Youtube results:
All That Remains Indictment Lyrics
All That Remains Indictment Lyrics Eyes fill with hatred
When they fall upon me
You worship gods of violence and bigotry
Forgetting lessons learned that prove these
The wrong ideals
Don't let me follow in the footsteps
I won't embrace these wrong ideals
This thirst for violence, donmination
It only serves your wrong beliefs
This is my indictment of your beliefs
This is my indictment of what you hold dear
Your evil consumes you
A jealous few incite ignorant followers
Invoke the name and watch the masses turn on us
For fear that I embody what you fear
This is my indictment of your beliefs
This is my indictment of what you hold dear
My eyes have seen the horrors that you
Commit in the name of your god
Your god is violence, Your god is unholy
Eyes fill with hatred when they fall upon me
Invoke the name and watch the masses turn on us
For fear that I embody what you fear
I just wrote the dumbest song.
It's gonna be a sing along.
All our friends will clap and sing.
Our enemies will laugh and be pointing.
It won't bother me, what the thoughtless are thinking.
I am more concerned with what we're drinking.
They'll laugh about it at the warehouse,
saying I'm so lame. It wrote itself,
you can keep the blame.
It'll be a happy song, not unlike some other ones.
While everyone's depressed and broke,
I get high off your sick jokes.
They're colossal.
They're tousling all the worried hair. Stay up there.
So crazy it just might work.
Then we'll quit our jobs.
We could be the next group that you rob.
There are times for being dumb.
This must be one of them.
I'd like to know what's so wrong,
with a stupid happy song?
It says many things in its nothingness.
It gives me space to think, I guess.
To think less. And less.
Moving units and tracking charts.
Will they ever learn?
It isn't who you know, it's who you burn.
It means nothing. Selling kids to other kids.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009) |
An indictment ( /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt), in the common-law, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment.
In most common-law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. The right of one accused of a felony or serious crime to have the charges reviewed for probable cause by a grand jury before being tried by a petit jury, except for certain cases tried in courts-martial, is secured by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but this has been abolished in most parts of the world.
Contents |
In Brazil, an indictment (called denúncia) is issued by the public prosecutor, a member of the Public Ministry, and it is the document that starts the criminal prosecution.
The denúncia for most offenses is exclusively issued by the public prosecutor. However, some offenses (like rape or threatening) require the victim to sign a permission (called representação) in order to allow the prosecutor to file the indictment.
The indictment for lesser offenses (notably those against the victim's honor, such as defamation or calumny) can be filed only by the victims themselves (represented by a lawyer), in which case it is called queixa-crime.
In France, an indictment is issued by the "juge d'instruction".
The criminal law in India is derived from the colonial-era British system and is codified in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In India criminal offenses are divided into two broad categories. Cognizable offenses and Non-cognizable offenses. The police is empowered to start investigating a cognizable offense. At that stage, the complaint is considered merely an accusation. However, in both cognizable and non-cognizable offenses, the trial starts only with the "Framing of Charges" which is similar to the concept of indictment. The trial court does not proceed with the trial if the evidence is insufficient to make out a charge.
Tunisia, a former French colony, is still following the feudal French judiciary system since independence in 1956, even though it is now conducted in Arabic.
In England and Wales (except in private prosecutions by individuals) an indictment is issued by the public prosecutor (in most cases this will be the Crown Prosecution Service) on behalf of the Crown, i.e. the Monarch, who is the nominal plaintiff in all public prosecutions under English law.
This is why a public prosecution of a person whose surname is Smith would be referred to in writing as "R v Smith" (or alternatively as "Regina v Smith" or "Rex v Smith" depending on the gender of the Sovereign reigning at the time of the case, Regina and Rex being Latin for "Queen" and "King" respectively) (and in either case may informally be pronounced as such) and when cited orally in court would be pronounced "the Queen against Smith" or "the King against Smith" (again depending on the gender of the reigning Sovereign).[1]
All proceedings on indictment must be brought before the Crown Court.[2] By virtue of practice directions issued under section 75(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, an indictment must be tried by a High Court judge, a Circuit judge or a recorder (which of these it is depends on the offence).
As to the form of an indictment, see the Indictments Act 1915 and the Indictment Rules 1971 made thereunder.
As to the preferring of a bill of indictment and the signing of an indictment, see section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (S.I. 1971/2084) made thereunder, as amended and modified by the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1988 (S.I. 1988/1783), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1992 (S.I. 1992/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1997 (S.I. 1997/711), the Indictments (Procedure) (Modification) Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3045) and the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000/3360).
See the Indictments Act (Northern Ireland) 1945.
In Scotland, all of these cases brought in the High Court of Justiciary are brought in the name of the Lord Advocate and will be tried on Indictment. In the Sheriff Court where trials proceed using the Solemn procedure they will also be tried on indictment and are brought in the name of the Procurator Fiscal.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger".
In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment. To protect the suspect's due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect's interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial.
The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of where, when, and how the defendant allegedly committed the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate count. Some indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, can run to hundreds of pages; but many an indictment, including one for a crime as serious as murder, consists of a single sheet of paper.
Indictable offenses are normally tried by jury, unless the accused waives the right to a jury trial. Although the Sixth Amendment mandates the right to a jury trial in any criminal prosecution, the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by the plea-bargaining process.
