Latinos Blackmailing America?
Columnist: "Hurt us and we'll hurt you"

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., writes in the Washington Post that the score stands at Latinos 1, liberals 0.

I say that because my liberal friends were hoping that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would treat Gonzales like a punching bag, and that didn't happen. And now the Harvard Law School graduate and son of farmworkers appears ready to become the nation's first Latino attorney general.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html)

The author seems gleeful about what he sees, and what he sees is simply described: It isn't fair to hold Gonzales accountable for his words or actions:

For several weeks I've been getting e-mails from these outfits asking me to urge Senate Democrats to "scrutinize" (read, trash) the Gonzales nomination.

In fact, People for the American Way sent out a news release opposing the nomination on Jan. 4 -- two days before Gonzales appeared before the Senate.

Doesn't sound like the American way.

Liberals say with a straight face that the reason they have opposed Gonzales early and often is that they hold him responsible for the torture of prisoners in the war on terror.

Not fair ....

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html)

Navarrette points out that the "problem" reflected in the August, 2002, memorandum began at the Justice Department in January. Accepting that it was a bad decision on Gonzales' part to hold the opinion he did, Navarrette excuses the Attorney General nominee from a charge of his own invention. As with the running excuses made by the GOP, nobody's at fault. If liberals appear to blame Gonzales for Bush's actions, 'tis true they might be expressing themselves poorly, but Navarrette's perspective seems to intentionally overlook the idea that the party responsible for the torture--e.g. President Bush--makes decisions according to what advice is whispered in his ear, and Gonzales used that whisper to pass along the idea that the Geneva Conventions should be ignored, and that torture was acceptable. Gonzales, as Navarrette would have it, bears no responsibility whatsoever.

Besides, no matter what the lawyers said or when they said it, I'm not convinced that any of this had much to do with why the goons on the night shift at Abu Ghraib staged their horrific frat party. That was the military's mess from start to finish, and it's more likely that it happened because of a lack of leadership on the ground than because of something lawyers said half a world away.

Liberals aren't stupid. They must know this. Which brings us to the real reason they're conducting this witch hunt against Gonzales. It isn't all that different from the reasons that Democrats kept Honduran-born, Harvard-educated Miguel Estrada off the federal appeals court. Both men were nominated by a Republican president and owe nothing to the Democratic Party. That makes them a target for liberals, who are only interested in minorities' success if they can claim the credit.

It doesn't endear Gonzales to the left that he also has been mentioned as someone who may yet be nominated to become the first Mexican American on the Supreme Court. Were that barrier to fall -- with the credit going to a Republican president -- the Democratic Party would lose its grip on the nation's largest minority. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html)

Navarrette has a point that it would be a blow to the liberal political establishment if Gonzales reaches the Supreme Court. However, his determination to make this about ethnicity only reflects his choice to excuse a Latino man from any responsibility for his words or actions. Are Mexican Americans morally entitled to that condition?

In the end, Navarrette righteously notes that Senate Democrats went soft on the Bush nominee because they had to:

They got the message. It was delivered in person by two other Democrats: new Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, who sat at Gonzales's side, and Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, who sat just a few rows behind. Both were there to show their support for the Gonzales nomination, and both were -- one assumes -- delighted at the idea of a Latino attorney general.

The message was simple, and it was offered up on behalf of a large portion of the Latino community: "Hurt him, and we'll hurt you."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html)

In other words, in order to support diversity, liberals ought to excuse a man from any responsibility for his actions, or else Latinos will take it out on them.

Is that the kind of coddling our Hispanic population demands? Or is it at all insulting to suggest that one's ethnicity grants them moral excuse?

"Hurt him," Navarrette asserts, "and we'll hurt you."

Should we presume that Latinos, as with Navarrette, have no care for the people who have been hurt in part because of Gonzales' actions?

