Alberto Gonzales TOP COP

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was my question too. He's a friend of GWB from Texas. Is it safe to assume he was involved in their concealed handgun law? He might be a good pick.

Maybe we should check the VPC to see if they're whining ;)
 
Did some googling and there were no 2A comments regarding or by this guy I was able to turn up.
One thing he did in TX was vote against legislation that required a minor to give parental notification before they got an abortion (in state or out I don't recall).

That would be somewhat distant from a core-type conservative Rep action at least in TX. Did not seem "Bush like" either.

He may be a ?-mark till the question of what the 2A cover and what it does not is actually put to him.

On the other hand, being Hispanic, it looks like he would be a useful pivot man for W's soon to be launched Illegals-to-Legals-to-Citizens program.

S-
 
I sent a note this AM to Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute on Gonzales, and his response wasn't positive. Gonzales is "rumored" to be weak on RKBA issues, but there doesn't seem to be much hard info out there. I'm sure the NRA will have something posted in the next few days.

Michael B
 
The only thing I know about him is that he supported holding "enemy combatants" indefinately without legal council or legal recourse.

That's something that scares me much more than the patriot act.

The patriot act has a good number of checks that in theory should keep if from being abused. However, those checks require Judges to protect citizens from an overzealous government, and some Judges just don't seem to be doinga good job of that.

With the Bush administration's policy on enemy combatants, there wouldn't be any judicial review. All it takes is the determination by the President that you are an enemy combatant, and they cease to recognize that you have any rights.

I don't know enough about him to have an informed opinion yet, but I'm concerned by what I do know.
 
Well, I know he favors racial preferences in college admissions, but you'd expect that in a Bush appointee. Actually, you'd expect the weak on RKBA, too; Ashcroft was there to reassure us, and Bush doesn't NEED to reassure us anymore.
 
Gonzales as AG!!!!

MBane666 said:
I sent a note this AM to Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute on Gonzales, and his response wasn't positive. Gonzales is "rumored" to be weak on RKBA issues, but there doesn't seem to be much hard info out there. I'm sure the NRA will have something posted in the next few days.

Michael B
Click to expand...

Both parties are interested in disarming the American People!!
It's just that the RINOs need the gun owners to keep getting elected. So, they will proceed with the disarming process at a slower pace then the Democrats!!!

I note with interest that even with RINOs in control for the past four years, only ONE federal gun law has gone by the wayside and only because it expired!! Not through any positive action by our supposed "friends" in Washingtoon!!

With illegals flooding across the border on an hourly basis (I have an Aunt in Douglas AZ, a favorite crossing point), the Government is afraid that the American people will wake up and finally do something about it!! In fact, the same is already happening right here in AZ!! Who is fighting against the southwestern ranchers who are protecting their property and livelihood with the pistol and rifle?? The self same Bush administration!!

I see nothing but evil coming!!!! ;)
 
flatrock said:
The only thing I know about him is that he supported holding "enemy combatants" indefinately without legal council or legal recourse.

That's something that scares me much more than the patriot act.

With the Bush administration's policy on enemy combatants, there wouldn't be any judicial review. All it takes is the determination by the President that you are an enemy combatant, and they cease to recognize that you have any rights.
Click to expand...

Under the "Law of Land Warfare" as taught to the US Army. Enemy combatants are NOT CRIMINALS nor are they US Citizens.

Bluntly, if they are criminals we have to hang them all. As enemy combatants we quite legally lock them up until the war is over and "Some authority having responsibility over them" surrenders. Then we send them home. Cross reference WWI and WWII. Now there are some questions.

Guy is technically a US Citizen, and is fighting against the US. Give him a fair court martial and hang, shoot or whatever him, in accordance with the LLW. Not a problem. But, the bloke claims he never wanted to be a US Citizen, it was a technicality and he was fighting against the US. The Bush administration determined he was an enemy combatant and we couldn't give him a fair trial and execute him, in the manner prescribed by law.

Looks to me like the Bush admin is bending over backwards to AVOID treating people like criminals.

Geoff
Who had nine years of required Law of Land Warefare courses. :cool:
 
Jeff Timm said:
Under the "Law of Land Warfare" as taught to the US Army. Enemy combatants are NOT CRIMINALS nor are they US Citizens.

Bluntly, if they are criminals we have to hang them all. As enemy combatants we quite legally lock them up until the war is over and "Some authority having responsibility over them" surrenders. Then we send them home. Cross reference WWI and WWII. Now there are some questions.

Guy is technically a US Citizen, and is fighting against the US. Give him a fair court martial and hang, shoot or whatever him, in accordance with the LLW. Not a problem. But, the bloke claims he never wanted to be a US Citizen, it was a technicality and he was fighting against the US. The Bush administration determined he was an enemy combatant and we couldn't give him a fair trial and execute him, in the manner prescribed by law.

Looks to me like the Bush admin is bending over backwards to AVOID treating people like criminals.

Geoff
Who had nine years of required Law of Land Warefare courses. :cool:
Click to expand...