A direct indictment is one in which the case is sent directly to trial before a preliminary inquiry is completed or when the accused has been discharged by a preliminary inquiry.[3][4] It is meant to be an extraordinary, rarely used power to ensure that those who should be brought to trial are in a timely manner or where an error of judgment is seen to have been made in the preliminary inquiry.[5]
An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.
Look up indictment in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
|
Paul Washer | |
---|---|
Nationality | American |
Education | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary |
Occupation | Founder/Director, Missions Coordinator, Pastor |
Religion | Christian (Calvinistic Baptist) |
Spouse | Charo Washer |
Paul David Washer (born 1961) is the Founder/Director & Missions Coordinator of HeartCry Missionary Society which supports indigenous missionary work.[1] He is also a Southern Baptist itinerant preacher. Washer's sermons tend to have an evangelistic focus on the gospel and the doctrine of the assurance of salvation, and he frequently speaks against practices such as the sinner's prayer, and a focus on numerical church growth.
Contents |
Washer had a born again experience while studying to become an oil and gas lawyer at the University of Texas. Upon graduation, he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and achieved a Master of Divinity degree. He then moved to Peru to become a missionary for 10 years, after which he returned to the United States. Washer resides in Radford, Virginia,[2] where he lives with his wife and three children.
Washer's sermons often focus on the character of Christ and how a person is saved from hell. According to Washer, a person is saved through faith alone, but the evidence of a person's repentance is by walking with Jesus. Washer claims that most people who profess a belief in Christianity aren't truly saved. Washer blames preachers, as he claims many preachers often say a person is saved without looking for evidence of repentance in that person's life.
Washer cites Thomas Watson, R.C. Sproul, John F. MacArthur, George Muller, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Leonard Ravenhill, John Wesley, A.W. Tozer and Martyn Lloyd-Jones among others, as influences.[3] He has frequently appeared on Christian radio to discuss how people are saved.[4]
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Washer, Paul |
Alternative names | |
Short description | American clergyman |
Date of birth | 1961 |
Place of birth | |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
Dick Cheney | |
---|---|
46th Vice President of the United States | |
In office January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 |
|
President | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | Al Gore |
Succeeded by | Joe Biden |
17th United States Secretary of Defense | |
In office March 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993 |
|
President | George H. W. Bush |
Deputy | Donald J. Atwood, Jr. |
Preceded by | Frank Carlucci |
Succeeded by | Les Aspin |
15th House Minority Whip | |
In office January 3, 1989 – March 20, 1989 |
|
Leader | Robert H. Michel |
Preceded by | Trent Lott |
Succeeded by | Newt Gingrich |
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming's At-large district |
|
In office January 3, 1979 – March 20, 1989 |
|
Preceded by | Teno Roncalio |
Succeeded by | Craig L. Thomas |
7th White House Chief of Staff | |
In office November 21, 1975 – January 20, 1977 |
|
President | Gerald Ford |
Preceded by | Donald Rumsfeld |
Succeeded by | Hamilton Jordan |
Personal details | |
Born | Richard Bruce Cheney (1941-01-30) January 30, 1941 (age 71) Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S. |
Political party | Republican |
Spouse(s) | Lynne Cheney (m. 1964–present) |
Children | Elizabeth Cheney Mary Cheney |
Residence | McLean, Virginia Jackson, Wyoming |
Alma mater | Yale University University of Wyoming (BA, MA) University of Wisconsin-Madison |
Profession | Politician Businessman |
Religion | Methodist |
Signature |
Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney[1] (born January 30, 1941) served as the 46th Vice President of the United States (2001–2009), under George W. Bush.
Born in Lincoln, Nebraska, Cheney was primarily raised in Sumner, Nebraska, and Casper, Wyoming.[2] He began his political career as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger, eventually working his way into the White House during the Nixon and Ford administrations, where he served the latter as White House Chief of Staff. In 1978, Cheney was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming; he was reelected five times, eventually becoming House Minority Whip. Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions.
Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.
Contents |
Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, the son of Marjorie Lorraine (née Dickey) and Richard Herbert Cheney. He is of predominantly English, as well as Welsh, Irish, and French Huguenot, ancestry; Cheney's 8th great-grandfather, William Cheney, immigrated from England to Massachusetts in the 17th century.[3][4][5] Although not a direct descendant, he is collaterally related to Benjamin Pierce Cheney (1815–1895), the early American expressman. Cheney is a very distant cousin of both Harry S. Truman and Barack Obama; the three share a common ancestor in Mareen Duvall, a Huguenot who fled from France to England in the 17th century and later settled in Maryland.[6] His father was a soil conservation agent for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his mother was a softball star in the 1930s;[7] Cheney was one of three children.
He attended Calvert Elementary School[8][9] before his family moved to Casper, Wyoming,[10] where he attended Natrona County High School.
He attended Yale University, but by his own account had problems adjusting to the college, and flunked out twice.[11] Among the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom Cheney repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his approach to foreign policy.[12] He later attended the University of Wyoming, where he earned both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in political science. He subsequently started, but did not finish, doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[13]
In November 1962, at the age of 21, Cheney was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI). He was arrested for DWI again the following year.[14] Cheney said that the arrests made him "think about where I was and where I was headed. I was headed down a bad road if I continued on that course."[15]
In 1964, he married Lynne Vincent, his high school sweetheart, whom he had met at age 14.
When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments.[16][17] In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."[18] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub-par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.[19]
Cheney's political career began in 1969, as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger during the Richard Nixon Administration. He then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70.[14] He held several positions in the years that followed: White House Staff Assistant in 1971, Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971–73, and Deputy Assistant to the president from 1974–1975. As deputy assistant, Cheney suggested several options in a memo to Rumsfeld, including use of the US Justice Department, that the Ford administration could use to limit damage from an article, published by The New York Times, in which investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported that Navy submarines had tapped into Soviet undersea communications as part of a highly classified program, Operation Ivy Bells.[20][21]
Cheney was Assistant to the President under Gerald Ford. When Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, Cheney became White House Chief of Staff, succeeding Rumsfeld.[14] He later was campaign manager for Ford's 1976 presidential campaign.[22]
In 1978, Cheney was elected to represent Wyoming in the U.S. House of Representatives and succeed retiring Congressman Teno Roncalio, having defeated his Democratic opponent, Bill Bailey. Cheney was re-elected five times, serving until 1989.
In 1987, he was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference. The following year, he was elected House Minority Whip.[23][23] He served for two and a half months before he was appointed Secretary of Defense instead of former U.S. Senator John G. Tower, whose nomination had been rejected by the U.S. Senate in March 1989.[24]
He voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, citing his concern over budget deficits and expansion of the federal government, and claiming that the Department was an encroachment on states' rights.[25] He voted against funding Head Start, but reversed his position in 2000.[26]
Cheney supported Bob Michel’s (R-IL) bid to become Republican Minority Leader.[27] In April 1980, Cheney endorsed Governor Ronald Reagan for President, becoming one of Reagan's earliest supporters.[28]
In 1986, after President Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill to impose economic sanctions on South Africa for its policy of apartheid, Cheney was one of 83 Representatives to vote against overriding Reagan's veto.[29] In later years, he articulated his opposition to unilateral sanctions against many different countries, stating "they almost never work"[30] and that in that case they might have ended up hurting the people instead.[31]
In 1986, Cheney, along with 145 Republicans and 31 Democrats, voted against a non-binding Congressional resolution calling on the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison, after the Democrats defeated proposed amendments that would have required Mandela to renounce violence sponsored by the African National Congress (ANC) and requiring it to oust the communist faction from its leadership; the resolution was defeated. Appearing on CNN, Cheney addressed criticism for this, saying he opposed the resolution because the ANC "at the time was viewed as a terrorist organization and had a number of interests that were fundamentally inimical to the United States."[32]
The federal building in Casper, a regional center of the fossil fuel industry, is named the Dick Cheney Federal Building.[33]
Originally declining, U.S. Congressman Barber Conable persuaded Cheney to join the moderate Republican Wednesday Group in order to move up the leadership ranks. He was elected Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. Cheney was the Ranking Member of the Select Committee to investigate the Iran-Contra Affair.[14][34][35] He promoted Wyoming's petroleum and coal businesses as well,[36]
President George H. W. Bush nominated Cheney for the office of Secretary of Defense immediately after the U.S. Senate failed to confirm John Tower for that position.[37] The senate confirmed Cheney by a vote of 92 to 0[37] and he served in that office from March 1989 to January 1993. He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. In 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush.[23]
Cheney worked closely with Pete Williams, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, from the beginning of his tenure. He focused primarily on external matters, and left most internal Pentagon management to Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood, Jr.[24]
Cheney's most immediate issue as Secretary of Defense was the Department of Defense budget. Cheney deemed it appropriate to cut the budget and downsize the military, following President Ronald Reagan's peacetime defense buildup at the height of the Cold War.[38] As part of the fiscal year 1990 budget, Cheney assessed the requests from each of the branches of the armed services for such expensive programs as the B-2 stealth bomber, the V-22 Osprey tilt-wing helicopter, the Aegis destroyer and the MX missile, totaling approximately $4.5 billion in light of changed world politics.[24] Cheney opposed the V-22 program, which Congress had already appropriated funds for, and initially refused to issue contracts for it before relenting.[39] When the 1990 Budget came before Congress in the summer of 1989, it settled on a figure between the Administration's request and the House Armed Services Committee's recommendation.[24] In subsequent years under Cheney, the proposed and adopted budgets followed patterns similar to that of 1990. Early in 1991, he unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared with 2.2 million when he entered office. Cheney's 1993 defense budget was reduced from 1992, omitting programs that Congress had directed the Department of Defense to buy weapons that it did not want, and omitting unrequested reserve forces.[24]
Over his four years as Secretary of Defense, Cheney downsized the military and his budgets showed negative real growth, despite pressures to acquire weapon systems advocated by Congress. The Department of Defense's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291 billion to $270 billion. Total military personnel strength decreased by 19 percent, from about 2.2 million in 1989 to about 1.8 million in 1993.[24] Notwithstanding the overall reduction in military spending, Cheney directed the development of a Pentagon plan to ensure U.S. military dominance in the post-Cold War era.[40]
Cheney publicly expressed concern that nations such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, could acquire nuclear components after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The end of the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact obliged the first Bush Administration to reevaluate the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) purpose and makeup. Cheney believed that NATO should remain the foundation of European security relationships and that it would remain important to the United States in the long term; he urged the alliance to lend more assistance to the new democracies in Eastern Europe.[24]
Cheney's views on NATO reflected his skepticism about prospects for peaceful social development in the former Eastern Bloc countries, where he saw a high potential for political uncertainty and instability. He felt that the Bush Administration was too optimistic in supporting General Secretary of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev and his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin.[24] Cheney worked to maintain strong ties between the United States and its European allies.[41]
Cheney persuaded the Saudi Arabian aristocracy to allow bases for US ground troops and war planes in the nation. This was an important element of the success of the Gulf War, as well as a lightning-rod for Islamists who opposed having non-Muslim armies near their holy sites.[42]
Using economic sanctions and political pressure, the United States mounted a campaign to drive Panamanian ruler General Manuel Antonio Noriega from power after he fell from favour.[24] In May 1989, after Guillermo Endara had been duly elected President of Panama, Noriega nullified the election outcome, drawing intensified pressure. In October, Noriega suppressed a military coup, but in December, after soldiers of the Panamanian army killed a US serviceman, the United States invasion of Panama began under Cheney's direction. The stated reason for the invasion was to seize Noriega to face drug charges in the United States, protect US lives and property, and restore Panamanian civil liberties.[43] Although the mission was controversial,[44] US forces achieved control of Panama and Endara assumed the Presidency; Noriega was convicted and imprisoned on racketeering and drug trafficking charges in April 1992.[45]
In 1991, the Somali Civil War drew the world's attention. In August 1992, the United States began to provide humanitarian assistance, primarily food, through a military airlift. At President Bush's direction, Cheney dispatched the first of 26,000 US troops to Somalia as part of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), designed to provide security and food relief.[24] Cheney's successors as Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin and William J. Perry, had to contend with both the Bosnian and Somali issues.