Apparently so, if we take this Dallas Latino at his word.
____________________

Notes:

Navarrette Jr., Ruben. "... at the Democrats' Peril". Washington Post, January 15, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html

<i>"Should we presume that Latinos, as with Navarette, have no care for the people who have been hurt in part because of Gonzales' actions?"</i>

That is an interesting question. But not knowing the politics of Latin Americans, I would first ask of their values as a unique culture. They seem to have strong family values as individuals, a bit passionate at times; however, I have never heard them talk politics at any level. they are not a real visible group.

All "latinos", I know of, only care that Gonzales is a "latino", and have no idea what his views are. Usually the same can be said about any minority group since they just wanna take what they can get in the hard world of politics and having any minority in office is somehow a victory.

- N

Like most other "Latino" issues, this thread is sputtering. Oh well...

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html
Title: "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales"
Date: January 16, 2005

The editors of the Washington Post are troubled by the state of Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings:

DESPITE A POOR performance at his confirmation hearing, Alberto R. Gonzales appears almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate as attorney general. Senators of both parties declared themselves dissatisfied with Mr. Gonzales's lack of responsiveness to questions about his judgments as White House counsel on the detention of foreign prisoners. Some expressed dismay at his reluctance to state that it is illegal for American personnel to use torture, or for the president to order it. A number of senators clearly believe, as we do, that Mr. Gonzales bears partial responsibility for decisions that have led to shocking, systematic and ongoing violations of human rights by the United States. Most apparently intend to vote for him anyway. At a time when nominees for the Cabinet can be disqualified because of their failure to pay taxes on a nanny's salary, this reluctance to hold Mr. Gonzales accountable is shameful. He does not deserve to be confirmed as attorney general.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html)

The editors point out that their judgment does bear in mind the president's right to choose his own cabinet; they deferred to that right in the nomination of former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

His personal story as a Hispanic American is inspiring, and he appears less ideological and confrontational than the outgoing attorney general. Mr. Gonzales is also not the only official implicated in the torture and abuse of detainees. Other senior officials played a larger role in formulating and implementing the policies, and Mr. Bush is ultimately responsible for them. It is nevertheless indisputable that Mr. Gonzales oversaw and approved a decision to disregard the Geneva Conventions for detainees from Afghanistan; that he endorsed interrogation methods that military and FBI professionals regarded as illegal and improper; and that he supported the indefinite detention of both foreigners and Americans without due process.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html)

Confirming Gonzales, assert the editors, is to ratify decisions that violate fundamental American values.

The editors also take issue with Gonzales' defenders, who "argue that his position on the Geneva Conventions amounted to a judgment that captured members of al Qaeda did not deserve official status as prisoners of war". This defense is obviously inadequate, else the U.S. would never have suffered the blow to its prestige that came with the detention of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay. That hundreds of prisoners including foreign volunteers and innocent bystanders, as well as Taleban militants and al Qaeda operatives, could be "collectively and indiscriminately denied Geneva protections without individual hearings" was endorsed by the White House is certainly chilling, and Gonzales had his part in that decision.

The Supreme Court has also knocked these decisions by the White House, ruling that the prisoners were entitled to appeal their detentions, and also that holding Americans without counsel--also a White House decision--is unacceptable. The court has invalidated Gonzales' position in the cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla.

Mr. Gonzales made a second bad judgment about the Geneva Conventions: that their restrictions on interrogations were "obsolete." Quite apart from the question of POW status for detainees, this determination invalidated the Army's doctrine for questioning enemy prisoners, which is based on the Geneva Conventions and had proved its worth over decades. Mr. Gonzales ignored the many professional experts, ranging from the Army's own legal corps to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who told him that existing interrogation practices were effective and that setting them aside would open the way to abuses and invite retaliation against Americans. Instead, during meetings in his office from which these professionals were excluded, he supported the use of such methods as "waterboarding," which causes an excruciating sensation of drowning.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html)

The tactics, approved for the CIA against al Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo, spread to Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigators have determined that U.S. personnel around the world elected, in light of the Geneva Conventions being declared "obsolete", chose to behave as if there was an absence of doctrine, and were thus empowered to torture suspects.

