Gonzales’s Fall, Bush’s Impeachment?
by
James Bovard
by James Bovard
DIGG THIS
Alberto Gonzales
will soon be ejected from the Justice Department. Bush’s Attorney
General has been caught in too many flagrant lies and abuses. The
real question is whether Gonzo’s fall will signal the beginning
of the end of the Bush reign.
Gonzo’s fall
will be widely seen as a result of shenanigans and deceits involving
the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys. The White House and top Justice
Department officials seem to have colluded to deep-six attorneys
who threatened Republican congressmen or appointees. The pending
congressional testimony by Gonzo’s former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson,
could create new problems for the White House.
But Bush is
probably in much greater danger from the derailing a Justice Department
investigation into Gonzo’s possibly criminality. Murray Waas, one
of the best investigative journalists in DC, has a new piece on
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s role in derailing a Justice
Department investigation of his own possible criminality. Waas reported
last Thursday at the National
Journal web page.
Shortly before
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice
Department inquiry regarding the administration’s warrantless
domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own
conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according
to government records and interviews. Bush personally intervened
to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking
the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances
necessary for their work.
The Justice
Department investigation could have exposed on the role of Bush
and his top advisors in masterminding a program that some of the
federal government’s top experts considered to be clearly illegal.
Waas noted, "According to accounts that Gonzales and his aides
gave to others in the department, Gonzales did advise Bush on the
issue of the OPR inquiry."
Thus, Bush
may have knowingly derailed an investigation that could have exposed
his own criminal conduct. This may be even too brazen an abuse of
power for many Republicans to stomach.
It is ironic
that Gonzo will probably get sunk for his role in firing and lying
about U.S. attorneys, considering that he had so many worse offenses.
It was only a few months ago that Gonzales notified a shocked Senate
Judiciary Committee that the Constitution did not guarantee habeas
corpus, despite explicit language to the contrary.
In early 2002,
Gonzo wrote a memo to Bush effectively urging him to scorn prohibitions
in federal law and in the Geneva Convention banning torture. Gonzales,
then serving as White House counsel, revealed: "The nature
of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the
ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and
their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American
civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s
strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders
quaint some of its provisions."
On June 22,
2004, Gonzales publicly declared that Bush possessed "commander-in-chief
override power" over the Constitution and the federal law in
the conflict with Al Qaeda. This "override power" is something
that exists in the minds of conservative absolutists, not the Constitution.
In January
2005, after Bush nominated him to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney
General, Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked what, in most hearings, would
have been considered a slow-pitch question: "Do you believe
there are circumstances where... the War Crimes Act would not apply
to U.S. personnel?"
Gonzales responded
as if he had been asked to solve the riddle of the Sphinx: "Senator,
I don’t believe that that would be the case. But I would like the
opportunity – I know I want to be very candid with you and obviously
thorough in my response to that question. It is sort of a legal
conclusion, and I would like to have the opportunity to get back
to you on that."
Durbin later
asked: "Can U.S. personnel legally engage in torture under
any circumstances?" Gonzales again struggled: "I don’t
believe so, but I’d want to get back to you on that and make sure
I don’t provide a misleading answer." Torture was obviously
going to be the hottest topic of the confirmation hearing, and yet
Gonzales repeatedly sounded as if it was a novel topic that he would
need to visit a law library to learn about before forming an opinion.
Gonzales will
be difficult to replace – in more ways that one. The Senate Democrats
will probably not confirm some obvious hatchet man. Bush has "benefitted"
from two Attorney Generals who were profoundly dishonest and demagogic.
No matter what the Bush administration did, they could be counted
on to rubberstamp it as legal – or "close enough for government
work" legal.
If the next
Attorney General is halfway honest and opens the files of what has
been done since 2001, even damn moderates will be shocked. There
are bombshells waiting to detonate on the torture scandal, on Iraq,
and other dishonest and illegal gross abuses. For instance, the
ACLU released a CIA letter in November confirming the existence
of "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the
authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States
and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees."
This confirms a May 2004 email from the FBI’s "On Scene Commander"
in Baghdad regarding a secret "presidential Executive Order"
permitting extreme interrogation techniques considered illegal by
the FBI including "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods,"
stress positions, and military dogs.
The
Justice Department has so far blocked release of Bush’s secret order.
If this Bush order becomes public, it may be akin to a 1972 memo
from Richard Nixon specifying the exact methods of lock-picking
the Watergate burglars should use. Bush’s involvement in the torture
scandal may be far deeper than Nixon’s involvement in Watergate.
The
Bush administration has survived because it has succeeded in keeping
the lid on so many scandals. Any change in top personnel raises
the risks of lids slipping. New appointees will not want to put
their heads on the chopping block to cover up crimes that occurred
before they got the corner office.
Democratic
subpoenas are beginning to darken the D.C. sky like the English
arrows at Agincourt. The subpoenas and scandals generate congressional
testimony which spur the number of political appointees who could
be indicted for perjury. The scandals are accelerating while support
for the Bush administration seems to be collapsing.
At
best, Bush may need to award more Medals of Freedom this year than
ever before. At worst, he may need to resurrect Gerald Ford and
his all-inclusive "from the first day to the last day"
pardon for himself and his nearest, dearest co-conspirators.
March
20, 2007
James Bovard
[send him mail] is the author
of the just-released Attention
Deficit Democracy, The
Bush Betrayal, and Terrorism
& Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the
World of Evil. He serves as a policy advisor for The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
James
Bovard Archives
|