Heather MacDonald's defense (printed in the Wall St Journal) of the administration's interrogation policies is spoken with respect by various sorts who want to find a counterpoint to those critical of their policy. Apparently, the President's comments are not enough: "Listen, Al Gonzales reflects our policy, and that is we don't sanction torture. He will be a great Attorney General, and I call upon the Senate to confirm him."
There is always the reminder that he has a lovely personal history and is a nice person (oh, and opposing him -- see Dr. Rice -- is racist), which apparently qualification enough to be Attorney General. Or, his great legal background, amounting to be Dubya's personal lawyer and a relatively short stint as a run of the mill lawyer at some fairly mundane law firm. An AG arguably should be put to a higher standard:
I [John D. Hutson, retired Navy JAG, and opponent to Gonzales' nomination] believe the Attorney General is unique among the cabinet officers because she or he bears a responsibility directly to the American public as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. The Attorney General also must be the watchdog over the government. Finally, people don't always understand the breadth and depth of the responsibilities of the Attorney General. For example, he or she has control over the FBI, DEA, ATF, and a host of other law enforcement agencies and all the U.S. Attorneys around the country.
For those reasons I think the nominee should not be benefited by the deference that the Senate should give to other cabinet nominees.
As they say, read the whole thing, including his reply to the "this is a new sort of war" arguments. The thing being a debate with Heather MacDonald, who honestly is mismatched. All the same, a law student (of a high school elective) could debate arguments such as:
I deplore torture. So does Judge Gonzales. I do, however, believe that the stress interrogation techniques that were devised for use on terror detainees - questioning a prisoner past his bedtime, isolation, impersonating a foreign interrogator - are well within the bounds of humane treatment.
Bullshit like this should firmly be rejected as such. First, it is ever so nice to be against something that you refuse to define (he was not sure "whether chopping of finger joints one at a time constituted torture") or supply effective safeguards against, even after it is clear that such laissez faire (if nicely deniable) policies led to abuses (ignore the clear connection if you want Ms MacDonald, but it is only possible if you want to be convinced). In other the words, "I deplore torture" are basically weasel words worthy of our scorn in this context.
Second, the examples chosen as examples of "stress interrogation" honestly had me screaming at the computer screen. Though she clarifies elsewhere in the debate, "questioning a prisoner past his bedtime" is not exactly what is involved here. It is simply disgusting, especially given what is at stake here, to even IMPLY it is.
Likewise, why is "impersonating a foreign interrogator" an issue? Well, obviously the issue is not that Americans are pretending to be Belgians or something. The devilish thing is that said interrogators, including those we (wink wink) send detainees (as the Hutson noted, detainees that are only suspects) to for questioning, are known to abuse them. In fact, said "impersonating" obviously has been too literal at times. And, "isolation" is nicely vague and innocent sounding. Are we supposed to take this woman seriously?
One more cutesy dodge that suggests that we are not just dealing with an opposing viewpoint. She notes that Gonzales did not write a particular memo, now federal judge (heaven help us) Bybee did. Yes, upon the request and with the support of Gonzales. Again, why in the hell are we supposed to respect these people? I understand that some of the contours of questioning is open to debate, but if one of the best defenses of the administration uses such misleading and shallow reasoning, something is seriously wrong.