While Gonzales has stated at his hearings that he opposes torture, he made no real effort to separate himself from his prior legal judgments empowering such abuses.

Despite the revision of a Justice Department memo on torture, he and the administration he represents continue to regard those practices as legal and continue to condone slightly milder abuse, such as prolonged sensory deprivation and the use of dogs, for Guantanamo. As Mr. Gonzales confirmed at his hearing, U.S. obligations under an anti-torture convention mean that the methods at Guantanamo must be allowable under the Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. According to the logic of the attorney general nominee, federal authorities could deprive American citizens of sleep, isolate them in cold cells while bombarding them with unpleasant noises and interrogate them 20 hours a day while the prisoners were naked and hooded, all without violating the Constitution. Senators who vote to ratify Mr. Gonzales's nomination will bear the responsibility of ratifying such views as legitimate.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html)

• • •

It is obvious at the outset that the Post's editors disagree with columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., who recently wrote that Gonzales' ethnicity excuses him from any responsibility for his actions (see topic post). The Post also disagrees with Navarrette's assertion that liberals blame Gonzales for the whole mess, or that Gonzales is somehow isolated from the policies resulting from the infamous August, 2002 memo. Writing the issue off to January, 2002, as Navarrette has, doesn't hold water, as instead of making Gonzales an instigator he becomes merely a willing conspirator.

A man who so despises the U.S. Constitution as Gonzales' actions suggest has no business in the office of the Attorney General, whose job is to enforce the laws and Constitution of the United States. Why give over such a responsibility to a man who loathes those laws and that Constitution?

Is it, as Navarrette says, because the politicians are afraid of an Hispanic population perceived as myopic and too stupid to tell the difference? Is ethnicity, as Navarrette holds, the reason Gonzales will be forgiven his actions and confirmed to this office?

Or is it that the Democrats, at least, are trying to be responsive to "middle America", that amorphous bloc of Bush supporters who also, it would seem, consider torture a viable American principle, agree that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and should be ignored, and would prefer to confirm a nominee for his ethnicity rather than oppose him for his record?

Either way, the price the Democrats will pay pales compared to the damage done by Gonzales and the administration he supports.

Shameful, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

Washington Post. "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales". January 16, 2005; page B06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html

See Also -

Navarrette Jr., Ruben. "... at the Democrats' Peril". Washington Post, January 15, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html

All "latinos", I know of, only care that Gonzales is a "latino", and have no idea what his views are. Usually the same can be said about any minority group since they just wanna take what they can get in the hard world of politics and having any minority in office is somehow a victory.

And that is the sad part; support a butcher only because he happens to be from your minority group. That sucks!. Most latinos are just too busy trying to make ends meet, they don't know much about politics, and claim only that white people run the show, so they get happy to see some PENDEJO get in public office, giving little regard of what the SOB stands for. Well this is one Latino, who don't support this asshole!!. But then again; it's not just only latinos that support him, the dumbshits senators show little risistance to this thug!. click (http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/01/edi05019.html)

Godless.

And that is the sad part; support a butcher only because he happens to be from your minority group. That sucks!.

But so it is. Since so many "Latinos" are here for monetary reasons and have little stake in America, they try to get what they can. If it means "helping a brother out" so much the better.

On the other hand, Latino culture is heavily saturated with machismo.
So why object to Gonzales' statements or actions regarding torture?
They are very gung-ho, very "manly". Why expect common decency out of such a thuggish background?

No insult to any individual.

They Must Hate Hispanics? Or Is Something Else Afoot?
E&P notes Post stinger; Boston Globe opposes Gonzales nomination

Editor and Publisher, a newspaper-industry journal, called a recent Washington Post editorial (see above (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?&p=750489)) "surprisingly hard-hitting" for its criticism of the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales. E&P also reports that a "survey of the largest daily papers found a wide majority criticizing or opposing his nomination".

Meanwhile, up in "elitist" Boston, the Boston Globe checks in today with an editorial simply titled, "Unfit as attorney general".

In his testimony, Gonzales made frequent reference to the much-photographed instances of prisoner humiliation and abuse at Abu Ghraib, as though the naked-body pyramid and other abuses that Specialist Charles Graner was justifiably convicted of Friday were the worst of what has occurred. But the FBI and Red Cross reports as well as the military's own investigations of killings of prisoners make clear that some interrogators and guards crossed the line into torture or homicide. It is disingenuous of Gonzales not to acknowledge the link between permissive torture policies from Washington and acts of abuse that occurred not just at Abu Ghraib but in Afghanistan and Guantanamo as well ....

.... The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks thrust the United States into a new kind of conflict in which useful intelligence from detainees is crucial. But Gonzales has been at the center of administration policy-making that set aside tried and true US and international rules governing the collection of this information. His blindness to the consequences of those policies makes him a poor choice for chief law enforcement officer of the nation.

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/01/18/unfit_as_attorney_general/)

Diversity issues are a curious thing with the Bush administration. Secretary of State Powell, acknowledged before the GOP convention as the most popular Republican in the country, has long stood as a symbol of minority accomplishment within the American "system". Yet the Bush administration seems to want him merely for appearances, choosing to frustrate and undercut Powell when potential solutions deviate from the administration's hard line. His nominated replacement, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, earned acclaim in academia and industry prior to her tenure as National Security Advisor. In addition to her status as a racial minority, she is noted to be the first woman to occupy the NSA post. Yet she is widely regarded as a lap-dog; her considerable talents have been largely wasted as a shill for the administration's hard line.

Alberto Gonzales, nominated for the post of Attorney General, has drawn some editorial praise for his ethnicity and life story, but his credible value seems to end there. Rejecting both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, his manner of legal advice has been to merely encourage the Bush administration's hard line.

Thus I would ask you to imagine a classroom, perhaps of children, or maybe college students, in fifty years, looking back on American history. Will the diversity of the Bush administration be heralded as racial and ethnic progress, or will the tale be something akin to the tale of Futurama's Leela, who became both the first female blernsball player in history and also clocked in as the sport's worst-ever?

Perhaps that's too obscure an analogy. The simple question is whether the apparent diversity of the Bush administration is real, or only skin deep?
____________________

Notes:

Editor & Publisher. "'Wash. Post' Latest to Take Hard Line Against Attorney General Nominee". January 16, 2005. See http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000760300

Boston Globe. "Unfit as attorney general". Boston.com, January 18, 2005. See http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/01/18/unfit_as_attorney_general/

See Also -

Washington Post. "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales". January 16, 2005; page B06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html

TV Tome. "Futurama - A Leela Of Her Own". See http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-249/epid-130891/

Latinos Blackmailing America?
Columnist: "Hurt us and we'll hurt you"

Reuben Navarrette, Jr., writes in the Washington Post that the score stands at Latinos 1, liberals 0.

The author seems gleeful about what he sees, and what he sees is simply described: It isn't fair to hold Gonzales accountable for his words or actions:
[/font]
Shucks, there you go again, making assumptions without even asking the one Mexican you do know here in SciForums, hmm, hmm, hmm.

OK, lets start,
First, Mr. Ruben Navarette is a Harvard grad, from Sanger, a small town, I mean a really small town in Central California. He appears to be on th 'right' of the issues, was syndicated nation-wide, worked for a Dallas paper & I think, now a San Diego one.

Second: last time I checked, he didn't speak for me

Third: don't call me "Hispanic" or "Latino", I'm Chicano (a Mexican born in Aztlan), thank you very much. "Hispanic" is a made up word, so that Republicans could imply they had support from 'hispanics', really meaning that only 'Cubans' supported them during the Nixon-era. "Latino" is a cultural designation, over most of the spanish- (sometimes including french- & Portuguese- ) speaking nations. Its not proper to speak of "Latinos" in the US; except as a whole, because the parts are not yet mixed, no cuban would ever tell you he is hispanic or latino first, nor would any Puerto Rican, wait a few years for that, when we join the "Heinz 51" club

Fourth: Mr. Gonzalez is Nicaraguan

Fifth: make sure Mr. Navarrette wasn't goating the left, the man is sharp, articulate & no friend of liberals. He's against celebrating Cesar Chavez day in California

Sixth: to win the so-called "hispanic" vote, the real culprits are Bush & Gonzalez, not any "hispanics" or "latinos" collectively or individually, notwithstanding LULAC, etc...

&
Seventh: I would rather that a well qualified person make it to the post, but then again, people voted Bush for President, so that doesn't always happen.

anyway, irregardless of ethnicity, I don't feel that only "white males" fit the description of "well qualified", so someday people will vote for a Chicano President of the US,

"so say we all"

could happen,

Edward James Olmos leads a rag-tag bunch of humans in a series, why not Ruben Navarrette, Jr. in real life? More likely for a 'rightie', than a liberal; see Arnold for pointers

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html
Title: "Gonzales Will Not Be Blocked"
Date: February 2, 2005

Angry Senate Democrats have buckled; they will not push for a continued procedural delay on the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, who will most likely be confirmed tomorrow.

In the first of three days of debate on the nomination, the chamber split along party lines. Republicans, who have a 55 to 45 edge on Democrats and enough votes to confirm Gonzales, spoke of his biography: a son of migrant farm workers who climbed from poverty to White House counsel. Democrats acknowledged his compelling life story but asserted that he had been arrogant in his responses to the Senate when questions were asked about administration memos justifying torture.

Ultimately, Democrats concluded they had neither the votes nor the political stomach to block confirmation of Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic to hold the nation's highest law enforcement office. After a bruising debate last week followed by the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman to be secretary of state, some Democrats were concerned that they would be perceived as opposing qualified minority candidates. At a private luncheon yesterday, freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who is Hispanic, defended Gonzales to Democratic colleagues.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html)

Senate minority leader Harry Reid offered a "low" forecast that 25-30 Democrats would vote against Gonzales, but others think the vote could see Gonzales receive the largest opposition vote to an Attorney General ever; John Ashcroft got 42 in 2001.

Furthermore, Gonzales has apparently refused to meet with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus until after his confirmation. The CHC has refused to endorse the AG nominee.

• • •

The GOP has scored a major victory inasmuch as they have confused the Democrats. The political right wing would have us believe that Hispanics are stupid, and care only about superficial labels. The Democrats have come to fear the possibility: they apparently "lack the political stomach" to legitimately oppose candidates who are ethnic minorities.

Strange, though, how the GOP has relied on a sense of "contempt" that it has long depicted as symptomatic of liberal elites. As columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., has suggested, Democrats hear the message: this is about ethnic labels, not qualifications or performance or integrity.

And I think it's quite sad they've given over.

Will the GOP refer to the Democrats not blocking an up-or-down vote as an endorsement? After all, that notion hurt the Democrats in 2001 and 2002. They were afraid to not give over to public hysteria, and approved some bad legislation that has helped lead us to the war in Iraq. And the vote, of course, is the important detail; that the president delivered them inaccurate information before and after the vote, is incidental to the voting public.

And this is, apparently, how Americans wish to be treated. Their opinion of style is more legitimate to politicians than their thoughts about integrity, procedure, or even "America" itself.

After all, a tear-jerking, superficial "success story" is all the reason in the world to give to a man who disdains the U.S. Constitution the office of its enforcement.

So you tell me:

• Hispanic attorney general with a compelling rags-to-riches story
• Human rights abuse and torture advocate; opponent of the U.S. Constitution and also international human rights conventions.

Which is really more important to his potential future job performance as Attorney General? One wonders at the numbers the Democrats are seeing from the public. On the one hand, they have an obligation to block this vote. To the other, the people seem to hold it against the Democrats that the party is willing to attempt to block grossly-unqualified candidates. Candidates deserve a straight up-or-down vote, says the GOP. But these certainly aren't honest votes. The Democratic bluster does have one mild upshot, though. It creates a record, a backdrop for that most offensive of sayings: "We told you so."

And, of course, the people resent that.

Is this really the way things go?

And yet such haughty apathy is considered a good thing. A Colorado professor has had speaking engagements cancelled because of death threats, and his job threatened for pointing out such apathy and arrogance.

Do Americans still wonder why "they" hate "us"? Or are we finished making "their" point for them?
____________________

Notes:

Milbank, Dana. "Gonzales Will Not Be Blocked". Washington Post, February 2, 2005; page A04. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html
Title: "Gonzales Will Not Be Blocked"
Date: February 2, 2005
[/font]
Angry Senate Democrats have buckled; they will not push for a continued procedural delay on the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, who will most likely be confirmed tomorrow.

the damage done

http://kcal9.com/politics/politicsnational_story_034171501.html
The 60-36 vote made Gonzales the first Hispanic attorney general ever.

All 36 "no" votes came from Democrats, who also complained that Gonzales was too beholden to President Bush to be the nation's top law enforcement official.

Some examples of the AG's “ruthless legal logic”, that have stained the US;


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6733213/site/newsweek/
And partly out of the discussions in Gonzales's office came the most notorious legal document to emerge from last spring's Abu Ghraib interrogation scandal. This was an Aug. 1, 2002, memo—drafted by Yoo, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and addressed to Gonzales—which provoked outrage among human-rights advocates by narrowly defining torture. ... among other things, that only severe pain or permanent damage that was "specifically intended" constituted torture. Mere "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment did not qualify.
...
Sources close to the Senate Judiciary Committee say a chief focus of the hearings will be Gonzales's role in the so-called "torture memo," as well as his legal judgment in urging Bush to sidestep the Geneva Conventions. In a Jan. 25, 2002, memo to Bush, Gonzales said the new war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040607&s=editors
In a January 25, 2002, memo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the President of "the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," a federal statute. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality--declaring detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva Conventions--which, he said, "substantially reduces" the chance of prosecution. ...

Let's be clear about what this means: Gonzales was urging--and the President adopted as policy--an end run around federal laws. The War Crimes Act, passed by Congress in 1996, allows criminal prosecution of Americans for actions that violate the rights granted prisoners and civilians by the Geneva Conventions

I nominate Mr G to be tried before a War Crimes Tribunal, as the architect of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc... If we play with the wording of the Geneva Accords, then how will we ever be protected?

Uncle Who?
Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html
Title: "Race Bait And Switch"
Date: February 8, 2005

Columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., indirectly offers a potential answer to the question indirectly set forth by Mr. Navarrette (see topic post).

Among the many double standards in U.S. politics is the contradictory attitude of many conservatives toward "political correctness" and the matter of "playing the race card."

Conservatives profess to be horrified by political correctness, which is roughly defined as the habit of stamping out frank discussion about matters related even tangentially to race, class, gender and ethnicity. Whenever a liberal raises concerns over whether a conservative initiative might damage the rights or interests of, say, African Americans or Latinos, that liberal is accused of being "politically correct" and playing the race card -- usually, just to make the sin sound really awful, off "the bottom of the deck."

But increasingly, it is conservatives who are using political correctness to sidestep hard issues ....

Dionne, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html)

Dionne considers Alberto Gonzales, the impetus for his immediate considerations. "Democrats thought it appropriate to use Gonzales's nomination to launch a debate about torture policy," he writes. "Gonzales is Latino. Therefore, Republicans insisted, Democrats who wanted to debate torture policy were anti-Latino. Recall, perhaps, Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court. Thomas accused his opponents of conducting "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves". Appeals Court nominee Miguel Estrada is painted as a similar victim. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) looked past the ideological discussion; to oppose Estrada, he said, "would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere". Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said Estrada's rejection would close the door to any nominee who is "number one, Hispanic, number two, Republican, number three, possibly conservative and, number four, may have some ideas of his or her own".

