Alberto Gonzales Record Raises Serious Concerns

/

tatu.jpg
On November 11, President Bush nominated White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, the nation's principal enforcer of civil rights laws and civil liberties. When he accepted President Bush's nomination to be Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales stated unequivocally, "The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law, and there should be no question regarding the department's commitment to justice for every American. On this principle, there can be no compromise."  However, contrary to his statement, Alberto Gonzales' record raises several serious concerns that must be carefully considered and scrutinized by the Senate, including:

  • Condoning the use of torture. As White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales oversaw the development of policies that circumvented existing law on detention, interrogation, and torture. These policy changes paved the way for the horrific torture at Abu Ghraib prison. Further, Gonzales drafted a memo disparaging the Geneva Conventions, calling them "quaint," and arguing that they do not bind the United States in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Eroding basic civil rights and civil liberties. Under the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice has failed to use its full enforcement powers to break down existing barriers to equality particularly on issues such as voting rights, racial profiling, and police misconduct. Further, measures ranging from the USA PATRIOT Act to the misuse of immigration laws have eviscerated the basic rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. The Senate must determine to what extent Mr. Gonzales plans to continue these troubling civil rights and civil liberties policies and practices. 
  • Withholding evidence. As legal counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, Gonzales presented clemency cases in a manner wholly inadequate to determine whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, whether the condemned prisoner had received a fair trial, or even whether the prisoner was actually innocent. [more