On August 1, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein sent invading forces into neighboring Kuwait, a small petroleum-rich state long claimed by Iraq as part of its territory.[46] An estimated 140,000 Iraqi troops quickly took control of Kuwait City and moved on to the Saudi Arabia/Kuwait border.[24] The United States had already begun to develop contingency plans for the defense of Saudi Arabia by the US Central Command, headed by General Norman Schwarzkopf, because of its important petroleum reserves.
Cheney and Schwarzkopf oversaw planning for what would become a full-scale US military operation. According to General Colin Powell, Cheney "had become a glutton for information, with an appetite we could barely satisfy. He spent hours in the National Military Command Center peppering my staff with questions."[24]
Shortly after the Iraqi invasion, Cheney made the first of several visits to Saudi Arabia where King Fahd requested US military assistance. The United Nations took action as well, passing a series of resolutions condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; the UN Security Council authorized "all means necessary" to eject Iraq from Kuwait, and demanded that the country withdraw its forces by January 15, 1991.[46] By then, the United States had a force of about 500,000 stationed in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Other nations, including Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Syria, and Egypt, contributed troops, and other allies, most notably Germany and Japan, agreed to provide financial support for the coalition effort, named Operation Desert Shield.[24]
On January 12, 1991, Congress authorized Bush to use military force to enforce Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions on Kuwait.[46]
The first phase of Operation Desert Storm, which began on January 17, 1991, was an air offensive to secure air superiority and attack Iraq's forces, targeting key Iraqi command and control centers, including Baghdad and Basra. Cheney turned most other Department of Defense matters over to Deputy Secretary Atwood and briefed Congress during the air and ground phases of the war.[24] He flew with Powell to the region (specifically Riyadh) to review and finalize the ground war plans.[46]
After an air offensive of more than five weeks, the UN coalition launched the ground war on February 24. Within 100 hours, Iraqi forces had been routed from Kuwait and Schwarzkopf reported that the basic objective—expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait—had been met on February 27.[47] After consultation with Cheney and other members of his national security team, Bush declared a suspension of hostilities.[46]
A total of 147 U.S. military personnel died in combat, and another 236 died as a result of accidents or other causes.[24][47] Iraq agreed to a formal truce on March 3, and a permanent cease-fire on April 6.[24] There was subsequent debate about whether the UN coalition should have driven as far as Baghdad to oust Saddam Hussein from power. Bush agreed that the decision to end the ground war when they did was correct, but the debate persisted as Hussein remained in power and rebuilt his military forces.[24] Arguably the most significant debate concerned whether U.S. and coalition forces had left Iraq too soon.[48][49] In an April 15, 1994 interview with C-SPAN, Cheney explained that occupying and attempting to take over the country would have been a "bad idea" and would have led to a "quagmire."[50][51]
Cheney regarded the Gulf War as an example of the kind of regional problem the United States was likely to continue to face in the future.[52]
We're always going to have to be involved [in the Middle East]. Maybe it's part of our national character, you know we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war and the problem goes away and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime.
Between 1987 and 1989, during his last term in Congress, Cheney was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization.[53]
With the new Democratic administration under President Bill Clinton in January 1993, Cheney left the Department of Defense and joined the American Enterprise Institute. He also served a second term as a Council on Foreign Relations director from 1993 to 1995.[53] From 1995 until 2000, he served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton, a Fortune 500 company and market leader in the energy sector.
Cheney's record as CEO was subject to some dispute among Wall Street analysts; a 1998 merger between Halliburton and Dresser Industries attracted the criticism of some Dresser executives for Halliburton's lack of accounting transparency.[54] Although Cheney is not named as an individual defendant in the suit, Halliburton shareholders are pursuing a class-action lawsuit alleging that the corporation artificially inflated its stock price during this period; in June of 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling and allowed the case to continue be litigated.[55] Cheney was named in a December 2010 corruption complaint filed by the Nigerian government against Halliburton, which the company settled for $250 million.[56]
During Cheney's tenure, Halliburton changed its accounting practices regarding revenue realization of disputed costs on major construction projects.[57] Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000. As vice president, he argued that this step removed any conflict of interest. Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton, as well as the Cheneys' gross income of nearly $8.82 million.[58][not in citation given]
He was also a member of the board of advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before becoming vice president.[42]
In early 2000, while serving as the CEO of Halliburton, Cheney headed then-Governor of Texas George W. Bush's vice-presidential search committee. On July 25, after reviewing Cheney's findings, Bush surprised some pundits by asking Cheney himself to join the Republican ticket.[14][59] Halliburton reportedly reached agreement on July 20 to allow Cheney to retire, with a package estimated at $20 million.[60]
A few months before the election Cheney put his home in Dallas up for sale and changed his drivers' license and voter registration back to Wyoming. This change was necessary to allow Texas' presidential electors to vote for both Bush and Cheney without contravening the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids electors from voting for someone from their own state for both President and Vice President.
Cheney campaigned against Al Gore's running mate, Joseph Lieberman, in the 2000 presidential election. While the election was undecided, the Bush-Cheney team was not eligible for public funding to plan a transition to a new administration. So, Cheney opened a privately funded transition office in Washington. This office worked to identify candidates for all important positions in the cabinet.[61] According to Craig Unger, Cheney advocated Donald Rumsfeld for the post of Secretary of Defense to counter the influence of Colin Powell at the State Department, and tried unsuccessfully to have Paul Wolfowitz named to replace George Tenet as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[62]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cheney remained physically apart from Bush for security reasons. For a period, Cheney stayed at an undisclosed location, out of public view.[63] He also utilized a heavy security detail, employing a motorcade of 12 to 18 government vehicles for his daily commute from the Vice Presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory to the White House.[64]
On the morning of June 29, 2002, Cheney served as Acting President of the United States under the terms of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, while Bush was undergoing a colonoscopy. Cheney acted as President from 11:09 UTC that day until Bush resumed the powers of the presidency at 13:24 UTC.[65][66]
Following 9/11, Cheney was instrumental in providing a primary justification for entering into a war with Iraq. Cheney helped shape Bush's approach to the "War on Terrorism", making numerous public statements alleging Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction,[67] and made several personal visits to CIA headquarters, where he questioned mid-level agency analysts on their conclusions.[68] Cheney continued to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, even though President Bush received a classified President's Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."[69] Furthermore, in 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.[70]
Following the US invasion of Iraq, Cheney remained steadfast in his support of the war, stating that it would be an "enormous success story",[71] and made many visits to the country. He often criticized war critics, calling them "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while US soldiers died in Iraq. In response, Senator John Kerry asserted, "It is hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq [than Cheney]."[72]
In a March 24, 2008 extended interview conducted in Ankara, Turkey with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz on the fifth anniversary of the original U.S. military assault on Iraq, Cheney responded to a question about public opinion polls showing that Americans had lost confidence in the war by simply replying "So?"[73] This remark prompted widespread criticism, including from former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards, a long-time personal friend of Cheney.[74]
Bush and Cheney were re-elected in the 2004 presidential election, running against John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards. During the election, the pregnancy of his daughter Mary and her sexual orientation as a lesbian became a source of public attention for Cheney in light of the same-sex marriage debate.[75] Cheney has stated that he is in favor of gay marriages but that each individual state should decide whether to permit it.[76]
Cheney's former chief legal counsel, David Addington,[77] became his chief of staff and remained in that office until Cheney's departure from office. John P. Hannah served as Cheney's national security adviser.[78] Until his indictment and resignation[79] in 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. served in both roles.[80]
On the morning of July 21, 2007, Cheney once again served as acting president, from 7:16 am to 9:21 am. Bush transferred the power of the presidency prior to undergoing a medical procedure, requiring sedation, and later resumed his powers and duties that same day.[81]
After his term began in 2001, Cheney was occasionally asked if he was interested in the Republican nomination for the 2008 elections. However, he always maintained that he wished to retire upon the expiration of his term and he did not run in the 2008 presidential primaries. The Republicans nominated Arizona Senator John McCain.[82]
Cheney was a prominent member of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG),[83] commonly known as the Energy task force, which comprised energy industry representatives, including several Enron executives. After the Enron scandal, the Bush administration was accused of improper political and business ties. In July 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Department of Commerce must disclose NEPDG documents, containing references to companies that had made agreements with the previous Iraqi government to extract Iraq's petroleum.[84]
Beginning in 2003, Cheney's staff opted not to file required reports with the National Archives and Records Administration office charged with assuring that the executive branch protects classified information, nor did it allow inspection of its record keeping.[85] Cheney refused to release the documents, citing his executive privilege to deny congressional information requests.[86][87] Media outlets such as Time magazine and CBS News questioned whether Cheney had created a "fourth branch of government" that was not subject to any laws.[88] A group of historians and open-government advocates filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to declare that Cheney's vice-presidential records are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and cannot be destroyed, taken or withheld from the public without proper review.[89][90][91][92]
On October 18, 2005, The Washington Post reported that the vice president's office was central to the investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal, for Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was one of the figures under investigation.[93] Following an indictment, Libby resigned his positions as Cheney's chief of staff and assistant on national security affairs.
On September 8, 2006, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, publicly announced that he was the source of the revelation of Plame's status. Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.[94]
In February 2006, The National Journal reported that Libby had stated before a grand jury that his superiors, including Cheney, had authorized him to disclose classified information to the press regarding intelligence on Iraq's weapons .[95]
On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four felony counts for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators.[96] In his closing arguments, independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that there was "a cloud over the vice president",[97] an apparent reference to Cheney's interview with FBI agents investigating the case, which was made public in 2009.[98] Cheney lobbied President George W. Bush vigorously and unsuccessfully to grant Libby a full Presidential pardon up to the day of Barack Obama's inauguration, likening Libby to a "soldier on the battlefield".[99]
On February 27, 2007, at about 10 am, a suicide bomber killed 23 people and wounded 20 more outside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan during a visit by Cheney. Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, claimed responsibility for the attack and said Cheney was its intended target. The Taliban claimed that Osama Bin Laden supervised the operation.[100] The bomb went off outside the front gate, however, while Cheney was inside the base and half a mile away. He reported hearing the blast, saying "I heard a loud boom...The Secret Service came in and told me there had been an attack on the main gate."[101] The purpose of Cheney's visit to the region had been to press Pakistan for a united front against the Taliban.[102]
Cheney has been characterized as the most powerful and influential Vice President in history.[103][104] Both supporters and critics of Cheney regard him as a shrewd and knowledgeable politician who knows the functions and intricacies of the federal government. A sign of Cheney's active policy-making role was then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert's provision of an office near the House floor for Cheney[105] in addition to his office in the West Wing,[106] his ceremonial office in the Old Executive Office Building,[107] and his Senate offices (one in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and another off the floor of the Senate).[105][108]
Cheney has actively promoted an expansion of the powers of the presidency, saying that the Bush administration’s challenges to the laws which Congress passed after Vietnam and Watergate to contain and oversee the executive branch—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the War Powers Resolution—are, in Cheney's words, "a restoration, if you will, of the power and authority of the president."[109][110]
In June 2007, the Washington Post summarized Cheney’s vice presidency in a Pulitzer Prize-winning[111] four-part series, based in part on interviews with former administration officials. The articles characterized Cheney not as a "shadow" president, but as someone who usually has the last words of counsel to the president on policies, which in many cases would reshape the powers of the presidency. When former Vice President Dan Quayle suggested to Cheney that the office was largely ceremonial, Cheney reportedly replied, "I have a different understanding with the president." The articles described Cheney as having a secretive approach to the tools of government, indicated by the use of his own security classification and three man-sized safes in his offices.[112]
The articles described Cheney’s influence on decisions pertaining to detention of suspected terrorists and the legal limits that apply to their questioning, especially what constitutes torture.[113] U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's chief of staff when he was both Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the same time Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and then later when Powell was Secretary of State, stated in an in-depth interview that Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld established an alternative program to interrogate post-9/11 detainees because of their mutual distrust of CIA.[114]
The Washington Post articles, principally written by Barton Gellman, further characterized Cheney as having the strongest influence within the administration in shaping budget and tax policy in a manner that assures "conservative orthodoxy."[115] They also highlighted Cheney’s behind-the-scenes influence on the administration’s environmental policy to ease pollution controls for power plants, facilitate the disposal of nuclear waste, open access to federal timber resources, and avoid federal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, among other issues. The articles characterized his approach to policy formulation as favoring business over the environment.[116]
In June 2008, Cheney allegedly attempted to block efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North Korea over the communist state's nuclear program.[117]
In July 2008, a former Environmental Protection Agency official stated publicly that Cheney's office had pushed significantly for large-scale deletions from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on the health effects of global warming "fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases."[118] In October, when the report appeared with six pages cut from the testimony, The White House stated that the changes were made due to concerns regarding the accuracy of the science. However, according to the former senior adviser on climate change to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, Cheney's office was directly responsible for nearly half of the original testimony being deleted.[118]
On February 14, 2010, in an appearance on ABC's This Week, Cheney reiterated his support of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, "I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program."[119] At the time, Cheney still enjoyed strong support from voters in the Republican Party.[120]
The Washington Post reported in 2008 that Cheney purchased a home in McLean, Virginia (Washington suburbs), which he was to tear down for a replacement structure. He also maintains homes in Wyoming and on Maryland's Eastern Shore.[121]
Cheney is the subject of an HBO television mini-series based on Barton Gellman's 2008 book Angler[122] and the 2006 documentary The Dark Side, produced by the Public Broadcasting Service.[123]
Cheney maintained a visible public profile after leaving office,[124] being especially critical of Obama administration policies on national security.[125][126] In May 2009, Cheney spoke of his support for same-sex marriage, becoming one of the most prominent Republican politicians to do so. Speaking to the National Press Club, Cheney stated, "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. I do believe, historically, the way marriage has been regulated is at a state level. It's always been a state issue, and I think that's the way it ought to be handled today."[127] In 2012, Cheney reportedly encouraged several Maryland state legislators to vote to legalize same-sex marriage in that state.[128]
Although, by custom, a former vice president unofficially receives six months of protection from the United States Secret Service, President Obama reportedly extended the protection period for Cheney.[129]
On July 11, 2009, CIA Director Leon Panetta told the Senate and House intelligence committees that the CIA withheld information about a secret counter-terrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from Cheney. Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the CIA interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counter-terrorism center at the CIA shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.[130] The Wall Street Journal reported, citing former intelligence officials familiar with the matter, that the program was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.[131]
Cheney has publicly criticized President Obama since the 2008 presidential election. On December 29, 2009, four days after the attempted bombing of an international passenger flight from Netherlands to United States, Cheney criticized Obama: "[We] are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. [...] Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency—social transformation—the restructuring of American society."[132] In response, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the official White House blog the following day, "[I]t is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer."[133][134]
During a February 14, 2010 appearance on ABC's This Week, Cheney reiterated his criticism of the Obama administration's policies for handling suspected terrorists, criticizing the "mindset" of treating "terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war".[119]
In a May 2, 2011, interview with ABC News, Cheney praised the Obama administration for the operation that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden.[135]
In August 2011, Cheney published his memoir, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir, written with Liz Cheney. The book outlines Cheney's recollections of 9/11, the War on Terrorism, the 2001 War in Afghanistan, the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, enhanced interrogation techniques and other events.[136] According to Barton Gellman, the author of Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Cheney's book differs from publicly available records on details surrounding the NSA surveillance program.[137][138]
In the beginning of the Bush administration, Cheney's public opinion polls were more favorable than unfavorable. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, both Bush's and Cheney's approval ratings rose, with Cheney reaching 68 percent[139] and the president with 90 percent.[140] The polling numbers for both men gradually declined in their second terms, however.[139][141] Cheney's Gallup poll figures are mostly consistent with those from other polls:[139][142]
In April 2007, Cheney was awarded an honorary doctorate of public service by Brigham Young University, where he delivered the commencement address.[143] His selection as commencement speaker was controversial. The college board of trustees issued a statement explaining that the invitation should be viewed "as one extended to someone holding the high office of vice president of the United States rather than to a partisan political figure".[144] BYU permitted a protest to occur so long as it did not "make personal attacks against Cheney, attack (the) BYU administration, the church or the First Presidency".[145]
Cheney has often been compared to Darth Vader, a characterization originated by his critics but later adopted humorously by Cheney himself as well as members of his family and staff.[146]
Cheney is a member of the United Methodist Church[147] and was "the first Methodist Vice President to serve under a Methodist president."[148]
His wife, Lynne Cheney, was Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1986 to 1996. She is now a public speaker, author, and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The couple have two children, Elizabeth and Mary, and six grandchildren. Elizabeth, his elder daughter, is married to Philip J. Perry, former General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. Mary Cheney, a former employee of the Colorado Rockies baseball team and Coors Brewing Company, a campaign aide to the Bush re-election campaign, and an open lesbian, currently lives in Great Falls, Virginia, with her longtime partner Heather Poe.[149]
Cheney's long histories of cardiovascular disease and periodic need for urgent health care raised questions of whether he was medically fit to serve in public office.[150] Having smoked up to three or more packs of cigarettes for nearly 20 years,[151] Cheney sustained the first of five heart attacks in 1978, at age 37. Subsequent attacks in 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2010 have resulted in moderate contractile dysfunction of his left ventricle.[152] [153] He underwent four-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting in 1988, coronary artery stenting in November 2000, urgent coronary balloon angioplasty in March 2001, and the implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in June, 2001.[152]
On September 24, 2005, Cheney underwent a six-hour endo-vascular procedure to repair popliteal artery aneurysms bilaterally, a catheter treatment technique used in the artery behind each knee.[154] The condition was discovered at a regular physical in July, and was not life-threatening.[155] Cheney was hospitalized for tests after experiencing shortness of breath five months later. In late April 2006, an ultrasound revealed that the clot was smaller.[154]
On March 5, 2007, Cheney was treated for deep-vein thrombosis in his left leg at George Washington University Hospital after experiencing pain in his left calf. Doctors prescribed blood-thinning medication and allowed him to return to work.[156] CBS News reported that during the morning of November 26, 2007, Cheney was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and underwent treatment that afternoon.[154]
On July 12, 2008, Cheney underwent a cardiological exam; doctors reported that his heartbeat was normal for a 67-year-old man with a history of heart problems. As part of his annual checkup, he was administered an electrocardiogram and radiological imaging of the stents placed in the arteries behind his knees in 2005. Doctors said that Cheney had not experienced any recurrence of atrial fibrillation and that his special pacemaker had neither detected nor treated any arrhythmia.[157] On October 15, 2008, Cheney returned to the hospital briefly to treat a minor irregularity.[158]
On January 19, 2009, Cheney strained his back "while moving boxes into his new house". As a consequence, he was in a wheelchair for two days, including his attendance at the 2009 United States presidential inauguration.[159][160]
On February 22, 2010, Cheney was admitted to George Washington University Hospital after experiencing chest pains. A spokesperson later said Cheney had experienced a mild heart attack after doctors had run tests.[153] On June 25, 2010, Cheney was admitted to George Washington University Hospital after reporting discomfort.[161]