And Bush himself seems to be playing the race card:

More recently Bush has invoked racial considerations in support of his plan to privatize Social Security. "African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said at a White House Conference on Social Security in January. "That needs to be fixed."

First off, the thing that "needs to be fixed" is the fact that "African American males die sooner than other males do." Moreover, Bush's underlying claim has been largely discredited. Precisely because of those death rates, African American families are especially reliant on Social Security's survivors' benefits, and African Americans need and draw on Social Security's disability benefits at a higher rate than whites. They are also more likely to rely on Social Security payments to stay out of poverty in old age.

Dionne, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html)

Dionne asks, "Isn't Bush playing the very "race card" that liberals are perpetually accused of using as a trump?" It's a fair question.

• • •

Diversity is a marketing gimmick for conservatives. Look at Bush's first term:

• Sec. of State Colin Powell, a black man and also the most popular Republican around, generally undercut and countermanded by the administration; left holding the bag when all he wanted to do was his job.

• National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, a black woman and also a Bush devotee whose political views, conveniently, suffer very similar lapses of fact as her president's. If such parroting is Rice's qualification, she's unqualified. If such parroting is administration policy, why are her genuine talents being wasted? It seems disrespectful in any consideration of diversity.

• Sec. of Education Rod Paige, a black man who fits the Bush shoe well. He crossed the line: paying people to pretend journalistic credibility--remember that Armstrong Williams thought as a businessman and not a journalist, or at least so he says--in order to propagandize; calling teachers terrorists. Come on: if he was merely a showpiece for diversity, that abysmal state of affairs would still be a better shot than putting him out there with the intention that he should be a poor steward of his department. It doesn't speak well of Rod Paige's performance.

Such are the problems of narrow examinations: the politics of race are no less cynical than they were thirty years ago.

This issue of the new political correctness is an impressive nexus. Several betrayals of asserted political principle come together. Opposition to a minority candidate must necessarily mean opposition to race? Isn't this the very device conservatives have berated liberals over for twenty years and more? Reverse racism? Isn't this something conservatives have accused liberals of for decades? "Judicial activism"? While conservatives disdain the complex workings of the Constitution, their solution is to put forth a candidate who disdains the Constitution in general?

It is equivocation. It is exploitatively-intended. It is typical conservative fare despite the twist.

What is the difference between seven and fourteen years? Quite a bit if you're living it. Yet this is an old argument in American politics: how long do immigrants live out of the loop? The liberal response has generally prevailed; the double-term of the conservative proposition has made its appearances over the years, but we've come from that argument all the way to altering the Constitution to include immigrants in the presidential pool, but merely for the sake of one candidate. Exploitation? You bet.

All the while they complain about elitism, too. Hollywood elite liberals, racist liberals, out-of-touch liberals.

And those are fair terms. As long as we throw out both the dictionary and the present context of reality.

Typical conservative fare. With a twist.
____________________

Notes:

Dionne Jr., E. J. "Race Bait And Switch". Washington Post. February 8, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html

Scalia is as conservative as Thomas but his confirmation sailed through while Thomas got a hi-tech lynching. And he still does.

Clarance Thomas, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Janice Brown, Miguel Estrada --after a while it becomes clear any Latino or Black who leaves the Democratic plantation is going to get a whipping to let others know what will happen to them if they leave.

Democrats are bent on killing their party.

Which is okey-doke with me.

Did Scalia have a sexual-harassment accusation hounding him?

Why is it that conservatives, so willing to push the politics of personal accountability against Clinton, want to reduce everything to an issue of ethnicity in order to sidestep accountability?

It's not liberal "elitism" that compels liberals to believe conservatives are superficial. It's the conservatives voice itself that leaves no room for question.

Muhlenberg - Qualification, duty, integrity: do these have any meaning to you?