Hearing Alberto Gonzales, U.S. President George W. Bush's nominee for attorney general, express revulsion during his confirmation hearing with what happened at Abu Ghraib prison, one might forget it was his legal "reasoning" that laid the foundation for the abuse occurring there. Gonzales' involvement in the infamous and legally flawed memos dismissing the Geneva Conventions and justifying torture has been well documented. The attention indicates that Gonzales lacks the requisite reverence for the law to serve as the nation's top law enforcer. Nonetheless, barring any sudden revelations or the Democrats' finding their backbone, he is poised to become the next attorney general and the highest-ranking Latino ever in U.S. government history. What can we expect from him? While Gonzales does not have a track record as a prosecutor (the attorney general is essentially prosecutor-in-chief) or on all of the issues that will cross his desk, there are nevertheless key aspects of his past, including but also beyond the torture issue, that are revealing. First, Gonzales would oversee offices with mandates ranging from criminal and antitrust prosecutions to environmental and civil rights protection; from immigration regulation to prison administration. His job will be to enforce the nation's laws and defend the rights of its people. However, his behavior in the torture scandal casts doubt on his ability to do so. It demonstrated not only that Gonzales did not think much of the Geneva Conventions and prohibitions against torture, but also that he thought little of the minorities - particularly Arabs and Muslims - who bore the burdens of his positions. Second, and equally relevant to questions raised by the scandal about Gonzales' fitness, are those challenging his ability to serve a new and very different client: the American people. For years, Gonzales has been Bush's lawyer, first in Texas and recently as White House counsel. For Gonzales, the law has been a tool manipulated to meet the desired ends of his client. He has never had to represent "the people," where the law is, instead, an instrument to protect a diverse population equally.
Gonzales has spent the last four years navigating the White House through several legal scandals, including the leak of a CIA operative's identity in retaliation for her husband's public questioning of Bush's case against Iraq. The Justice Department is currently investigating the matter. Will Gonzales, as attorney general, be able to distance himself from his former client for fairness' sake? More importantly, can he recognize when he needs to isolate himself from a matter where he has a serious conflict of interest? The latter is essential to his legitimacy as attorney general. Evidence from Gonzales' past bodes poorly in this respect. Enron, the fallen corporate giant, was a client of the Texas law firm in which Gonzales was a partner. Enron also contributed heavily to Gonzales' campaign for the Texas Supreme Court (oddly enough, justices are elected to Texas' highest court). Yet, when a case involving Enron was before the court, Gonzales failed to recuse himself. Enron is also, incidentally, being investigated by the Justice Department. Moreover, it falls to Justice to protect society's disempowered and often disfavored members, whose rights can be more easily violated. Gonzales' involvement in drafting the Patriot Act and the torture memos indicates he lacks the courage to be fair to all those falling under his power. Are these merely aberrations, given the alleged uniqueness of the "war on terror?" Not if we consider his role in briefing then-Governor Bush in execution clemency appeals. Gonzales often omitted mitigating factors ranging from ineffective counsel to convicts' mental retardation. Under Bush and Gonzales, Texas executed a record number of people. Can such a person really advocate zealously for the weak among us? Finally, while the attorney general does not make laws, he can render them meaningless by not enforcing them. Thus, a nominee's attitude toward certain issues, such as the right to choose for women and affirmative action, are being closely examined. Ironically, the greater misgivings from partisan groups around these issues are coming from the political right. While in the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales ruled that, based on the law in question, parental permission was not required for some teenage girls needing an abortion. Similarly, he tempered the government's stance on affirmative action in cases in Michigan by writing an amicus brief instead of the anti-affirmative action solicitor general. Indeed, Gonzales' nomination as attorney general, rather than to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a step down; the powerful, more conservative elements of the Republican Party want someone more affirmatively anti-choice and anti-diversity in the court. Thus, the faint light at the end of the tunnel is that Gonzales does not seem as ideological as other Republicans, or even his predecessor John Ashcroft.
The memo scandals should have been enough to disqualify Gonzales in a society that was sincerely enraged by the abuse of human rights. His likely confirmation suggests Americans are not. So looking forward, the measure of an Attorney General Gonzales will depend on his ability to shift from representing Bush to representing the people, which means, in part, isolating himself from and not impeding investigations of the White House; to advocate for all those under his protection, including the weak and unpopular; and to enforce all the laws for which the Justice Department is responsible.
A word on tokenism. On both sides of the confirmation aisle no one wants to oppose such a high Latino nomination. Courting America's rapidly growing Hispanic vote is never far from a savvy politician's mind. But Gonzales being Latino is mere window dressing. His warping the law to rubberstamp dubious actions is not good for minorities, including Hispanics, let alone for a nation built on laws and individual rights.
While the struggle for equal rights is multifaceted, America's laws and courts are important weapons. Victories have been won before for justice on behalf of the disempowered under arguably hostile administrations with myopic attorney generals. While we cannot be naive about how much can be accomplished under such circumstances, there's no need to concede the Justice Department to those who would use laws cynically. By nominating Gonzales, his longtime counsel, Bush relinquished him from that service. Gonzales has to fight our battles now, not the president's. It is important that, should he forget, we remind him. After all, Alberto Gonzales works for us now.
Alia Malek is a human rights attorney who served in the U.S. Justice Department's
Civil Rights Division. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=11807 19jan05
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |