Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary on Nomination Hearing for Confirmation of Alberto R Gonzalas to be Attorney General of the United States

Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary on Nomination Hearing for Confirmation of Alberto R Gonzalas to be Attorney General of the United States

PRESENTATION OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES, NOMINEE TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Chairman Specter, for convening today's hearing and congratulations on your chairmanship.

Chairman Specter. Thank you.

Senator Cornyn. I am pleased to be here today to introduce Judge Alberto Gonzales to this Committee. He is a talented
lawyer, a dutiful public servant, and a good man. He is a great Texan and an inspiring American success story, as you, Mr.
Chairman, have already alluded, and I am honored to call him my friend.

I should also mention that Senator Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, had wanted to be here today to express her
strong support for this nominee but is away due to a pre-existing commitment, and I would ask that her statement of
support be made part of the record.

Chairman Specter. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

Senator Cornyn. I have known Judge Gonzales for many years, and I can tell you that the media is absolutely right when they refer to him as the ``Man from Humble.'' For those of you who are not from Texas, let me explain. He grew up in Humble,
Texas, but it also, I think, attests to the fact that he is a modest, self-effacing man. The son of migrant workers, his
childhood home, where his mother still lives today, was built by his father and uncle. And as has already been stated, as a
young man, as a teenager, he sold soft drinks at Rice University football games and dreamed of one day when he might
possibly attend that great institution.

Judge Gonzales is the first person in his family to have gone to college. Because of the love and support of his family
and his work and determination, he graduated not just from Rice University but from Harvard University School of Law, and then joined a prestigious international law firm where he became one of its first minority partners. He eventually caught the eye of a Texas Governor who saw a uniquely talented, yet modest man, who then appointed him as his general counsel, his Secretary of State, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court, and then as White House Counsel.

Judge Gonzales is truly an inspiration to everyone who still believes in the American dream. And so his nomination as
the Nation's 80th Attorney General, our first Hispanic Attorney General, should by all accounts have a perfectly happy ending.
But that is not necessarily how Washington works. It appears that, at least in anticipation of today's hearing, we will see
once again that this confirmation process can be unnecessarily partisan, even cruel to some who selflessly offer themselves
for public service. I know we will get into the details, but let me just say that only in Washington can a good man get
raked over the coals for doing his job. This must all be a little disorienting for one whose very life story testifies to
the fact that America should always be a place where honesty, diligence, and determination are rewarded, not punished.

Take, for example, the harsh criticism about the Geneva Convention. Judge Gonzales has been harshly attacked for
advising the President that all detainees be treated humanely, but that as a legal mater al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not
covered by the Geneva Convention.

Now, I hate to ruin a good story by the President's political opponents who are attacking him through this nominee,
but let me just say there is one important point that needs to be made. Judge Gonzales is absolutely right. You do not have to
take my word for it. First of all, al Qaeda never signed the Geneva Conventions, but moreover, the Red Cross' own guidelines
state that to be entitled to Geneva protection as a prisoner of war, combatants must satisfy four conditions: being commanded
by a person responsible for his subordinates; secondly, having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; number
three, carrying arms openly; and, number four, conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Does anyone on this Committee, or anywhere else, for that matter, seriously argue that al Qaeda terrorists comply with
the law of war?

By the way, it is important to note that Judge Gonzales' legal advice has also been affirmed by three Federal courts
throughout this country and has also been endorsed by numerous legal scholars and international legal experts across the
political spectrum, as well as both the 9/11 Commission, by the way; the final Schlesinger report, an independent report on DOD detention operations; and a brief filed recently in the United States Supreme Court by former Carter administration officials, State Department legal advisers, judge advocates and military commanders, and liberal international law scholars, who concluded that ``[t]he President's conclusion that members of al Qaeda, and the Taliban, are unlawful combatants'' is clearly correct. Even Washington advocacy director for the Human Rights Watch, Tom Malinowski, a vocal Bush administration critic, has grudgingly conceded that the administration's interpretation was ``probably correct.''

Now, the administration's Geneva position is not just right as a legal matter. It is also essential as a matter of national
security.

I recently published an op-ed that explained that Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda would threaten the security
of our soldiers, dramatically disable us from obtaining the intelligence needed to prevent further attacks on U.S.
civilians and soldiers, and badly undermine international law itself, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that that be made a part
of the record.

Chairman Specter. Without objection it will be made part of the record.

Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much.

Just take a look at all the numerous privileges provided by the Geneva Convention for traditional prisoners of war. For
example, questioners could not entice detainees to answer questions by offering them creature comforts or even
preferential treatment, even though that is the standard operating procedure in police stations throughout the United
States. Because the Convention prohibits the holding of detainees in isolation, al Qaeda fighters would be able to
coordinate with each other in a way that would thwart or could thwart effective questioning. POW status, even confers broad
combat immunity against current criminal prosecution before civilian and military tribunals alike.

Mr. Chairman, surely, no member of the Committee or anyone else on our side of this conflict actually believes that an al
Qaeda terrorist deserves to be treated better than an American citizen accused of a crime. I certainly would not think so.
President Reagan did not think so, neither did each of his successors in office. Nearly two decades ago President Reagan
and every President since that time has rejected a proposed amendment to the Geneva Convention known as Protocol 1 of 1977 to extend that Convention to protect terrorists. As President Reagan rightly argued we must not and need not give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law. Notably even the New York Times and Washington Post agreed at the time.

All of this support from multiple Federal courts, from the 9/11 Commission, the Schlesinger Report, liberal international
legal scholars, Carter administration officials, even the New York Times and Washington Post, yet Judge Gonzales is
criticized for taking exactly that same position.

Take one more issue, the Justice Department memos that have been alluded to here construing the Federal torture statute.
Judge Gonzales is being attacked for a memo he did not write, interpreting the law that he did not draft. It was Congress,
not Judge Gonzales, that enacted a strict definition of torture. It was Congress, not Judge Gonzales, that specifically
provided that only specific intent to inflict severe pain or mental pain or suffering would constitute torture.

As I said, President Bush and Judge Gonzales have both unequivocally, clearly and repeatedly rejected the use of
torture. But is there anyone here today who would fail to use every legal means to collect intelligence from terrorists in
order to protect American lives? I certainly hope not.

Finally, I know we are going to hear some about Abu Ghraib today, we already have, and I think it is safe to say that
everyone agrees that Abu Ghraib represents a shameful episode in this Nation's history, yet some people actually want to
exploit that tragedy for their own purposes. Abu Ghraib should be treated seriously, not politically. The Defense Department
has been vigorously investigating the misconduct and prosecuting the violators. The independent Schlesinger Report
that I alluded to earlier, concluded that, ``No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in
fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities.'' So
if there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Gonzales was any way responsible for the criminal acts that occurred at Abu
Ghraib by a few, why are we talking about this in Judge Gonzales' confirmation hearing? This after all is a confirmation hearing to head the Department of Justice, not an oversight hearing of the Department of Defense.

In conclusion, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I am proud of my friend, Judge Alberto Gonzales. He is the source of
great inspiration and pride to his family and his friends, and all of us who call the great State of Texas home. Time and time
again Judge Gonzales has done his duty on the war on terrorism. It disheartens me to see him held up to ridicule, distortions
and outright lies for being the patriot that he is.

So, Mr. Chairman, let me say to you and my colleagues, let us confirm this good man from Humble. Thank you very much.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=99932.wais