i guess i shoulda used the pic of graner and the corpse since it would have been more relevant due to his conviction today.  this one seemed more powerful tho.

Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly. The "opinions he offered the president" related to whether Geneva Convention accords applied to stateless terrorists and terrorist suspects. Why is this being used to trash him? Trash her, trash the photographer and trash her superior officer. I'd bet a couple of paychecks none of those who perpetrated this kind of shameful act had a clue Gonzales even existed or knew anything about any executive summaries he prepared. You disappoint me, here, kingbee - this is a very yellow post.

The military was very explicit going into Iraq that the Geneva Convention applied to captives in Iraq. These were soldiers who failed to abide by the rules of engagement, either willfully or through ignorance. Using this picture to trash Gonzales tells me you have no understanding of his job and that you are willing to buy into the bogus finger-pointing propaganda.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly.

have you read the jan 25 2002 memo signed by gonzales summarizing arguments for and against implementation of the executive military order of november 13, 2001?   according to the washinton times:

Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from such protections. Bush agreed, reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world. Rumsfeld issued an order the next day to commanders that detainees would receive such protections only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- whose legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, had vigorously tried to block the decision -- then met twice with Bush to convince him that the decision would be a public relations debacle and would undermine U.S. military prohibitions on detainee abuse. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed Powell, as did the leaders of the U.S. Central Command who were pursuing the war.


gonzales' january 25, 2002 memo lists arguments of those opposed to the order, including this one: "A determination that the GW does not apply to al-Quaeda and the Taliban could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards in combat and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."  Gonzales then offers a counter: "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do."

that memo and a subsequent meeting between bush qne gonzales led to the executive order of february 7, 2002 which the schlesinger commission cited as being a key factor in centcom's flawed interrogation policies.

obviously gonzales didnt directly order anything, but its disingenuous at very least to claim he didnt directly participate in the policies that created the climate responsible for the abuses at abu gharib.  

If you're into gory pictures to make a point

if i was into gory pictures for any reason, i might have used one although i cant imagine blood n guts being anything but redundant in this case.

Reply #5 By: kingbee - 1/15/2005 9:39:34 AM Gonzales's job had nothing to do with Abu Graib or the military, not even indirectly. have you read the jan 25 2002 memo signed by gonzales summarizing arguments for and against implementation of the executive military order of november 13, 2001? according to the washinton times: Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from such protections. Bush agreed, reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world. Rumsfeld issued an order the next day to commanders that detainees would receive such protections only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- whose legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, had vigorously tried to block the decision -- then met twice with Bush to convince him that the decision would be a public relations debacle and would undermine U.S. military prohibitions on detainee abuse. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed Powell, as did the leaders of the U.S. Central Command who were pursuing the war. gonzales' january 25, 2002 memo lists arguments of those opposed to the order, including this one: "A determination that the GW does not apply to al-Quaeda and the Taliban could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards in combat and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries." Gonzales then offers a counter: "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." that memo and a subsequent meeting between bush qne gonzales led to the executive order of february 7, 2002 which the schlesinger commission cited as being a key factor in centcom's flawed interrogation policies. obviously gonzales didnt directly order anything, but its disingenuous at very least to claim he didnt directly participate in the policies that created the climate responsible for the abuses at abu gharib.

And the problem is? NOWHERE in that memo does he form his OWN opinion! He uses what was said by other agencies inclucding the DOJ! NOWHERE on there does he say that torture was/ was not okay to use. What your using is pure leftist spin!


Link

..

In fact, another thing I remember is how often we heard, "It isn't the evidence that is important, it is the the importance of the issue" (ie sexual harrassment).

Classic nonsense, isn't it PT2k? Just like Rather and his frustrated apologists: "Everyone keeps focusing on these documents being fake when the real issue is what the President may or may not have done." Leftist dogma requires that evidence be ignored, lest it contradict one's opinion; and the absence of evidence is the best evidence of wrongdoing - you can claim anything you want and it's up to the accused to prove you wrong.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Yikes. Yikes. Yikes.
That's all I can think of.
Yikes!

He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees

altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses.  gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. 

more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court.

The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales.

a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida.   b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act.  c.  the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions.  d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution'  under the war crimes act.   

together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. 

after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." 

it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

Reply #17 By: kingbee - 1/16/2005 2:04:57 PM He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses. gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court. The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales. a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida. b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act. c. the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions. d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution' under the war crimes act. together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

Maybe you should go read the actual memo. Here's a link.

Link

And the problem is? NOWHERE in that memo does he form his OWN opinion! He uses what was said by other agencies inclucding the DOJ! NOWHERE on there does he say that torture was/ was not okay to use. What your using is pure leftist spin!

Maybe you should go read the actual memo

what leads you to think i havent read all four of the documents im citing numerous times as i noted throughout this thread?   you think i just make this shit up?   he certainly is offering his own opinion because thats what hes paid to do. that's the point of the memo youve linked.   in the 50-page followup he discusses all manner of torture and opines that there are a number of ways in which its possible to defend anyone who was prosecuted for engaging in them.  instead of being so quick to copy what's already been said, you might actually consider what others are saying rather than simply concluding bush good, everyone else bad.

the main Glendale library used to have book indexes of the L.A. Times and a room full of microfilm. I spent many hours there researching

i'm not sure if my local library (la cty library branch in san pedro) is up to glendale's standards...but theres also a county branch within reasonable distance, so ill check into both.  thanks for the tip.  i was (duh) actually considering going to the times offices cuz  i really would like to locate that story again--if for no other reason than to have it in my pocket when im led away raving and ranting