Torture This

Ultimately, it won't stop his confirmation, but Alberto Gonzales, Dubya's pick for Attorney General, is sure to face hard questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee starting today about his role in the Bush Administration's acceptance of torture in the war on terrah (read: terror). Both The Washington Post and New York Times explore Gonzales' hands-on involvement in shaping the White House's do-as-I-say-not-as-I do policy.

Geneva Convention? We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Convention! Apparently some Department of Justice folks are diming out Gonzales on his direct role in urging the infamous Aug. 1, 2002, DOJ memo that gave the green light to torturing detainees.

The Washington Post reports that Gonzales worked closely with a core group of legal officials -- particularly Vice President Cheney's legal counsel, David Addington -- in easing restrictions on U.S. interrogation techniques.

"His former colleagues say that throughout this period, Gonzales ... often repeated a phrase used by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to spur tougher anti-terrorism policies: 'Are we being forward-leaning enough?'

"On at least two of the most controversial policies endorsed by Gonzales, officials familiar with the events say the impetus for action came from Addington -- another reflection of Cheney's outsize influence with the president and the rest of the government. Addington, universally described as outspokenly conservative, interviewed candidates for appointment as Gonzales's deputy, spoke at Gonzales's morning meetings and, in at least one instance, drafted an early version of a legal memorandum circulated to other departments in Gonzales's name, several sources said.

"Conceding that such ghostwriting might seem irregular, even though Gonzales was aware of it, one former White House official said it was simply 'evidence of the closeness of the relationship' between the two men. But another official familiar with the administration's legal policymaking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity ... said that Gonzales often acquiesced in policymaking by others.

"This might not be the best quality for an official nominated to be attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement job, the administration official said. He added that he thinks Gonzales learned from mistakes during Bush's first term."

That said, some of the so-called indicators of Gonzales' participation in the what's-a-little-torture-hurt memos are awfully precarious. The Times, for instance, seems to make a bit of a stretch:

"While the nature of Mr. Gonzales's specific discussions with the Justice Department remains unclear, administration officials said that Mr. Gonzales's customary way of dealing with Justice Department lawyers was to pose questions about issues rather than offer his own conclusions, although one said his preferences could sometimes be inferred easily from his questions."

We're not willing to lay all the blame with Gonzales for the administration's curious view of appropriate questioning techniques. But we do think he should be called upon to fully explain whether he believes such liberal (now that's a word you don't see embraced much in the White House) interpretations of tortue and international law fostered the sort of environment that resulted in the truly nauseating atrocities of Abu Ghraib.

We do have one suggestion for Senate Judiciary: Since Alberto Gonzales apparently does have such a permissive view of what is and isn't acceptable interrogation, maybe Democratic senators could get a little creative in their questioning. Surely the White House would concede that the selection of Attorney General is a matter that impacts national security.