If only beheading victim Nicholas Berg and the others had it so good as the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detainees.
It’s an amazing thing. The year 2004 recalls several gruesome videos of terrorists torturing and decapitating American and British citizens, and others in Iraq. You wouldn’t know it, though, if you watched the Senate confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
Terrorists are not prisoners of war, nor were they ever conscripted for service in any army. Terrorists operate with their own set of rules, harbor ill will and hatred for Americans and will continue to kill innocent people. Suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq prove that death is of no consequence, neither is imprisonment, or so-called “harsh” interrogation techniques. The treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and the so-called “torture” photos of prisoners at Abu Ghraib don’t deserve mention when compared with the horrific beheadings and murder of our soldiers in Iraq. If only beheading victim Nicholas Berg and the others had it so good.
Nevertheless, despite 9-11, the decapitation videos depicting real horror, and the continuous deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, Alberto Gonzales was compelled to clarify what he wrote in his memos. What he actually wrote was correct, because the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or to any militant prisoners associated with terrorist regimes. As reported by CNS News, Fred Gedrich, former State and Defense Department official stated:
To qualify as a lawful combatant and prisoner of war status under Article IV of the Geneva Convention a soldier must: Be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct operations in accordance with laws and customs of war. Members of terror groups like al-Qaeda routinely violate these laws with impunity. Those who claim terrorists deserve prisoner of war status are doing mankind a great disservice.
So why is Alberto Gonzales being skewered in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings? Obviously, to embarrass President Bush by evoking the Abu Ghraib fiasco, which is not representative of U.S. army guidelines but only the bad conduct of a few errant soldiers. Another reason Senators Kennedy, Leahy and Schumer are grilling Gonzales is because Senate Democrats want Attorney General John Ashcroft out, and fast.
Finally, the most important reason is that this is a foreshadowing of what we can expect when Supreme Court nomination hearings come up, and a preparation for more filibusters. Indeed, radical pro-abortion Senator Charles Schumer said of the Gonzales hearings: “There’s a lower standard, frankly, for attorney general than for judge, because you give the president who he wants.”
The Attorney General does not decide the future of Roe v. Wade, and never decides other abortion issues such as parental consent laws for minors. Furthermore, by focusing on the Gonzales memos, it diverts public attention toward Iraq policy and away from the continuous vicious tactics Senate Democrats employ every time President Bush chooses qualified minority candidates.
As it turns out, Alberto Gonzales is not a “blank slate” on abortion; his views are well known. He supports Roe v. Wade and is opposed to parental consent laws. As a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he voted with the majority against parental consent. In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote: “While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature.” (Italics mine). We can assume, therefore, that Alberto Gonzales would apply the law of the land (Roe v. Wade) by ruling to keep abortion legal if he were to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
In a 2001 interview, the Los Angeles Times asked Gonzales if he would allow his personal view on abortion to influence his choice of judges. He replied:
There are no litmus tests for judicial candidates. My own personal feelings about abortion don’t matter. The question is, what is the law…sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that’s your job.
That is exactly the neutered type of response given by Senator John Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings as Attorney General. President Bush obviously meant it when he said he’d have no litmus test for judicial candidates. In Gonzales’ own words: "My judgment is that the court has had ample opportunity to look at this issue," he said. "So far as I am concerned," he stated, the right to abortion is "the law of the land, and I will enforce it." Senate Democrats need not worry about the Supreme Court. It’s pro-lifers who should be worried.
bcr1954@hotmail.com
Read more articles by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff
