Posted on 01/26/2005 7:57:29 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) - The Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting Wednesday to vote on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next U.S. attorney general; and with Republicans controlling the committee, Gonzales' nomination is sure to proceed to the full Senate for final (anticipated) approval.
But it won't happen without dissent -- from Democrats and even from some conservative gun owners.
As with the confirmation of Secretary of State-nominee Condoleezza Rice, the full Senate is expected to debate Gonzales' nomination - in full glare of the TV cameras -- before voting some time next week.
The criticism, mostly from Democrats who oppose President Bush's agenda, is expected to focus on the Iraq war and the treatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Gonzales' liberal critics accuse him of setting the stage for the scandal at Abu Ghraib by arguing that the Geneva Conventions (protections for prisoners of war) did not apply to terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a January 2002 memo to President Bush, Gonzales said the war on terrorism was "a new kind of war" -- one that "places a high premium" on the "ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians."
Gonzales concluded, "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
Gonzales' critics have pounced on that memo to suggest that he condones torture.
"I think that a man who gave the legal advice to the president to allow this (Abu Ghraib) to take place is someone that deserves to be talked about on the Senate floor," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Gonzales said he "absolutely" does not approve of torture.
In his Jan. 6 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he was deeply troubled by the photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; and he said he shares President Bush's resolve "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration."
He also said he would honor the Geneva Conventions "whenever they apply."
Gun ban concerns
Of greater concern to some conservatives, Gonzales has said he supports the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act -- as well as an extension of the now-expired ban on "assault weapons."
In an email alert to its members, Gun Owners of America, a Second Amendment group, warned that Gonzales not only supports President Bush on reauthorizing the federal assault weapons ban - but Gonzales also has indicated that gun control is a "heart-felt position of his own."
GOA notes that at his confirmation hearing, Gonzales "spoke of his brother, who is a Houston SWAT officer, and said, 'I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street.'"
"Hence, he (Gonzales) supports a prohibition on semi-automatics that, in truth, only amounts to a ban on ugly guns," GOA told its members.
"GOA activists are certainly aware of the fact that President Bush has repeatedly trumpeted his support for the Clinton semi-auto ban, which expired last September. But every time Bush has opened his mouth on this issue, GOA activists have led the way in bombarding the White House."
It's time to take President Bush to the "political woodshed" once again, GOA said in the email.
"No, we probably won't change his mind on this issue. But if we barrage his office with phone calls, faxes and e-mails, it is very possible that we will increase his reluctance to push the ban," the email said.
"So please make sure you contact President Bush," the email concludes. "While some might think that an anti-gun Attorney General is limited in the amount of damage he can inflict upon the Second Amendment, we can be sure that his position on critical court cases could affect our gun rights for generations to come."
Gun Owners of America is urging its members to express "outrage" that President Bush "would nominate an Attorney General who supports a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms."
The email message includes a "pre-written letter" that GOA members can send to President Bush, reminding him of their opposition to any gun ban - and reminding him that he was re-elected "in large part, because gun owners opposed the cockeyed positions of your opponent."
Depite the criticism of Gonzales, even Democrats predict that he will become the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.
Why would Bush support anyone that didn't line up with his beliefs? The question then is: Does Bush support gun control?
Done!
Cool-aid drinkers piss me off. We want an honest and ethical government that obeys its own damn rules. If we wanted liars in office, we could have just left the Democrats in power.
The double standard is sickening. A liar is a liar. I couldn't care what their political affiliation is.
I don't like that at all.
As long as we understand each other.
What make you think the Left is the only side with a gun control agenda? Is there anything the Bush administration has done (as opposed to said) that supports the idea that they're for gun rights?
For "We, the Little People..."? Nothing. He hasn't even repealed his Daddies EO driven Import Ban yet. Not that I'm holding my breath on that one. Bush is a "Man of His Word" (trademark applied for) and has spoken in favor of gun control in regards to an "assault weapons" ban.
Some what, in the foot notes it is stated "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." Also, he did push for the USSC not to hear some 2nd amendment/gun cases, I believe that one was about loss of rights when a restraining order is issued against a person (even if no threat or assault was made, ie. SOP in divorce).
You sir/maam are stockpiling weapons, please be ready for a visit from the BATFE.
"Unfit Persons" as defined by some in our legislatures could be construed to mean "We the People". Given Republican control now, if such a thing later got in to the hands of Madam President Clinton... is there any doubt as to who would be deemed "unfit"?
Hey, where are the people that keep saying "The AWB is a dead issue. The House will not pass another one. You are getting upset about nothing."?
How do we know that they aren't lying to use that they are lying to them?
Unfotunately, it could mean your children if they use the mental testing of your children in school that Bush wants. Remember, there are people considered mentally unfit that have lost the right to own/bear firearms.
Two lies don't make a truth. Not even if you lie about lying. They swore to tell the truth, or to uphold the Constitution. That they aren't even trying to do that, even as political "strategery", more than likely mean they ARE in fact telling the truth.
They don't like guns and don't want "We the People" to have easy access to them.
"Certainly we don't want the violence-prone or those of criminal bent to have open access to firearms. Yet, it is the laws that we pass against some people that have a way of coming around to bite us all in the butt. The problem is that those who wish to completely ban all firearms use crime and violence as an excuse to infringe more and more on the RKBA. And even in the face of hard statistics and those stubborn things known as "facts", these tyrants-in-waiting still insist on more gun laws that do nothing about the criminal element, but merely disarm the citizenry at large."
"The recently sunsetted federal AW ban is a case in point: several studies of the ban commissioned by the DOJ in both the Clinton and Bush administrations came to the conclusion that the ban did nothing to alter firearm crime/violence; yet, there are still several bills stacked up in both Houses of Congress that would not only reinstate this ridiculous law but strengthen it, written by people who care not about the conclusions of these studies."
"These so-called representatives are nothing but pawns of their special interest money donors or they are really little dictators who have evil intent. The incoming Attorney General[Gonzales] is on record as supporting such a ban, yet the question remains, is he so out of touch with the reality of such laws (as shown by these stuides) and law enforcement that he persists in this folly through ignorance? If so, maybe he is not qualified to be AG. The bigger question is will he support the overturning of the Washington D.C. ban on guns?"
Gonzales' statements are very troubling; is he just another 'politician' playing to the voters (in this case, the Senators) by trying to stand on both sides of the fence, or is he really an adherent to the "collective" rights nonsense?
No, he's not ignorant. He's just another "collective rights" guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.