Originally published by the Center for American Progress [here]
January 4, 2005
- Are there any circumstances under which you believe the President of the United States could legally authorize torture?
Alberto Gonzales approved a now-infamous memo which contended the
president "wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government
agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be
prosecuted by the Justice Department." Despite the fact that the United
States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture - which
states "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war
or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" - the memo
stated the president had the authority "to approve almost any physical
or psychological action during interrogation, up to and including
torture." Once the memo was made public, Gonzales backtracked, saying
the memo contained "unnecessary, over-broad discussions" about
"abstract legal theories." He also said the policy was "under review,
and may be replaced, if appropriate, with more concrete guidance
addressing only those issues necessary for the legal analysis of actual
practices." The Justice Department recently released a new memo
redefining the U.S. stance on torture. The new policy, however, does
not address the question of whether the president is entitled to
disregard laws and treaties.
Sources: Torture memo | UN Convention Against Torture | Abstract legal theory | New policy silent on presidential powers
- Has your position on the Geneva Conventions changed since
evidence of widespread detainee abuse at U.S. prisons was uncovered? If
not, which provisions of the Geneva Conventions do you still consider
"quaint" or "obsolete"?
The Geneva Conventions of 1949, signed and ratified by the United
States, are the primary instruments of humanitarian law used to protect
those involved in international armed conflicts. A January 25, 2002
memorandum issued by Alberto Gonzales claims the war on terrorism
"renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy
prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." The memo pushes
to make al Qaeda and Taliban detainees exempt from the Geneva
Conventions' provisions on the proper, legal treatment of prisoners.
The memo also expresses concern, however, that failing to apply the
Geneva Conventions "could undermine U.S. military culture which
emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and
could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of
adversaries." The evidence of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere have borne these concerns out.
Sources: Text of January 25, 2002 memorandum | Newsweek piece on the significance of the memo | FBI
agent justified relied on high-level administration documents to
justify interrogation methods 'beyond the bounds of standard FBI
practice.'
- In your view, what limits did the September 14 joint resolution
passed by Congress place on which countries the president could invade?
On September 14, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing
President Bush to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but narrowing
the scope of the authority to only countries specifically connected to
the attacks. On September 25, just 11 days later, the Justice
Department sent a memo to Alberto Gonzales which "essentially argued
that what Congress authorized didn't matter." The memo argued there
were "no limits" on Bush's powers to respond to the attacks and, in the
first known statement of Bush's pre-emptive doctrine, the memo
"startlingly" argued Bush could deploy military force preemptively
against any country he suspected of harboring terrorists "whether or
not they can be linked to the specific terror incidents of Sept. 11."
It also said his decisions were "for him alone and are unreviewable."
Gonzales's response to the memo is unknown.
Source: Secret memo justifying the invasion of Iraq
- Do you still believe that the state of Texas does not have to abide by the Vienna Convention?
In 1997, Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo for then-Gov. Bush which said
the state of Texas need not comply with the Vienna Convention. The
Vienna Convention, ratified by the Senate in 1969, was "designed to
ensure that foreign nationals accused of a crime are given access to
legal counsel by a representative from their home country." Gonzales
sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which he argued that the
treaty didn't apply to the State of Texas, as Texas was not a signatory
to the Vienna Convention. Two days later, Texas executed Mexican
citizen Irineo Tristan Montoya, despite Mexico's protestations that
Texas had violated Tristan's rights under the Vienna Convention by
failing to inform the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest.
Source: Gonzales advice to Gov. Bush re: the Vienna Convention
- Do you still believe that the president can order the indefinite
detention of U.S. citizens, without judicial scrutiny, now that the
Supreme Court has rejected that position?
The Supreme Court ruled last June that citizens and non-citizens
detained by the government -- even those deemed "enemy combatants" by
the Bush administration -- have the right to challenge their detention
in front of a neutral arbiter. The court sharply rejected President
Bush's position that, as commander-in-chief during a time of war, he
has the unilateral power to detain individuals indefinitely without due
process of law. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote: "A state of war is
not a blank check for the president." The Supreme Court's decisions
were a rejection of the Bush administration's legal justifications for
the harsh treatment of prisoners. In an 8/1/02 memo written for Alberto
Gonzales, the Bush administration argued that the president had the
authority, pursuant to his commander-in-chief power, to authorize
torture and other harsh interrogation tactics for the purpose of
extracting information from detainees. Justice John Paul Stevens traced
the rationale for his decision in the Guantanamo case all the way back
to King John's promise in the Magna Carta of 1215 that, "no free man
should be imprisoned...save by the judgment of his peers or by the law
of the land." The analysis "traced the limits on executive power
through English common law, on through the Federalist Papers and down a
long line of precedents forged in some of the darkest hours of the
nation, including the Civil War and World War II."
