?

Hello?

[0007]

4. I indeed don't know. If Alberto did break the law and he was confirmed!

It sure doesn't say much for our side. The country should be in an outrage if true.

[Fridays Child]

5. Unless there is a law that directs official presidential advisors...

...to dispense lawful advice only, I assume that, technically, he broke no laws. But because it was a humanitarian question and he was advising someone who holds enormous power to harm or do good, I believe that Gonzales should be held to a higher standard. Thus, if he can't be prosecuted, he certainly shouldn't have been promoted.

But we live in B*shworld, now. Day is night and black is white.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Maybe he was just following orders..... seems to allow alot of people to

sign off on what they KNOW IS WRONG.

[Zhade]

9. We didn't allow that exception for Nazis.

NT!

[Sympleesmshn]

7. Although he did may not have broken any National laws

I think he broke a few international laws.... But wait a second bush doesn't care about international rules...

[Zhade]

10. Breaking international laws we have signed IS breaking national law.

NT!

[Sympleesmshn]

25. I know

I am an International relations nut... I heard a lecture from an International law teacher at Georgetown, who said that we are also guilty of breaking laws we haven't signed and we can't unsign things, something bush has done. I am making the point that bush doesn't feel we have to follow laws that we did not write. I think he and several others should be arrested. I don't know if you heard this but Donald was afraid he would be arrested if he left the country for a conference. The International world needs to step up against the administration's policy...

[Zhade]

29. Gotcha, and I agree.

NT!

[Zhade]

11. Apparently this is a trickier question than "is b**sh a fascist".

Most think Gonzalez did in fact break the law, and some have argued he technically didn't. I do find myself wondering if the minority is correct after all, but then what of the examples of the Nazi leaders who ordered atrocities but did not participate in them directly? We held them responsible - were we wrong to?

Is Gonzalez accountable for his part in the torture scandal, or not? I must confess to Padraig that this is a more complex question than I thought, but I still feel Gonzalez is culpable for his actions, and that he did break the law.

We really need a Constitutional scholar for this.

[cestpaspossible]

15. You put your finger on it - 'a higher standard'.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think at the time of WW2 there was actually a law against 'waging aggressive war', but that's what some of the Nazis were charged with... they broke no law, but they were held accountable for their actions anyway. Similarly, Gonzales broke no law and should also be held to account for his actions and the foreseeable results of his actions.

[Zhade]

16. That's a valid point. But if he didn't break the law, how?

It does raise the spectre of not following our own demands for justice (gee, there's a surprise).

[cestpaspossible]

19. Well the first opportunity

was his confirmation; all we can do is our best; those who spoke up and voted against him did the right thing. We must not forget, the ugly facts about Gonzalez should preface every conversation and public discussion of him, his statements, actions, or policies.

[Zhade]

20. What about those who voted for him? Was it okay to vote for him?

I still contend, hell no!

[cestpaspossible]

24. Obviously not, in my view.

Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor and Salazar should be ashamed of themselves.

At least the rest of the Democrats got it right.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Speaking as a law student, ...

I contend that he did not violate any statutory laws or the Constitution itself. While what he did in writing the torture memos may be distasteful, one must bear in mind that attorneys are often ethically obligated to do work for their clients (in his case, George Bush) that others may find repugnant.

[Zhade]

18. It reminds me of a mafioso lawyer...

...at what point do they go from representing their client to actively breaking the law?

I was operating under the (wrong?) belief that what Gonzalez did was illegal. If in fact it isn't, I think that's even more frightening than if he did break the law!

[cestpaspossible]

21. A mafia lawyer

can advise the client as to the law. He can advise what actions can be taken that could possibly be justified under the law. He can advise his client to commit immoral acts that he does not believe violate the law. He can point out a narrow circumstance under which an action that is normally against the law is not against the law. But he can not aid his client in breaking a law.

So, if Gonzalez had written a memo saying 'here is how we can commit these illegal acts and get away with it' he would have broken the law, but writing a memo that says 'these acts are not illegal and here's why' breaks no law.

It is a lawyerly distinction I know, but a real one.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. That's precisely the distinction.

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

23. What happens when he SAYS the acts aren't illegal, but they are?

Is he excused from their illegality merely because he "believes" what he advocates is not illegal?

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Whether they're 'illegal' is open to interpretation.

For example, while it is illegal to do X to a P.O.W., if a prisoner is determined NOT to be a P.O.W., then the law may not apply. I'm not attempting to defend Gonzales, who I personally think is a repulsive slug, but just pointing out that this is not quite the black-and-white issue some would like for it to be.

:)

[Zhade]

28. But the administration's "illegal combatants" trick is not legally valid.

That's what they're doing to get away with this. The term is not legally recognized. As such, they are operating outside the rule of law.

These kinds of discussions are why we need a Constitutional lawyer here!

[khashka]

17. He probably didn't break the law

but he certainly violated basic human decency.

Khash.

[Lars39]

27. Here's a good article detailing how they conspired,

yes, conspired to do an end-run around the Geneva Convention.
(mods: this was one paragraph;I broke it up for easier consumption)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.carter.html

<snip>
The other option was to sanction a wholesale abandonment of the law
and delegate the responsibility for its violation down the chain of command
to front-line troops. And that's precisely what the Bush administration did.

They began with the plausible argument that the Geneva Conventions
were anachronistic in an age of asymmetrical, non-state warfare.
Al Qaeda didn't wear uniforms or fight according to the laws of war,
they reasoned, and so they were not necessarily entitled to the
conventions' protections.

But the lawyers—including White House counsel Alberto Gonzales,
Defense Department general counsel William Haynes II,
Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington,
and Jay Bybee of the Justice Department
(who now sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)—went further.

They advised the president to sign a blanket statement of policy
that the men captured in Afghanistan would not be subject to the
Geneva Conventions, and that by executive fiat, they would all be
declared “unlawful enemy combatants,” a category that
does not exist in international law.

White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers also pushed
President Bush to sign a secret finding on Feb. 7, 2002, that would have
far-reaching consequences for the nation and the world.

“I… determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict
with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world,”
this document determined, adding that the White House also had
“the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between
the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that
authority at this time.”

For all intents and purposes, these memoranda gutted the Geneva Conventions. <snip>

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.carter.html

[cestpaspossible]

30. I disagree with Carter's assertion that it's a 'plausible' argument.

They began with the plausible argument that the Geneva Conventions
were anachronistic in an age of asymmetrical, non-state warfare.
Al Qaeda didn't wear uniforms or fight according to the laws of war,
they reasoned, and so they were not necessarily entitled to the
conventions' protections.

That's like arguing that if you're talking to a liar, it's ok to lie, it's ok to steal from a thief, etc...

[Zhade]

32. I think Carter means it's plausible in their own minds?

NT!

[Hippo_Tron]

31. He advised people on HOW TO break the law...

I don't think that he did anything illegal, but he sure as hell shouldn't be attorney general.

[cestpaspossible]

35. No,

he gave (fallacious) advice on why what they were doing was not illegal.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Yea, you stated it better

I guess mine would have been better stated: He gave them advice on how to break the law without "breaking" it.

[gottaB]

33. Yes, Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes

But he deserves a fair trial. He could be innocent for all I know.

[Dookus]

34. What law is he accused of breaking?

And what does the constitution have to do with it? I don't know of any clause regarding presidential advisors that would apply.