Or at least that’s the message I’m picking up from reading some commentators on Alberto Gonzales’s exit.
Shizam, some of these people seem to think that the Justice Department will henceforth be in the justice business.
And some seem to think that Gonzo’s resignation proves that “the system works.”
What a crock.
It has been over 15 years since the United States had an Attorney General who was not a complete disgrace to decency, due process, and fair play.
And with Michael Chertoff being the lead candidate to replace Gonzo, the trendline looks safe…
The fact that Gonzo has left office is no substitute for compelling him to answer for his crimes.
Or, as George W. would say, to “bring him to justice.”
Jim,
I think you predicted Gonzales’ departure on this blog months ago. You may not have factored in all of the hand wringing, but you did flesh out his untenable position.
I shutter to think of Chertoff (Skeletor) getting the position. But that wouldn’t surprise me – given Dubya’s – and every other end-of-term President’s – increasing penchant for authoritarianism.
What is it about a lame-duck President that makes him more odious than in his first term? Desperation to right the perpetually listing ship of state?
Dear Mr. Bovard,
I am an admirer of your work. In a comment in the on-line section of the Washington Post, I have had this to say about an article by Ruth Marcus: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701337.html
My post:
“Like in almost all commentary on the issue, the fundamental problem is not recognised by Ruth Marcus, who – in essence – regurgitates the “deep insight” that Gonzales had finally reached the point where he was too unpopular with too many in the political establishment. The fundamental problem, however, is that the Attorney General shares with the majority of the public the possession of a void, where one would hope a clear understanding of the rule of law to reside. Neither Gonzales nor most of his friends or critics know the distinction between “the rule of legislation” and the rule of law, the former having ousted the latter completely in a political system that values majorities and dominant coalitions at the expense of principles valid and applicable to all, irrespective of a person’s or group’s relative political strength. This is why Ruth Marcus does not get beyond an assessment of how popular Gonzales is. In the present state of the political system, democracy is incompatible with the rule of law, positively favouring the practice of “might makes right” and thus “the rule of legislation”, or legal positivism, or the assumption that what a democratically legitimate government rules is automatically an instantiation of (the rule of) law. It is possible that Bush-Gonzales et al have allowed the politicization of the legal system to appear more blatantly than ever, but the fundamental corruption inherent in “the rule of legislation” is structural – and it will go away only when America returns to its constitutional roots. Let us hope that Ron Paul will surprise us all by proving how strong America’s yearning for meaningful justice actually is.”
It is a thrill and an honour to imagine that you are reading the above lines.
Best regards,
GeorgThomas
Maybe because they believe that history is their judge – not their fellow citizens?
In Bush’s case, he has a big challenge to out-odious his first term, but he is certainly on track.
Well…in fairness I would have to suggest it seems that their “fellow citizens” don’t seem all that terribly judgmental on the issue. If that were actually the case I’d expect to see tens or even hundreds of thousands of protestors clogging DC, a la the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Seeing as how the streets are relatively grump-free I can only surmise that the bulk of the citizenry, even those that voted “nay,” are still willing to vote “yea,” even if not “yay,” by their inaction.
Maybe there haven’t been the tens of thousands in the streets in DC because the subway system has been over-smoking lately. Lots of stations shut down because of suspicious smoke the last few days.
We’ll see how the politicians exploit these snafus…
The Great Departure: what does it mean?
It means, people, people with high level positions or status will lie. Gonzales was the US Attorney General – the highest ranking lawyer in US government ! We got to listen to him cover-up in front of the Congress. He was not forthcoming; he answered questions in the most limited manner – to reveal the least amount of information (this is how criminals behave in court under examination by a lawyer.)
For those who believe a US President walks on water consider this: starting with Colin Powell (the end is Jan 2009) and then Condi, Dick, and then Libby and then Gonzales the lies rolled endlessly, like waves hitting a beach. You got to watch this lying spectacle for years. If you don’t now know then you never will. Politicians, including Presidents, will lie. They’ll lie over anything. So never hold them high – they all put their pants on the same way everyone else does.
