Centerfield

I always thought that Gonzo was a capable attorney but an incompetent administrator. One who was promoted above his level of competence. AG requires massive administrative skill, and Gonzo didn't have it.

And, whatever his short-comings as AG, as White House Counsel he (and John Yoo) were responsible for crafting the legal arguments that torture (under whatever names) was legal. Perhaps one of the legal experts can say whether that meets the technical legal definition for war crimes. But it sure looks bad to this layman.

Under that theory, wj, every single defense attorney, successful or not, is guilty of the crims of their clients.

An opinion is just an opinion.

Which is why I asked that one of the legal types comment. But even a defense attorney, I would suggest, has an obligation to advise his client NOT to commit a future crime that the client says he intends to commit. Am I wrong?

I have A LOT of respect for John Yoo, and I don't think the issue is as black and white as you suggest wj. I am against the use of torture as a matter of public policy, but whether it is legal or not, I am not qualified to say.

And I think the answer to your question is that it depends. Gonzalez's opinion in regards to torture may be driven by who he worked for and whether or not torture had been committed. This is the sticky situation that attorney's sometimes get themselves into as representatives of a partiuclar client. For instance, as an employer, I would expect my attorney to argue that I didn't violate the law under the ADA, even if there is a strong case that I did. Make sense? In other words, it is the lawyer of the President's job to make the legal argument that best protects the President.

You're contending that an attorney should be prosecuted for advising his client that something was, in his opinion, within the bounds of the law? When his opinion is just an opinion, and the advice given may indeed be completely correct, even if you don't like it and wish to characterize it as illegal?

Lawyers often give their clients opinions as to the legality of proposed actions. It's part of what they're paid for. It's not a crime.

SR hits the other side--an attorney is also supposed to represent their client. In the case where they're defending them after the fact, it's their job to make the best case for their client.

Otherwise we'd just go ahead and sentence people on arrest. No trial required.

I have no problem with an attorney representing his client, and putting the best possible face on whatever the client has done. But that is not the same thing as advising his client that it is legal to commit a crime.

Perhaps the bar takes a different view elsewhere, but in California (and all the other states I have heard of) an attorney who is aware of a future (not past) criminal action has a duty to try to prevent it, even to the extent of going to the police about it. And, says the bar association, that duty to the law supercedes his duty to his client.

Tully raises the question of whether the torture had already occurred. I suppose it is possible that some juristictions take a different view of on-going criminal activity. I hadn't thought of that.

But that is not the same thing as advising his client that it is legal to commit a crime.

wj, if in his opinion what he recommended was NOT A CRIME, there's nothing wrong with it. If you're going to accuse someone of crimes, start with the statutes and show they've been violated, not with an unsupported accusation. Offering such opinions is part of the job of an attorney. In this case, he was supposed to deliniate exactly where the lines were in the applicable law, which is US Code. To stay on the legal side of the lines, you have to know where the lines are. Clear enough?

That YOU may disagree with Gonzo and Yoo about their opinion of the line location does not make it illegal for them to opine on it to a client. That's not urging someone to commit a crime--it's telling them what they can do that is not criminal, and what they cannot do because it is criminal.

Understood, if the law arguably supports the lawyers conclusion. Not having read the detailed opinion, I'm not in a position to say.

I will say that I have read several opinions, from lawyers who are not particularly radical in their approach to the law, which express severe doubt that any first-year law student could put such a construction on the relevant law. Which doesn't say that they were necessarily right. But when they speak of the opinion contradicting the clear words of the Constitution and the law, a reasonable layman might suspect some fire behind the smoke.

Just one more question, if the Gonzales thought that the Geneva Convention was "quaint" and unsuited to the current world, why not simply recommend that the US withdraw from it? People with philosophical or moral objections to torture would be no happier. Maybe even more upset. But at least there would be some intellectual honesty in our position.

I certainly don't like what Gonzales has done on torture.

But I hate the DC bloodsport and hate to see even people I don't like fall to it.

I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...

Best said today by someone, Gonzales should have remembered that he was no longer Bush's lawyer but America's lawyer.