Geoff,

I'm not familiar with this subject - but do the Law of Land Warfare rules requires to us be at war as defined by Article 1, Section of the US Constitution? My reading of it clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war, and unless I've missed something the last time this happened was December 11th, 1941.
 
Geoff,

According to the government, this "war" will be perpetual. I'll take the trial and sentence plz.
 
I believe he may be the younger brother of Rene Gonzalez who used to be a Superior Court judge in Anchorage, but I'm not sure beyond that. I know he's been at GW's right hand since his Texas days.
 
Let's stay on topic here, and not rehash Patriot and Ashcroft.

From law.com (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1059980468530):

Other disagreements between Ashcroft and Gonzales have been more about style -- particularly the White House's desire to control message -- than about substance.

For instance, an early source of contention between the White House counsel's office and the AG's staff was a letter sent from Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association reversing a Bill Clinton administration position on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. In response to an NRA inquiry, Ashcroft wrote that he believed the Constitution guarantees the individual right to own firearms, not solely the collective right to organize an armed militia.

White House lawyers say they did not object to Ashcroft's views so much as they resented the attorney general committing the administration to a legal position without seeking White House approval.
Click to expand...
 
wQuay said:
Geoff,

According to the government, this "war" will be perpetual. I'll take the trial and sentence plz.
Click to expand...

Dont you know? We have always been at war with Eurasia err ... Iraq.

Oh, this is the same guy who said that torture was sometimes okay. But hey, it's okay as long as we're only torturing foreigners right?
 
George Will thinks that Gonzales, like Souter, will quickly swing liberal.

What blow will befall conservatives next? Watch the Supreme Court, the composition of which matters more than does the composition of Congress.

Justice David Souter, nominated by the first President Bush, quickly became a reliable member of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc. Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who came with this President Bush from Texas, may be chosen to fill the next court vacancy. The likelihood of a vacancy during this presidency has given rise to a grim joke among conservatives:

How do you say “Souter†in Spanish? “Gonzales.â€
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38030-2003Jul23.html?nav=hptoc_eo via http://libertyblog.com/archives/week_2003_07_20.html
 
It seems that Bush has put someone in the AG office that doesn't start a firestorm on the left. Today he also started talking about legalizing the illegal immigrants. I'll consider his proposal legalization until I see a requirement to apply for "X" status from outside our borders and a definitive statement within the law that "X" status is not a path to a green card, or citizenship. So, it looks like Bush will make his move to the left early in this term, much like he kissed Teddy, the Senior Senator from the land of Kerry, early in his first term.

Get ready for Bush to be compassionate again and make the left happier.
 
There are enough Hispanic and black conservatives who are strict constructionists that W does not need to go appointing a very iffy candidate.
 
He was apparently one of the authors of the memo on prisoner "interrogation techniques" that is generally credited with having been a possible cause for the Abu Ghraib abuse situation. He is also apparently in favor of labeling American citizens as "enemy combatants" and locking them away for indefinite periods without benefit of or access to counsel.

Irrespective of his position on RKBA (if he has one), he does not sound like the guy I would like to see as AG.
 
Which is worse, this guy as a member of the Supreme Court or as AG?
I vote AG especially if he goes away at the end of W2.0.

What little shine there may have been on the re-election of W is quickly dimming IMO. Better than Kerry, no doubt, but it remains to be seen by how much.

S-
 
I poked around on the net and found a site entitled something like talkleft.com that stated it was thought that Gonzales would be more amenable to the Hispanic agenda like gun control. Now he didn't say this, but this site, so who knows who it is worth.

An NRA buddy says he is an unknown still on the issue.

I don't see him being a strong advocate but then again, we know Bush is not a proactive RKBA person. The prez probably didn't even consider the issue beyond the fact that he thought Gonzales might get the GOP an increasing number of Hispanic votes.
 
rick_reno said:
Geoff,

I'm not familiar with this subject - but do the Law of Land Warfare rules requires to us be at war as defined by Article 1, Section of the US Constitution? My reading of it clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war, and unless I've missed something the last time this happened was December 11th, 1941.
Click to expand...

No declaration required. The US always acts under the LLW.

Geoff
Who notes "war crimes" and the Law of Land Warfare gets tough on "out of uniform spies." Remember the classic picture from SVN of a General with a revolver blowing the brains out of a NVA officer? 1. You probably didn't know the criminal was a NVA Officer. 2. You probably didn't know he was out of uniform and murdering the families of South VN Army officers. That's right, women and children. The shooting was perfectly legal under LoLW.
 
Appointing Gonzales to AG and asking him to deal with the problem of mass border crossings by hoards of illegal Hispanics is the same as appointing the fox to guard the henhouse.

If he were a political refugee from Castro's Cuba I might be more inclined to believe he would act in the best interest of the U.S., such is not the case and as they say, "Blood is thicker than water"

BTW, the "WEST" is already lost and will not long remain a part of this country.
 
Jeff Timm said:
That's right, women and children. The shooting was perfectly legal under LoLW.
Click to expand...
Unless he was given a trial, that's incorrect.

LoLW Chpt 8, Sect 2
504. Other Types of War Crimes
In addition to the "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (" war crimes"):
l. Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top