The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Grant:

Show all comments by Grant.

Posted on entry Happy New Year. ::: January 07, 2005, 03:19 PM:
Charles Pierce:

Because sometimes it's just good to say "no," simply for the sake of saying it, because doing so lessens your complicity in a comfortable politics in which the destruction of American ideals is more admired for its clever tactics than it is condemned for its lasting damage. This is a government of vandals, and shame on anyone too dumb to realize it, or so ambitious that they'd make peace with it. Shame on any Democratic legislator who didn't line up with Boxer yesterday, especially the ones that gave pretty speeches and voted the other way. Shame on any Democrat who votes to confirm Alberto Gonzales. Shame on any Democrat who attaches himself to any Social Security plan while this administration is in office. This is a time to say no, just for the pure hell of it. Trust me, there's no political price to be paid that you're not already paying, piecemeal, out of your souls.
Posted on entry Happy New Year. ::: January 07, 2005, 10:43 AM:
It's frustrating to watch, Niall. Kind of like Bugs Bunny wiggling his way out of getting shot by Elmer Fudd with a series of non sequiturs, only without the humor.

"Did you request the memo authorizing torture?"

"Duck season!"

As to why he would uphold the principle while denying responsibility, I think this passage from international law expert Anthony D'Amato on Brian Leiter's blog explains a great deal:
In the middle of [torture memo collaborator] Professor [John] Yoo's essay, in legalistic language that most readers might not bother to parse, he reveals that "Gonzales also observed that denying POW status would limit the prosecution of U.S. officials under a federal law criminalizing a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions."

What does this convoluted sentence mean? It means that Mr. Gonzales may have made it clear to the DOJ attorneys drafting the various memos that if they were to conclude that the Taliban and Al Quaeda come within the protection of the Geneva Conventions, or that the policies or practices at Guantanamo and Al Ghraib amount to criminal torture prohibited by U.S. law, they would be placing the President of the United States and his top advisers personally at risk of criminal indictment. Indeed any indictment, irrespective of final outcome, would probably have a huge negative political impact politically and could even result in a change of administrations and a change of legal staff at the DOJ.

In other words, if a zealous prosecutor, including one within the DOJ, were to seek indictments against the President and his advisers, Mr. Gonzales' position, as now revealed by Professor Yoo, was that the DOJ's legal conclusion in its memos should be modified or changed and rationalized, if necessary, not on legal grounds, but just in order to protect Mr. Gonzales's clients from prosecution.


So to get the nomination, he has to pretend his involvement in this fiasco was minimal. But to protect capo di tutti capi, he has to maintain omertá.
Posted on entry Open thread 7. ::: May 23, 2004, 02:11 PM:
For those involved in the thread about digital cameras in the military, here's a follow-up:

Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq... a total ban throughout the US military is in the works.


Good to know they're on top of the real "problem" exposed by Abu Gharib. Sheesh.

Comment statistics for Grant on the Electrolite blog

YearNumber of comments posted
20052
20042

Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.