Seriously Marcus, I almost puked all over the keyboard. The "people's lawyer" serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States. I get the point, but I thought the dumbest statement today came from Congresswoman Linda Sanchez who stated that Democrat's are going to continue this dog and pony show by asking again who gave the order to fire U.S. Attorney's and for what reasons. All I am saying is, who and what political appointments get hired or fired is none of Congress's damn business. Again, the President doesn't have to ask for advise and consent before he asks for your resignation. That is why they call him "THE PRESIDENT!"

Tully is right, Gonzalez is a capable attorney who was supposed to administrate a process and failed miserably, and then made it worse with his testimony. That doesn't mean the action itself was illegal. Stupid? Maybe. Bad public policy? I think so. Impeachable? Give me a break.

I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...I don't recall...

C'mon, Clinton's testimony was boring the first time he gave it.

Which doesn't say that they were necessarily right. But when they speak of the opinion contradicting the clear words of the Constitution and the law

I read some too. I've also read the relevant statutes and the constructions and the relevant Geneva protocols, and can recognize posturing hyperbole when I see it.

Gonzalez is an incompetent hack who was appointed for two reasons: (1) Rove wanted a Hispanic so he could go after that group's vote; and (2) Bush wanted someone that would be a reliable ideologue and could be counted on to do whatever Bush wanted. He lied to Congress consistently--even the Republicans were shocked at his lack of honesty. Either that or he is stupid. The AG IS NOT the president's lawyer--he has a WH counsel for that. The AG is supposed to uphold the law. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that partisan considerations aren't going to play a role or that enforcing the law is a straightforward exercise. But this administration has politicized the Department of Justice to an extent that it never has been before under either Democratic or Republican presidents. I know people that work at DOJ and they all talk about how the adminstration brings in inexperienced, but politically and ideologically reliable, hacks to run major divisisons in the department. But, under Gonzalez, the department has become primarily an agent of the right-wing of the Republican Party. It was NEVER like that before, even under other conservative presidents like Reagan.

The fact that the AG serves at the president's "pleasure" doesn't mean that he or she is the president's lawyer, at least not historically. If you really think that the AG is nothing but the president's hack, it makes me wonder what you think the role of the Department of Justice is.

As for the DC bloodsport, Jon, you make a good point and the Democrats have certainly done their best to make it worse. But, given what this administration has done to the DOJ, I have no sympathy at all for any of them. The only problem is that, whoever Bush appoints, will probably be no better than Gonzales since the only criteria he uses in appointments is loyalty to the regime.

The AG IS NOT the president's lawyer--he has a WH counsel for that. The AG is supposed to uphold the law.

Better go look at your timelines there, Marc. And I sincerely suggest you go read the last sentence of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the office of the Attorney General. It's not terribly ambiguous.

The Yoo and Gonzalez memos referred to by wj that we were discussing were written in January of 2002, YEARS before Gonzo became AG. What was his post and title at the time? Oh yeah, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL! That was it.

So what about Yoo? Why, he worked in the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel at the time, which department is tasked with assisting the Attorney General with providing legal advice to the executive branches of the federal government and the White House. As the AG is required to do in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which tasks the AG "...to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States..." Seems clear enough.

While some might attribute that clause to the Bush "regime" using the Wayback Machine to insert it into two-century-plus old law (the same machine that Rove utilized to plant the blatantly faked RatherGate memos and convince the Clinton-era admin and Congress about the Iraqi WMD's) I personally blame Masonic Radical Tory mystics clandestinely working for King George III. I believe that, divining from a lost volume of the prophecies of Nostradamus this future need by a future George, they slipped a joker in the deck while the Federalists and Republicans (who are now the Democrats...) were duking it out over other issues.

Interesting discussion. It seems to me, Tully, that you are responding to Marc's argument by responding to wj's and Marcus's statements. They are separate, from what I can tell. I haven't seen where the USA firings were illegal, but they may have been very wrong and indicative of broader politicization of what I am led to believe is supposed to be a primarily independant instituion. Maybe a purely political investigation would be worthwhile. I don't really have a good sense for what damage was done to the DOJ, but I would assume that such damage would be considered a bad thing by everyone here.