LBJ was a great con artist. He picked the Warren commision – did that mean you should trust the Warren commision results ? LBJ lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident to escalate the Viet Nam war (to get campaign contributions, to increase war profits, to get campaign contributions to get reelected.) The war didn’t succeed, LBJ didn’t try again. Never trust government. They lie. If you don’t believe it after observing this administration then you will never be able to spot a liar – never.
Fredo sat on the constitutional crapper in that great men’s room of imperial power and heard a voice from the heavens: Ask not for whom the wingtip taps, it taps for thee.
Despite his love of torture and imprisonment, we all knew Gonzo was a lightweight. Now comes the one who looks like Skeletor. Should Ghouliani win the GOP nod, Chertoff would make the ideal running mate.
Of course, the Senators might not confirm Chertoff and we could wind up with Harriet Miers, or even Karl Rove.
The terror never ends.
A people incapacitated to discern the distinct features of law and legislation lives in chaos, while unwittingly escaping into the delusion that order persists, for order is supposed to derive from legislation and nothing but legislation.
We have grown so incompetent as to the safeguards that alone will make us human beings participating in a civilised society that those, who we like to recognise as the best jurists we could have, reflect nothing but our own ignorance.
A people that does not know the distinction between law and legislation cannot be saved by a Congress equally uninformed.
The crux “hidden” in the below exchange is this: Gonzales is focused on statutory matters, as opposed to constitutional content. “Statutory” stands for legislation, “constitutional” for law. Gonzales is interested only in legislation, not in law.
As everywhere in the West, the legislation of the day is considered conterminous with law.
Law is being legislated, i.e. turned into a matter of gratuitous fiat.
However, legislation is meant to stipulate the limits imposed on the tasks and resources given to the government to enforce the law.
And the law ensures that the people can expect to live their lives as free agents within a self-generating order that relies on generally applicable rules of just conduct – and not on the latest rulings of those empowered to overstep genuine legislation to tell people what they must do.
Law, though it can be given a positive interpretation, is in essence a collection of negatives. Do not murder, for instance. Refrain from trespassing, and so on.
Law does not tell you what to do specifically, but what to refrain from generally, so that no one must be told what to do within the domain of private discretion accorded to every human being, whose protection is the whole point of law – the science of freedom, as it used to be called.
Law is that human project that aspires to the utmost parsimony in telling people what they must (not) do.
By contrast, legislation is much more meddlesome, owing to its fundamental administrative mission of regimenting the operations of agents of strictly limited power. Legislation is about the budget granted a judge to acquire his robe and wig.
By confusing law and legislation, by turning law into a synonym for legislation, we have allowed “law” to become a manual of obedience to be heeded so that government may run people’s lives as it sees fit.
Mr. Gonzales, like most of us, has never given consideration to this reading of the proper relationship between law and legislation.
He is the eclipsing star of a generation that reacts with moral shock and bottomless incomprehension when you tell them: “the rule of man” is evil.
Who else but man is to rule – is what they ask.
Who else but me, my peers, or my Führer?
Prologue:
During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was involved in the following exchange with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
Jim, I never thought the day that I would consider for the briefest of moments of having Janet Reno return to the post of Attorney General. At least she took “responsibility” for Waco.
May I respectfully offer this opinion: while individual players (Gonzales, Chertoff etc.) have their significance, I think it also very important to discuss specifically in what way the rule of law is being violated by the agents of the status quo, thus bringing to the fore the essence of the matter, which is largely independent of the relative merits or defects of individual characters. Beyond a certain degree, complaining how terrible these “mean individuals” are becomes an exercise in distraction and helplessness, ascribing more importance to them than they deserve. If I were to be asked which I consider more worrisome: the conduct of this or that individual OR the general ignorance of meaningful justice, I would clearly choose the latter. In talking to the German equivalent of a member of the Supreme Court I discovered that that particular person – like Gonzales – had never received an education that would allow him to understand the meaning of a “Rechtsstaat”, which he purports to protect. I found it more instructive and useful to reconstruct and counter his attitudes by an analysis of his (hard-to-believe) lack of knowledge rather than to get worked up about the arrogance of a leader cogently depicted in a painting by Bruegel entitled “the blind leading the blind”.