Maybe Cheney shouldn't have told him to go [Cheney] himself

Senator Patrick Leahy, target of Dark Lord Dick Cheney's most famous obscenity to date, had some impressive things to say at the confirmation hearing on Thursday for Alberto "the torture guy" Gonzales for attorney general:

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 is the responsibility and accountability for these abuses?

All the quotes in this post are from Text: Gonzalez Nomination Hearing Washington Post 01/06/05.

I was amazed at Gonzales' response to softball questions from Senator Arlen Specter.  Asked directly whether he condemned the torture that had taken place at Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo, the exchange went like this:

SPECTER: Do you condemn the interrogators -- and you already answered this in part -- at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- but again for the record -- do you condemn the interrogators' techniques at Abu Ghraib shown on the widely publicized photographs?

GONZALES: Let me say, Senator, that as a human being I am sickened and outraged by those photos. But as someone who may be head of the department, I obviously don't want to provide any kind of legal opinion as to whether or not that conduct might be criminal.

And obviously anyone that is involved in any kind of conduct that he is subject to prosecution, I would not want to do anything today to prejudge that prosecutionand jeopardize that prosecution.

But obviously if that conduct falls in the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, I will pursue it aggressively, and you have my word on that.

SPECTER: Well, having some experience in the prosecution of criminal cases, I don't believe the condemnation of that conduct would impact on what happens at a later date. ...

Do you similarly condemn any similar interrogation techniques at Guantanamo?

GONZALES: I'm not sure of which specific techniques you're referring to, Senator. But obviously there is a range of conduct that would be in clear violation of our legal obligations, and those I would absolutely condemn, yes, sir.

The earlier comment by Gonzales to which Specter referred was equally carefully worded:

Having said that, like all of you, I have been deeply troubled and offended by reports of abuse. The photos from Abu Ghraib sickened and outraged me, and left a stain on our nation's reputation. And the president has made clear that he condemns this conduct and that these activities are inconsistent with his policies. [my emphasis]

Given the chance to directly condemn the criminal, sadistic torture that has been extensively documented, all Gonzales could produce were weasel words.  You don't have to parse his words in that last quotation very hard to see that the only thing he actually criticized was the reporting of the torture (which he carefully called "abuse") and the photos of the torturers tormenting their victims.  Incredible.

The attorney general nominee even endorsed the view of the junkie bigot Rush Limbaugh on the torture in Abu Ghuraib:  "This is simply people who were morally bankrupt having fun." He did add, "And I condemn that."  (Condemns what?  That they were having fun doing it?)

Leahy later drilled him pretty hard, it seemed to me, on the torture memo that argued the president has the power to override any law he pleases.  Again, Gonzales had only weasel words in response.  A sample:

LEAHY: ... Now, as attorney general, would you believe the president has the authority to exercise a commander-in-chief-override and immunize acts of torture?

GONZALES: First of all, Senator, the president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances. And so you're asking me to answer a hypothetical that is never going to occur. This president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances, and therefore that portion of the opinion was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that portion be withdrawn.

LEAHY: But I'm trying to think what type of opinions you might give as attorney general.

Do you agree with that conclusion?

GONZALES: Sir, again...

LEAHY: You're a lawyer, and you've held a position as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court. You've been the president's counsel. You've studied this issue deeply. Do you agree with that conclusion?

GONZALES: Senator, I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional.

And that is a position and a view not just of this president, but many, many presidents from both sides of the aisle.

Obviously, a decision as to whether or not to ignore a statute passed by Congress is a very, very serious one, and it would be one that I would spend a great deal of time and attention before arriving at a conclusion that, in fact, a president had the authority under the Constitution to...

That's the depths to which the national government of the United States has sunk.

In a later exchange in which Senator Orin Hatch tried to may the torture guy look good, we get this:

HATCH: Am I correct in my understanding that at no time did the president authorize the use of torture against detainees, regardless of any of the legal memoranda produced by various entities of the U.S. government, including the August 2002 Department of Justice memo, the so-called Bybee memo?

GONZALES: Senator, the position of the president on torture is very, very clear, and there is a clear record of this. He does not believe in torture, condone torture; has never ordered torture. And anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture is going to be held accountable. [my emphasis]

Weasel words all the way.  The legalopinion guiding the torture policy until last week defined pretty much everything short of causing major organ failure or death as not being "torture."

It's worth reading the entire transcript.  It seems to me that reading the words in cold print is much more powerful than seeing even long excerpts on TV.  The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee (with the notable exception of Lindsey Graham) and the nominee to be the country's highest law enforcement officer sounded like a bunch of mouthpieces for a military dictatorship like in Argentina or Chile from not so long ago.  It's pitiful.