The AG's oath of office is to the Constitution of the United States, not the President. There is no ambiguity there.
Historically, (pre-1789) AG's were subservient to the monarchs they served and were often involved in prosecuting pthe political enemies of those they served. The US example is supposed to be non-political in prosecution, a litmus test that this AG failed to pass.

The Dark Side of all this

Lieberman gets the nod, Senate confirms because it is sooo collegiate, republican gets appointed at L's replacement. GOP Senate Majority
can then run lots of interference.
Lieberman of course does nothing about any GOP malfeasance because he's such a toad.

Lovely.

Also like the fact that Bush crawled out of international court agreements so that makes it difficult to prosecute Gonzales et al for war crimes relating to US torture policy and "renditions".

Sounds like Rove is still on the payroll.

correction,

been told that due to previous GOP Senate Majority a rule was created to maintain their leadership in case if the numerical majority changed due to defections, death or whatever.

Any info on that?
If true its yet another bullet of irony in their foot.

It seems to me, Tully, that you are responding to Marc's argument by responding to wj's and Marcus's statements. They are separate, from what I can tell.

I was responding to Marc's lone argument directly. The only actual argument in Marc's screed was that Gonzo was somehow not supposed to render legal advice and opinions to the White House as AG, which is blatant nonsense. I addressed that--the DoJ has an entire department that does nothing but, and the AG is required to do those things by original charter.

The rest was rant-opinion, and needs no real addressing past eye-rolling. Though as I pointed out I do know some DoJ folks, including current and retired USA's of both parties, and their opinions as stated to me do not coincide with Marc's hyperbolic characterizations. (Mostly they find the BS partisan hysteria and posturing amusing, having been there and suffered that.)

And once again the "incompetence" meme is trotted out paired with the contradictory evil-genius-takeover meme. Yeah, Gonzo's so completely incompetent he managed to conspire and subvert and derail and control the day-to-day minutiae of a massive federal law-enforcement bureaucracy that mostly consists of Democrat-inclined career staffers. Heh. That one always gives me a laugh.

The sad fact is that Gonzo is simply a lousy political executive administrator, which is THE major job skill called for in the AG's slot. The Peter Principle in action.

On re-reading, I think we're having a Marcus vs. Marc (Schneider) problem.

The President is the President and he can terminate any political appointment for any reason at any time.

Does that mean you think that the president can award government contracts to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases?

Scott, that doesn't follow -- government contracts are not political appointments.

Of course, the fact that he can terminate political appointments at any time for any reason does not mean that it would be a good idea to do so with a fine free hand. Nor that it is not a wise course to give the real reason why initially, rather than claiming easily-refuted justifications.

Of course, the fact that he can terminate political appointments at any time for any reason does not mean that it would be a good idea to do so with a fine free hand.

What has been ignored on this thread so far is that it is not just hiring and firing political appointees at will, but using a federal department as a partisan tool. Specificly, using the apparatus of the government to prosecute members of the opposite party and exercising "discretion" to leave members of one's own party alone, the sort of thing one would expect in a third-world semi-democracy. The firings were all for refusal to go along with that scheme.

Therein lies the connection with government contracting. The president has the right to make controversial decisions as to which contractor offers the best value for the country, provided that it is in actuality a decision as to what is best for the country. However, if it is a reward for support of the president's campaign, of the president's party, it is corruption.

Specificly, using the apparatus of the government to prosecute members of the opposite party and exercising "discretion" to leave members of one's own party alone, the sort of thing one would expect in a third-world semi-democracy. The firings were all for refusal to go along with that scheme.

Wingchatter BS. Name one statute violated, one person not prosecuted who should have been, one person prosecuted who should not have been. Anyone can allege anything (and they DO) but it's all hollow BS without demonstration. USA's for the most part do not initiate prosecutions--they're mostly executive administrators. They guide what areas will be emphasized in accordance with admin policy, and manage the office. They can fail in either area, or they can be told to pack it up and out for any reason. Especially after their four years appointment is up.

Show a written policy memo that specifically states what you've alleged. And if you can show that, there's no reason for hearings. Just throw it to the courts.

If you dislike the entire apparatus of political appointments to fill those positions, you can take it up with the guy who institutionalized it into the federal government. A fine Democrat! But you'll find the conversation a trifle one-sided.