Sources: SC decision | 8/1/02 Memo | Washington Post analysis
- The Department of Justice has issued a revised, more expansive
definition of torture. But John Yoo, who helped write the repudiated
memo, still defends the old definition. If you are confirmed as
Attorney General, would you consider Mr. Yoo for a position in your
department?
An August 2002 memo, vetted by Gonzales, said that the pain caused
by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure,
or serious impairment of body functions -- in order to constitute
torture." In anticipation of Gonzales's nomination hearing, the Justice
Department issued a new memo, revising its definition of torture to
include "mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish." But former
Justice Department official John Yoo still thinks the old definition
was better, saying the new version "makes it harder to figure out how
the torture statute applies to specific interrogation methods. It
muddies the water. Our effort . . . was to interpret the statute
clearly."
Sources: August 2002 memo | New memo; Yoo reaction
- Do you believe the March 2004 draft memo you requested --
authorizing the CIA to transfer detainees to countries that may torture
them -- was in violation of international law?
At the request of Alberto Gonzales, the Justice Department drafted
a top-secret memo that authorized the CIA to transfer detainees out of
Iraq for interrogation. That practice, known as "extraordinary
rendition," is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and is thus a "war
crime" under U.S. federal law. The CIA used the draft memo, dated March
19, 2004, as legal support "for secretly transporting as many as a
dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months." According to
agency officials, the CIA transferred suspected terrorists "captured in
one country into the hands of security services in other countries
whose records of human rights abuse is well documented." Those
detainees were also hidden from the International Committee of the Red
Cross and other authorities.
Source: Gonzales requests memo on rendition
- Would you recuse yourself from all Enron-related matters?
For more than a decade, Alberto Gonzales was an attorney for Vinson
& Elkins, the firm that represented Enron. When Gonzales ran for
re-election to the Texas Supreme Court, he "received $6,500 in campaign
contributions from the company." The Justice Department is currently
prosecuting top Enron executives -- including former CEO Ken Lay. John
Ashcroft recused himself from the Enron investigation "because of
contributions he received from the company's executives during his
campaign for the Senate." Nevertheless, Gonzales -- who had a far more
extensive relationship with Enron than Ashcroft -- continued to be
involved in Enron-related investigations as White House counsel.
Sources: Gonzales worked at Vinson & Elkins | Gonzales received $6.5K from Enron | Ashcroft recusal | Gonzales involved with Enron investigations as White House Counsel - Would you recuse yourself from all Halliburton-related matters?
The Justice Department has launched three investigations of
Halliburton: for allegedly overcharging the military $61 million for
fuel, for allegedly bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract, and
for allegedly doing business with Iran through an off-shore subsidiary.
Halliburton was a major client of Vinson & Elkins while Gonzales
was a partner at the firm. In 1999, as a member of the Texas Supreme
Court, Gonzales accepted a $3,000 contribution from Halliburton just
before the court was to hear an appeal of a case where "a Halliburton
employee had won a $2.6 million trial verdict" against the company.
Gonzales did not recuse himself.
Sources: Justice Dept. investigation of Halliburton fuel overcharges | Justice Dept. investigation of Halliburton bribery investigation | Justice Dept. investigation of Halliburton investigation for fuel overcharges | Halliburton major client of Vinson & Elkins | Halliburton $3K contribution to Gonzales
- Were you aware of Bernard Kerik's long-standing ties to
Interstate Industrial, a New Jersey-based firm allegedly run by
organized crime? If so, did you inform President Bush before Mr. Kerik
was nominated? If not, how was the media able to uncover the connection
hours after the nomination was announced?
Alberto Gonzales personally "spent hours grilling" Bernard Kerik as
part of the administration's weeks-long effort to vet the one-time
nominee for homeland security secretary. After Kerik withdrew his name
from consideration, it was discovered that he had maintained
long-standing ties to an alleged mob-run construction company called
Interstate Industrial. While heading both the Department of Corrections
and the New York Police Department, Kerik received numerous unreported
cash gifts from Interstate Industrial executive Lawrence Ray, who has
since been indicted on federal charges for a stock swindle involving
several prominent mob figures.
Sources: Analysis of Gonzales' role in Kerik vetting | Details of Bernard Kerik's connections to Interstate Industrial and Lawrence Ray
|
