It's coming on silly season election time, and John Sununu has decided to use (one of) the current Justice Department scandals to show that, in fact, he's an indypendent kind of Republican (hmm... where have I heard that before?) Discussing the fact that the FBI may have spied on the personal records of as many as 2,000 people without obtaining the legally required national security letters, he said:
"Letters were issued under claims of emergency circumstances when there were none; and letters were issued without proper documentation; and records were retained unnecessarily. When you have a problem of this magnitude, there is obviously a failure at some point in the organization - a failure of supervision, management, and frankly of leadership."
Interesting to hear such tough talk come from a man who championed the appointment of Alberto Gonzales. Because it was Gonzales, you remember, more than anyone else, who joined two words that together are an abomination to the ears of any patriot: America and torture.
(more)
|
Back in 2004, Gonzales' "torture" memo was leaked, wherein he sought to give his taskmaster the Decider a permission slip to torture and to protect his boss from ever having to face criminal charges for his human rights abuses used legal maneuvering to define Al Qaeda and Taliban as somehow aboriginal creatures unworthy of the basic prisoner of war protections afforded previous enemies of the state (such as genocidal Nazis, e.g.).
Gonzales authored a controversial memo in January of 2002 that explored whether Article III of the Geneva Convention even applied to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and against providing Article III protection to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He concluded that Article III was outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". He also argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He also argued that undefined language in the Geneva Convention, such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment", could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes Act of 1996 if mistreatment was discovered.
After the horrors of Abu Ghraib (warning: graphic photos) were revealed, horrors that wound their way to Iraq from Gitmo interrogation techniques essentially endorsed by Gonzales, good and decent Granite Staters were rightly shocked that the President would have the temerity to appoint his personal architect of torture to the position of Attorney General, the man most responsible for upholding the law for all of us.
But not John Sununu. The constituent form letter I received was identical to this one posted on DFNH by Stephen Nodvin. Here's the part that made my jaw drop:
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.
Interlude:
Shorter Sununu: Through legal hocus pocus, they're no longer human, so we can torture them.
Shorter Dean: This is exactly how we will lose the War on Terror and ultimately endanger our own troops!
End Interlude
Ok, back to the letter. It refers to "human rights organizations" endorsing this abandonment of the Geneva Convention. I found, this, well, odd. So I plucked up some courage - being new to this sort of active constituent role - and called Sununu's D.C. office. In as polite a manner as I could muster, I, through a staffer, thanked the Senator for replying to my original letter, and then asked if it was at all possible to get the names of those human rights organizations so that I could follow up on that. The staffer took my name and number and told me that he would bring the question to Sununu's "policy guy," who would be sure to get back to me.
That was two years ago.
My point is this: I have no idea whether Sununu is genuinely concerned over this new Justice Dept. scandal, or whether it's election year politics.
But I do know this: the Senator has no right to be outraged over Gonzales' assault on our privacy when he was perfectly happy with his stripping our POWs of their right not to be tortured. If he is willing to defend the appointment of a man who has no interest in the most basic of human rights, how on earth are we supposed to presume that he would have any interest in preserving our civil liberties?
I would call that a failure of supervision, management, and frankly leadership on our Senator's part for ever allowing this valueless Bush enabler to become our Attorney General.
We decent citizens of New Hampshire deserve better representation than this. And come November 2008, we will get it.
|
