Section of Boxer/Rice Transcript
Democrats Flash Steel on Gonzales
Amnesty International Open Letter to Gonzales
I listened to Alberto Gonzales go before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing last week. You remember him, right? The Architect of Abu Ghraib? The man who told the President that the Geneva Convention is "quaint" and "outdated?" The man who engineered the legal policies that have kept prisoners in Guantanamo Bay without lawyers or access to the outside world for years now? The one Bush is appointing to head the Justice Department as Attorney General, meaning he will determine which cases the federal government prosecutes and how it goes about prosecuting them? Yeah, that Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales' utter failure to be candid with the Committee and American people was appalling. I don't think I actually heard Alberto make a statement during the whole six- hour affair. When questioned about the Justice Department's stance towards torture, Gonzales couldn't recall several key facts, such as the exact circumstances surrounding the origin of the torture memos his office issued. When pressed, he said he didn't want to be argumentative. Though he pointed out that the memos in question have been rescinded (only after about two years during which they served as policy), he would not and did not disavow on behalf of himself, his office, or the President the view that interrogation methods become "torture" only in the event of organ failure or death. This is a definition that would actually exonerate Sadam and most of his men from charges of technical "torture!" His most often repeated phrase was "I will commit to you that I will look into that, Senator."
In spite of ongoing investigations attempting to determine whether Abu Ghraib torturers were operating under orders from higher up the chain of command, Gonzales maintained definitively, "This was simply people who were morally bankrupt having fun. And I condemn that." When asked whether he thought that anyone above the level of the guards might have condoned the torture or be held accountable for it, Gonzales responded only that "there was a failure," both in discipline and training, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that a United States officer had actually ordered torture. In regards to the actual abuses themselves, he said "I obviously don't want to provide any kind of legal opinion as to whether or not that conduct might be criminal." "That conduct" has convinced a large portion of the Middle East that America employs the same policies as the dictator we have oh-so-righteously overthrown, but do you think that Gonzales will be vigorously pursuing the three continuing investigations of command personnel if he won't even state that the behavior in question was criminal?
Links to information on Gonzales (transcripts, audio recordings, digital copies of the memos in question) are available at the new InfoDump section at the top of my website, http://www.i-55.com/~q. Write to saucefiller@gmail.com if you have something to say.
An Open Letter in Response to an Unidentified Reader
I received this from a reader who used a temporary Hotmail account and refused to identify (him/her)self. Whoever you are, I do hope you find this. I make it a policy to respond to reader mail whenever possible.
> I found the article you worte in the last issue of the Sauce to be very > professional and informative, keep up the good work, it was far more > appropriate than the usual shit you submit.
I appreciate the part of your compliment that's not backhanded, You're probably referring to the fact that I pretty much did nothing but write articles about how badly Bush was fucking up last semester. I felt it was necessary, and I'll probably be devoting a good 150 words of my coming columns to the Bush administration's maneuverings. Deal with it. If you're a fan, defend his actions. Otherwise, kindly fuck off.
> I checked your website Q's general page of crpa, I believe it says on the > browser search result, my what maturity,
Actually, when that website was still called "Q's Page of General Crap," I was about 13. Your search results are out of date. Mostly I use that site as a way to dump huge files to people who can't access my FTP server. It worked for the letter to Mr. Hargis, too.
> and read a somewhat well composed > piece of treatical antipathy.
You seem to have researched my little endeavor. Did I piss you off that badly? Are you Thomas Hargis? You sound like you've been to thesaurus.com, whoever you are. Is "treatical" actually a word?
> My how condemnatory you are of the right,
Kindly point to a single condemnation of the right in that letter. Regardless, if I approved of the right, I wouldn't be writing about the way they're screwing up America, would I?
> I > personally know Mr. Hargis and he is a very well informed and studious > individual, although not the sharpest tack on the board.
Mr. Hargis has told me he doesn't take his position on the Sauce staff very seriously, and I must admit I don't always do top-notch work for the paper either. I've spoken with him on occasion (we were in a class together, where, yes, he dutifully called out the occasional correct answer), but I'm speaking in response to his column in my letter. I never once called him stupid, though I did say he presents the image of "stupid conservative" when he's so careless with the simple structure of English. As to well-informed, he certainly doesn't show it in his column.
> I wonder what you > are like then, Mr. "Q"? Where exactly is that name from, by the way, Star > fucking Trek?
It's an abbreviation of I.Q., if you must know. I picked it up while my parents still made me attend church youth group functions.
> Anyhaps, Mr. Hargis has learned a significant amount of the > U. S. government's plan for the life of our soldiers because his wife is an > active enlisted person in the United States Army.
"The U. S. government's plan for the life of our soldiers?" What are you talking about? Uncle Sam ain't god, bucko.
> Did life as a military brat disillusion you?
I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. I missed my father when he was gone for long periods of time, and I'm proud of his service blah blah blah, but disillusioned? You'll have to clarify yourself.
> The last two paragraphs of your well named "Page of crap" were indeed > fitting to the moniker. Iconography is a sociological phenomenon to spur > nationalism among any group, and forgive the majority of the populace for > not having the intelligence to coneive of the abstractual subliminal margin > that is being used to influence their motivation.
