So the Gonzales confirmation hearing lasted a mere day. A single day of questioning for a candidate for US Attorney General who drafted a memo essentially condoning the loose application of Geneva Convention norms that led to the torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Further, he said on an NPR interview last March that he believed the 650 detainees being held at Guantanamo bay without charge have no right to seek their release, because the US is still at war. Leading Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Biden and Leahy did have some things to say, as did Republican Jeff Sessions, but Gonzales's confirmation is, ultimately, a sure thing.
The Attorney General is, in some ways, the gatekeeper between the theory and practice of democracy. He doesn't have to support a liberal point of view, but nor should he support a point of view that supports grossly compromising human rights and domestic civil liberties in the name of a ceaseless, boundless, and faceless threat. If the administration is going to subject this public to a state of endless war, then there should be room for the public to defend the values and rights it claims to hold dear. In fact, a nationwide public opinion poll in June 2002 showed that Americans strongly believe that promoting human rights is an important priority in US foreign policy.
Is Gonzales really the right man for this job? Really? Is "Well, he can't be worse than Ashcroft" really a good answer?