About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

John E. Sununu: Gonzales' Waterboarding Water Carrier

by: Dean Barker

Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 20:34:59 PM EDT


I am so not amused to find, after a couple days' absence from blogging due to that pesky thing  called "real life," that there are seven hundred thousand articles giving John E. a free pass just because he suggested, long after dozens of Democrats did, that Abu G might not be the right man for the job of Attorney General.  Here's a representative quote from a Portsmouth Herald op-ed:
New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu, a Republican, did come to see the difference between loyalty and the law and was one of the first to call for the ouster of Gonzales months ago. Sununu said after Gonzales announced his resignation Monday that it was time to change just to get back to work with a new face in place.

"Our country needs a credible, effective attorney general who can work with Congress on critical issues ranging from immigration to investigating terrorism at home and abroad," he said.

While the Sprinter makes hay for his re-election planning, I couldn't help but notice the phrase "investigating terrorism at home and abroad."  In fact, it reminded me of why I started noticing Sununu's statements and votes in the first place - during the confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales.

You see, maybe I'm just a prima donna or something, but I found it to be appalling and nightmarish that one of the architects of our torture policy was going to be installed as our chief law enforcement officer.  Like very many others, I found it (and still find it) both deeply perverted and frightening.  And a complete betrayal of traditional American values.

That's why I wrote Senator Sununu urging him to oppose the confirmation.  I received a form response identical to this one:

Judge Gonzales advised the President that all detainees should be treated humanely, but as a legal matter, al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not considered "legal combatants" and are not covered by the Geneva Convention.  This allows U.S. officials to detain, question, and prosecute terrorist suspects; a critical component of the war on terrorism.  This legal position has been affirmed by multiple federal courts across the country, the 9/11 Commission, the Schlesinger Report, and human rights organizations that have been frequent critics of the Administration's policies.

Disgusting on several fronts.  One, because I have yet to find a human rights group that considers abandoning the Geneva Conventions hunky dory.  Two, because the Sprinter is hiding behind legalisms here - essentially using niceties of jurisprudence to mask an inherently abhorrent practice.  And three, most importantly, he, through this letter and his vote to confirm Bush's favorite Fredo, endangered the safety and security of our own men and women in uniform by lowering the standards of  conduct given to detainees in war.

Let's not forget who put Alberto Gonzales there in the first place - waterboarding water carriers like John E. Sununu.

Dean Barker :: John E. Sununu: Gonzales' Waterboarding Water Carrier
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You're still missing something. (0.00 / 0)
Actually, I think most of us missed it.  I first noticed it in McNulty's year-end report on the comprehensive information system that the DoJ was setting up and on which the United States Attorneys in San Diego and Washington state had done a lot of work.  I was struck by the fact that these two were praised in McNulty's report soon after they were fired for "performance related" reasons.
But, that's not what you're missing and I noticed.  What is it?  The conflation of "law enforcement and the war on terror." 
Why is that important?  Because the "war on terror" opens an avenue for "law enforcement" to take action on the basis of "suspicion."  While we may assume that effort is directed against foreign persons in foreign lands, that's not what "terrorist suspects" says.  Indeed, the war on terror is not only providing an umbrella for government actions around the globe, it is doing the same here at home.  In effect, the war on terror is designed to get around all the civil rights protections that people have asserted since the 1960s.  It's designed to get around the requirements for warrants, the showing of probably cause and the Miranda warning. 
I think what they've discovered is that, since the only "enforcement mechanism" for these civil rights, if they're not adhered to by the agents of law enforcement, is the invalidation of evidence in a court of law, this "penalty" can be avoided by simply not taking suspects to court.

If individuals can be detained indefinitely on suspicion of being terrorists, there's no need to comply with the inconvenience of following proper procedures.

That's what John Sununu is telling you.  Indeed, it's likely that he approves of this strategy because civil and consumer rights, which are anchored in the principle of equality, have been the bane of the authoritarians' existence since the late sixties.  What they want is to go back to a time when "people knew their proper place" and stayed in it. 

The idea that people can wander around the halls of government and stick their noses into public documents is really irksome.  What's the good of being a public official if you have to put up with every tom, dick and harry thinking they've got a right to tell you what to do?

So much of the system of legal segregation by race was just an objective (easily observed) example of a system of social organization that involved the entire society.  Take blacks having to step off the sidewalk when a white person passed, for example.  That was an objectification of the fact that there were lots of places where most people weren't allowed to go for a variety of reasons.  Now that such restrictions can no longer be imposed on the basis of race, there's an effort to restore the principle of segregation via picture IDs, a distinction between citizen and non-citizen, by age, and, most recently, with a dress code for visitors to the White House.

The perpetrators of these indignities are convinced that people are not equal and they are going out of their way to prove it by separating them into categories.  "terrorist" is a convenient catch-all for anybody that doesn't do what s/he's told.

Or, you could say that the war on terror is the hand-maiden of law enforcement and the law is whatever the agents of law enforcement say it is. Neo-conservatives want to go back to the way things were when the ruling elite gave the orders and everyone else did what they were told to do.

Ironically, Iraq is a perfect example of how that works.  Matt Taibbi has an excellent run-down.  That the malfeasance is more egregious than it was in prior wars is probably a consequence of a larger population, more money and more timely access to information.  The premise that the purpose of public service is to enrich oneself and one's friends is not new.  Expecting public officials to be accountable to the public is.



Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox