Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,119 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,786,651
Pageviews Today: 2,202,202Threads Today: 413Posts Today: 7,336
02:36 PM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Burning the Law in a Riot of Treason

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 290581
United States
08/29/2007 10:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Burning the Law in a Riot of Treason
Burning the Law in a Riot of Treason
By William Rivers Pitt
27 August 2007
[link to www.truthout.org]

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In
both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly
unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in
the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

The departure of Alberto Gonzales from the Attorney General's Office
brings America to a place of definitions, and hanging in the balance is
the very idea of the nation itself. The basic concepts and fundamental
principles of our republic now stand as the only legitimate
considerations going forward, for they have been tested almost to
annihilation already, and will not endure much longer if we continue on
this path.

It is the mythology within the Declaration of Independence we speak of,
the fiction that tells us we are endowed with rights, and that those
rights are unalienable. This falsehood has been vividly exposed in the
last several years, and it has been a harsh lesson indeed. All the
rights we hold dear and believe to be our greatest strength are, in
fact, only words on old paper with neither force nor power. The next
line - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - is
the muscle behind the myth, the core that has endured a withering

Matters are so much worse than our national political dialogue lets on.
The resignation of Gonzales has unleashed a torrent of hard words and
harsh criticisms aimed at the deplorable nature of his tenure, but the
truth of it continues to elude mention. They call Gonzales an
incompetent, a crony, a loyalist, a disgrace, leaving off the one word
necessary to fully explain who he is, and what he was engaged in before
he stepped down.

Alberto Gonzales is a traitor. That is the only word to explain it.

He is not the only one; there are many more traitors like him in the
Bush administration, criminals joined in an act of treason so vast and
comprehensive that it beggars comparison. Nothing quite like this has
ever before been attempted in America, and if they are allowed to
succeed, there will be nothing of what defines America left to be seen.

Gonzales and his Bush administration collaborators have committed their
treason against the rule of law itself, a crime so absolute that it is
technically not illegal. There is no code, ordinance or law specifically
forbidding the total ruination of all our rights and protections; the
act is neither felony nor misdemeanor, because nobody ever considered
the black-letter necessity of making it illegal to destroy the rule of

But there is no America without that rule of law - no rights, no
protections, no Constitution; there is nothing, and if you destroy the
rule of law, you destroy the idea that is America itself. The only word
for a crime like that is treason, and those who would dare commit it are
traitors. Gonzales and his Bush administration collaborators have done
more than dare. They have been pursuing it, with deliberation and
intent, throughout each moment of their tenure.

Their treason is not in the actual crimes they have committed, but in
the way they have chosen to avoid accountability for them. Their treason
is not their refusal to obey the Freedom of Information Act, but in
their insistence that they are above the application of that law. Their
treason is not in their refusal to obey subpoenas from Congress, but in
their claim that they are above the laws behind those subpoenas. Their
treason is not that they fired United States attorneys and then refused
to come clean about it, but that they decimated the impartiality of the
Department of Justice and turned the rule of law into another partisan
weapon. Their treason is not the NSA surveillance of Americans, but
their steadfast refusal to submit to the governing laws and the
requirement of oversight.

When George W. Bush asserted a claim of Executive Privilege that made
him and his administration immune to all laws and oversight, that was an
act of treason because it shattered the rule of law. When Dick Cheney
asserted that the Office of the Vice President was not part of the
Executive Branch, because he did not want to obey the laws requiring him
to hand over official documents to the Archives, that was an act of
treason because it shattered the rule of law. When Alberto Gonzales
chose to surrender the independence of the Department of Justice so he
could protect those assertions, that was an act of treason because it
shattered the rule of law.

Americans have only the rights they are able to protect and defend. Our
rights are nothing more than ideas; only theory and argument on
parchment all too easily burned to ashes. The power of those rights is
only found in our collective submission to the rule of law, and
submission to that rule of law is all that stands between our freedoms
and the conflagration of tyranny. Without the rule of law, there is no

That is the treason of Alberto Gonzales, and the treason of the Bush
administration entire. They have attacked and undercut the rule of law
by refusing to submit to it, and in doing so have brought us to the edge
of appalling infamy. Theirs is a crime without peer, and we will be
fortunate beyond measure if we are able to recover from it.

