Choosing the Next Attorney GeneralGonzales was plucked by then-Gov. Bush of Texas from a big law firm where he was a relatively undistinguished partner. As the governor's counsel, he sent Bush superficial memos that cleared the way for executions of more than 50 death-row inmates by dismissing their clemency petitions, while sometimes ignoring evidence of ineffective counsel, mitigating circumstances, and even possible innocence. His 20-some judicial opinions as a Bush appointee on the Texas Supreme Court were unimpressive, as have been his public performances as White House counsel and attorney general. People outside the administration who have tried to engage him in serious discourse about complex issues sometimes come away shocked by the superficiality of his knowledge and the shallowness of his analysis. As White House counsel from 2001 through 2004, Gonzales had his fingerprints on Bush's most grandiose and insupportable claims of power in the war on terrorism. These included Bush's claim of virtually unlimited power to imprison for years, incommunicado, without real judicial review, anyone in the world whom he labeled an "enemy combatant." Gonzales also implicitly approved the infamous August 1, 2002, Justice Department legal opinion asserting that Bush had the authority to abrogate federal criminal laws and treaty obligations and to order (if he chose) wholesale use of torture in wartime interrogations. It was drafted by political appointees with major input from White House lawyers under Gonzales. But in his January 2005 Senate confirmation testimony, Gonzales uttered a batch of self-contradictory evasions about this legal opinion: "I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the [Justice] Department.... I reject that opinion.... I am not prepared in this hearing to give you an answer [on its correctness].... [I had] discussions [with Justice during the drafting process] to make sure that we got it right, [but it] really would politicize the work of the career professionals [who played no role] at the Department of Justice" to express a view on whether the opinion did get it right. Pathetic. The extreme Bush-Gonzales claims of power and treatment of detainees have not strengthened but rather weakened the counter-terrorism effort and the presidency: They have alienated potential allies abroad and so alarmed the Supreme Court that it has rebuffed Bush in all three big war-on-terror cases so far. A well-advised president could have won those cases. As for the U.S. attorneys, there is a world of difference between firing such a political appointee for 1) being a Democrat; 2) failing to press the president's law enforcement agenda; 3) overstaying his or her welcome in a job that the White House wants for a political favorite; 4) prosecuting Republican lawmakers; or 5) failing to bring election-fraud prosecutions against Democrats on a timetable designed to help Republicans at the polls. The first three are standard operating procedure. The last two—if they happened—would be unethical and arguably illegal. A minimally competent attorney general would instantly appreciate the difference. Did Gonzales? Perhaps. But the succession of misleading and contradictory statements from him and his aides—which may further weaken the presidency by fueling congressional demands for testimony by White House officials—inspire no confidence. Nor do Gonzales's comments (as reported by Newsweek) to three senators who visited his office to discuss the matter: "Why do I have to prove anything to you?" And "everyone [fired] was in the bottom tier." In fact, some had glowing performance evaluations. When the president and the Senate choose Gonzales's successors, they need to do better. Much better. Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal and a contributing editor at Newsweek. This column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C.
Discuss this article in Post & Riposte. More from National Journal |
Search
Recent commentary from National JournalInnocents in PrisonMany thousands of wrongly convicted people are rotting in prisons and jails around the country. The Candidates' Four Detention CampsDeciding what to do with jihadist operatives is the country's most urgent legal question. But there's little sign that the presidential candidates have given it much thought. Crowd ControlEverybody's buzzing about citizen journalism. But the "journalism" could use some editing. Democratic SlugfestAn exchange of blows between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama was bound to happen. Shortsighted on JudgesSenate Democrats are playing a dangerous political game in opposing confirmation of Leslie Southwick, a wellqualified judicial nominee from Mississippi. Beyond Trade Adjustment AssistanceWorkers who lose their jobs because of trade are no more deserving than workers whose jobs disappear for other reasons. The Poverty CandidatesJohn Edwards made poverty an issue in his 2004 campaign for the White House. This time around, he has company: Barack Obama is also working to put poverty back on the political agenda. Are the Democrats Serious?Both sides deserve to lose the brewing battle between the White House and Congress over executive privilege. Of Church and StateReligion now looms larger than economic class as a source of political division. Flying Blind in a Red-Tape BlizzardBased on spending, President Bush appears to be the biggest regulator since the Nixon-Ford years. |