This is the point at which I begin to suspect that this is being written by Jason Cole; you use his same style of sociological babble. And if you're not him, you really ought to meet him. Even he avoids made-up pseduointellectual words like "abstractual," though. Regardless, I think it's important for people to realize what "abstractual subliminal margin[s]" (whatever the fuck THAT term means) are being brought to bear upon their sensibilities. Misrepresentation to the American people by their governors is a disservice to the country and akin to treason. Democracy functions by the will of the people, which must be properly informed to be effective. Bush is violating that. he stacked his "economics conference" with delegates who already agree with what he has to say so that a year from now when he passes the tax and drug bills that fuck us all, he can say, "Well, I held a meeting, and everyone agreed with me, so I can't really be blamed!"
> The United States has a > long standing tradition of such "iconography," did you ever elicit the momentous heart wrenching > pictorials of the burning flag over the U.S.S. Arizona to urge us to > "remember December 7"? This is identical propaganda to the memories of the > thousands of lives lost in the attack on the World Trade Center towers and > the Pentagon, not to mention the lost flight that crash landed thanks to the > sacrifice of Americans on board in their effort to thwart terrorism.
Spare me your bleeding heart and your bullshit analogies. We were not attacked by a nation allied with other nations for the purpose of "taking over the world" on 9/11; it was a very different affair from Pearl Harbor, and even you should understand that. Al Qaeda has no recognized political base, no seat on the U.N. to censure prettily in public. As we are constantly being told, "this is a different kind of war." So in a fit of rage, we kick Sadam Hussein in the crotch and stand around going, "Yay! We win!" while half of Iraq is still fucking killing us. Bush declared "mission accomplished" nearly a YEAR ago!
The "war on terror" is just as effective a political tool as the "war on poverty," the "war on drugs," or any of the other "wars" we've popularized as a way to make people feel safe in an unsafe world. Bush and Kerry both promised on the campaign trail to inspect every last one of the millions upon millions of shipping containers that move through U.S. ports, a task that is plainly impossible, even given a quadrupling of customs staff (current estimates say we inspect about 3% of incoming containers). These wars are ineffectual ruses designed to justify broadly written bills that may be used to defend all manner of behavior and expenditure. This is not the same as an actual war.
> And > yet you spit on the universal emblem meant to rally our support in unifying > a populace
Hold the phone, boy-o. A surveillance society is the ultimate inversion of American freedom. I spit on those seeking their own agenda under the guise of "unity."
> with a leader who was only granted the election after a bitter > defeated lame duck from the exiting party put up a pointless and demeaning > effort to withhold onto a prestigious post.
"Withhold onto?" Anyway, I fear that Gore's actions, commonly interpreted as a "hissy fit," may have made it simpler for the Republicans to get away with illicit tactics this election cycle. There are many places, including, I believe, seven of the "batleground states," where lawsuits are still pending concerning countless irregularities.
> Hello, the president does not > declare war,
The president has the authority to initiate military action without Congress's authorization. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII, you dolt.
> Congress does- and are we at "war" with Iraq, or is this not > another one of those stupid efforts by liberals such as that dumbshit Ted > Turner to support the UN in a "peace action"? No, of course not, the United > Nations does not give a goddamn about oppressed people.
And America does, which is why Darfur is in such nice shape now. Jesus, you attack the left and then get all high and mighty about "oppressed peoples?" How do you live with such doublethink in your head?
> Shall I remind you of the wonderful foreign policy of Bill Clinton, a man I > am sure you model your life after. He instigated a futile "rules of > engagement" policy that not only hindered the efforts of U.S. troops to > prevent famine and bloodshed caused by Somalian warlord overrunning the > country but it also resulted in the unnecessary loss of lives of 19 U.S. > marines in Mogadishu in 1994.
I saw that movie too, and I don't think that the 19 lives lost in Mogadishu weigh very heavily against the more than 1,000 already lost in Iraq. You know, most media outlets are under standing orders not to report civilian casualties in Iraq. Just a thought.
> In 1992 President Bush (the first) placed > these soldiers there as he did in the illegal invasion of Kuwait by that > hideous bastard Saddam Hussein
"Hideous bastard?" Jesus. "Saddam Hussein" has an even better ring to it than "Emmanuel Goldstein," don't you think?
> in order to overrun the illicit oppression > there. Good ol Slick Willy got our guys killed and bungled the mess so we > could "play nice," just as he did with that half ass Operation Desert Fox > crap (oh yeah, Clinton invaded Iraq too dipshit) by not letting weapons > inspectors do anything Hussein objected too.
I never said I agreed with Clinton, you know. I'm registered independent, and I think the Democrats are evil too. I just think the Republicans in office right now are moreso. In reagrds to what you're talking about, I must once again remind you that Bush's fuckup is on a scale orders of magnitude beyond a simple Somalia.