The fact that Alberto Gonzales has left is meaningless in the main,
because the treason he participated in continues in his absence. If the
damage is to be repaired, he must be replaced by someone who will submit
to the main imperative, someone who will submit to the rule of law,
someone with real independence and unbending respect for the idea that
is America. Gonzales must not be replaced by another crony or yes-man,
because Americans have only those rights we can protect and defend, and
another traitor in that lofty post is no protection at all.

Gonzales was more than a poor steward of this trust. He was a traitor
among traitors. If the rule of law is to stand, the treason he helped
commit must be ended, and a patriot must take his place.


Alberto Gonzales: A legacy of legitimizing torture
by Robert Scheer
August 29, 2007
[link to sfgate.com]

The resignation of the torturer in chief was noted by his patron, the
president, as an unfortunate day for American democracy. "It's sad that
we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto
Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was
dragged through the mud for political reasons," President Bush lamented
on Monday.

What good name? After all, Bush only picked Gonzales to be the nation's
highest law enforcement official once Gonzales had proven his mettle for
the job as White House counsel. His legal advice to the president was
that torture is a legitimate option, because Bush's self-defined "war on
terror" wiped out all prior legal restraint and in particular "renders
obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."

Gonzales' infamous memo to the president, from Jan. 25, 2002, also
rendered obsolete, among other constitutional safeguards, the division
of powers that provides a congressional check on the executive branch.
According to Gonzales' professional judgment, the president was no
longer bound to observe the War Crimes Act passed by Congress in 1996,
which allows criminal prosecution of Americans for violating the Geneva
Conventions and for "outrages upon personal dignity." According to that
law, both the president and his former attorney general would be liable
for severe penalties, including death, for the systematic torture they

No wonder Bush needed to appoint Gonzales as attorney general, lest some
enterprising Justice Department lawyer dare expose the criminality
emanating from the White House. Not a fanciful concern, given that we
have since learned that the previous attorney general, John Ashcroft,
had serious reservations about breaking the laws protecting fundamental
human rights. Indeed, the most clarifying moment of Gonzales' government
service was his nighttime visit to Ashcroft's hospital bed, where the
then-White House counsel failed to deceive an ailing Ashcroft into
authorizing an extension of government surveillance. Ashcroft refused
and was protected from further harassment only by the intervention of
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. The problem presented by Ashcroft's
display of legal integrity was eliminated when Bush gave his job to

While the media are once again buying the White House backroom spin that
the president's error in the Gonzales scandal is one of misplaced
loyalty to a friend who didn't perform up to expectations, the truth is
that Bush promoted Gonzales because of his assaults on the Constitution
and not in ignorance of that sorry record. As the president put it in
"reluctantly" accepting the resignation of "a man of integrity, decency
and principle": "As attorney general and before that, as White House
counsel, Al Gonzales has played a role in shaping our policies in the
war on terror ... The PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act and
other important laws bear his imprint."

Frighteningly accurate testimony: that the Gonzales legacy will live on
long after his government tenure. One aspect of that dreadful legacy,
not often remarked upon, is that Gonzales shaped Bush's selections of
lifetime appointees to the judiciary that will preside for decades to
come. As Bush observed: "As attorney general, he played an important
role in helping to confirm two fine jurists in Chief Justice Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito. He did an outstanding job as White House Counsel,
identifying and recommending the best nominees to fill critically
important federal court vacancies."

One of those critical vacancies was filled on Gonzales' recommendation
by the appointment of then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee as a
judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bybee distinguished
himself in the eyes of Gonzales and the president by being the author of
the 50-page "Bybee memo" of Aug. 1, 2002, which held that torturing al
Qaeda captives "may be justified" and that international laws against
torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted
under President Bush. But Bybee went further than merely sweeping aside
the restraints of international law to conclude, "Finally, even if an
interrogation method might violate Sect. 2340A [of the U.S. Torture
Convention passed in 1994] necessity or self-defense could provide
justification that would eliminate any criminal liability."

The Bybee memo protected Gonzales and Bush from being branded with the
"torturer" label by arguing that torture "covers only extreme acts ...
where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that
which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ
failure." Oh? Maybe my opening sentence for this column was too harsh.
Surely Gonzales, and the president who still adores him, intended all
along to draw the line at organ failure.

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.