> Or how about Clintons > placement of Jean-Betrand Aristside into Haiti as president in 1994, with a > full blown U.S. marine escort in Port-eu-Prince, I see the necessity to lose > lives over that fiasco. Not only that, but the ultimate slap in the face > was when Aristide turned genocidal and extorted the Haitians, and had not > for Bush's intervention earlier this year that monster would still be > oppressing his people. Loser. But I'm sure Michael Moore's bullshit > documentary is probably sitting proudly on your shelf.
Moore is an idiot who only does the left harm by inflaming morons like you with the same kinds of lies the people you admire feed you successfully every day, you blind sheep. And once again, in mathematical notation this time, Haiti(1994) < Iraq(2004). And wasn't it the Republicans at the time who were screaming about the U.S. being the "world police?"
> Hargis is not that interesting or influential, and he really needs to calm > the fuck down. But until idiots like Chris BIllioux or Chad Vicknair or > that fuck up Justin Shatwell who got a GODDAMN COLUMN stop receiving the > monopoly of coverage in the editor's page, that's the only dissenting voice > we have.
Hey, YOU write a column, or a letter, or something. I don't really like Justin's column (he's waaaay too typically whiny liberal for me), but at least he has the guts to say something every week in a public forum where dicks like you can take potshots at it. I got up on my soapbox because no one else would; the Sauce put out a call for columnists and I answered. So submit a writing sample, ask for your own column, and write it, and mean it, and I'll be there every week to tell you when you're right and why you're wrong. Until then, quit fucking whining. You don't even have the balls to identify yourself or read my reply.
> This is a college opinions page, not the fucking Washington Post.
I'm passionate about my country. Sue me.
> You embody the loud mouthed charlatanism of all immature inexperienced > spoiled pricks at so called "honor" schools.
You sound jealous, both of what you perceive as my "special status" (I assure you it just means I have to work harder) and of my screaming space. Sorry.
> Stick with something objective like economical policy, something your biased > internet sites might actually provide valid data for worth reading.
The only sites I read biased enough to outright lie end in .gov
> Until then, eat me.
Not until I know where you've been.
> And little Jimmy Brown, don't bother responding, this e-mail > address won't exist after this is sent off.
That's why this is going up on my website.
> Have fun with your free > bullshit g-mail crap you obviously learned about from your dorky friends, > cock smoker.
> - La Sieur La Salle Marie Aurie
Well, yeah, G-Mail is in beta at the moment and you do have to be invited by a current member. If you'd like to join, I'll send you an invite. Have to tell me your real e-mail address first though; otherwise I wouldn't know where to send the invitation.
Thanks for reading!
J. Aaron "Q" Brown
saucefiller@gmail.com
Addendum: Jason Cole and Thomas Hargis have both let me know that they are not the author of this e-mail and would speak to me with name unashamedly attached if they had something to say.
The first thing I'd like to address is your weak attempt to make your insults sound somehow professional. I imagine your spouse understands lots of things "the Filler column wouldn't understand." My column is, after all, a collection of words. When you feel the need to address me, Mr. Hargis, I invite you to address me. Sentences like "The Filler only showed its ignorance last week" really aren't necessary.
The second thing I want to talk about is your equation of the American flag with American soldiers. I find that frankly rather alarming. Though I'm quite aware that force has played an important role in establishing the freedoms for which our flag stands, I certainly don't consider the spirit of America to be one of war, and I would consider it antithetical to unthinking obedience. Though I admire your spouse's dedication and appreciate her efforts, I frankly don't have the self-restraint to follow the orders of an idiot just because he's the Head Idiot. I'd also remind you that her dedication is not yours. My father has spent most of his life in government, from a 20-year career in the Air Force to his current position with U. S. Customs. I take no credit for that. That is my father's achievement.
Further, I am not "a person who 'claims' to be a Louisiana 'Scholars' College student," I am in fact a Scholar. That has been part of my column's epigraph for the year I have been writing for the Sauce, just as yours has included for the last two months the fact that your major is "general studies." Mine will now change.
I began writing for the Sauce because the Sauce needed writers and I had complaining to do, not because I wanted to express what Scholars' students are like to the university at large. I assure you, the Scholars' College contains a plurality of opinions just as the general college, nursing college, and college of business do, though I cannot deny that my classmates are generally more interested in the issues of government than cultural iconography and therefore often lean to the left as far as political matters go.
I do not speak for them. No matter how many of my fellow Scholars' students agree with what I have to say, I speak for myself alone. I point my readers to the facts, and I tell them what the facts indicate to me. You have provided almost nothing beyond rhetoric. Patriotism doesn't mean thinking your country is always right, and your cutesy "liberal rehab" rants and the like are weak, poorly written propaganda.
Mr. Hargis, NSU is an institution of education. If there's a column in this paper that embarrasses the university, it's yours. I'm frankly surprised that the editorial staff doesn't fix more of the grammatical mistakes you make. If liberals think conservatives are stupid, it's thanks to conservatives like you.
Before you next drape yourself in the flag, take a good look at what you have supported in the throes of blind partisanship, and tell me why you think the corporate tax bill Bush signed into law immediately before the election and the Republican plan to increase the amount of money the federal government may borrow are a good idea.
Sincerely,
J. Aaron "Q" Brown
saucefiller@gmail.com