In early July 2010, Cheney was outfitted with a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) at Inova Fairfax Heart and Vascular Institute to compensate for worsening congestive heart failure.[162] The device pumped blood continuously through his body.[163][164] He was released from Inova on August 9, 2010,[165] and had to decide whether to seek a full heart transplant.[166][167] This pump was centrifugal and as a result he remained alive without a pulse for nearly fifteen months.[168]
On March 24, 2012, Cheney underwent a seven-hour heart transplant procedure at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Virginia, at the age of 71. He had been on a waiting list for more than 20 months before receiving the heart from an anonymous donor.[169][170] Cheney's principal cardiologist, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, advised his patient that "it would not be unreasonable for an otherwise healthy 71-year-old man to expect to live another 10 years" with a transplant, saying in a family-authorized interview that he considered Cheney to be otherwise healthy.[171]
On February 11, 2006, Cheney accidentally[172] shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets when he turned to shoot a quail while hunting on a southern Texas ranch.[173]
Whittington suffered a mild heart attack and atrial fibrillation due to a pellet that embedded in the outer layers of his heart.[174] The Kenedy County Sheriff's office cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in the matter, and in an interview with Fox News, Cheney accepted full responsibility for the incident.[175] Whittington was discharged from the hospital on February 17, 2006. Later, Whittington stated, "My family and I are deeply sorry for all that vice president Cheney has had to go through this past week."[176]
Find more about Dick Cheney on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
Definitions and translations from Wiktionary |
|
Images and media from Commons |
|
Learning resources from Wikiversity |
|
News stories from Wikinews |
|
Quotations from Wikiquote |
|
Source texts from Wikisource |
|
Textbooks from Wikibooks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Cheney, Dick |
Alternative names | Cheney, Richard Bruce "Dick" (full name) |
Short description | Vice President of the United States |
Date of birth | January 30, 1941 |
Place of birth | Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S. |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
Patti Smith | |
---|---|
Tivolis Koncertsal, Copenhagen, October 6, 1976 |
|
Background information | |
Birth name | Patricia Lee Smith |
Born | (1946-12-30) December 30, 1946 (age 65) Chicago, Illinois, USA |
Origin | New York City, New York |
Genres | Protopunk, punk rock, art rock |
Occupations | Singer-songwriter, poet, artist |
Instruments | Vocals, guitar, clarinet |
Years active | 1971–present |
Labels | Arista, Columbia |
Associated acts | Tom Verlaine |
Website | www.pattismith.net |
Patricia Lee "Patti" Smith (born December 30, 1946)[1] is an American singer-songwriter, poet and visual artist, who became a highly influential component of the New York City punk rock movement with her 1975 debut album Horses.[2]
Called the "Godmother of Punk",[3] her work was a fusion of rock and poetry. Smith's most widely known song is "Because the Night", which was co-written with Bruce Springsteen and reached number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1978.[2] In 2005, Patti Smith was named a Commander of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by the French Minister of Culture,[4] and in 2007, she was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[5] On November 17, 2010, she won the National Book Award for her memoir Just Kids.[6] She is also a recipient of the 2011 Polar Music Prize.
Contents |
Patricia Lee Smith was born in Chicago.[1] Her mother, Beverly, was a waitress, and her father, Grant, worked at the Honeywell plant. She spent her early childhood in Germantown [7], before her family moved to Woodbury Gardens, Deptford Township, New Jersey,[8][9] raised Jehovah's Witness. She had a strong religious upbringing and a Bible education, but left organized religion as a teenager because she felt it was too confining; much later, she wrote the line "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" in her cover version of Them's "Gloria" in response to this experience.[10] She has described having an avid interest in Tibetan Buddhism around the age of eleven or twelve, saying "I fell in love with Tibet because their essential mission was to keep a continual stream of prayer", but that as an adult she sees clear parallels between different forms of religion, and has come to the conclusion that religious dogmas are "...man-made laws that you can either decide to abide by or not."[11] At this early age Smith was exposed to her first records, including Shrimp Boats by Harry Belafonte, Patience and Prudence doing The Money Tree, and Another Side of Bob Dylan, which her mother gave to her. [12] Smith graduated from Deptford Township High School in 1964 and went to work in a factory.[2][13] She gave birth to her first child, a daughter, on April 26, 1967, and chose to place her for adoption.[13]
In 1967, she left Glassboro State College (now Rowan University) and moved to New York City. She met photographer Robert Mapplethorpe there while working at a book store with a friend, poet Janet Hamill. She and Mapplethorpe had an intense romantic relationship, which was tumultuous as the pair struggled with times of poverty, and Mapplethorpe with his own sexuality. Smith considers Mapplethorpe to be one of the most important people in her life, and in her book Just Kids refers to him as "the artist of my life". Mapplethorpe's photographs of her became the covers for the Patti Smith Group LPs, and they remained friends until Mapplethorpe's death in 1989.[14] In 1969 she went to Paris with her sister and started busking and doing performance art.[8] When Smith returned to New York City, she lived in the Hotel Chelsea with Mapplethorpe; they frequented Max's Kansas City and CBGB. Smith provided the spoken word soundtrack for Sandy Daley's art film Robert Having His Nipple Pierced, starring Mapplethorpe. The same year Smith appeared with Wayne County in Jackie Curtis' play Femme Fatale. As a member of the St. Mark's Poetry Project, she spent the early 70's painting, writing, and performing. In 1971 she performed – for one night only – in Cowboy Mouth,[15] a play that she co-wrote with Sam Shepard. (The published play's notes call for "a man who looks like a coyote and a woman who looks like a crow".) She wrote several poems, "for sam shepard"[16] and "Sam Shepard: 9 Random Years (7 + 2)"[17] about her relationship with Shepard.
Smith was briefly considered for the lead singer position in Blue Öyster Cult. She contributed lyrics to several of the band's songs, including "Debbie Denise" (inspired by her poem "In Remembrance of Debbie Denise"), "Baby Ice Dog", "Career of Evil", "Fire of Unknown Origin", "The Revenge of Vera Gemini" (on which she performs duet vocals), and "Shooting Shark". She was romantically involved at the time with the band's keyboardist Allen Lanier. During these years, Smith also wrote rock journalism, some of which was published in Rolling Stone and Creem.[18]
By 1974, Patti Smith was performing rock music herself, initially with guitarist, bassist and rock archivist Lenny Kaye, and later with a full band comprising Kaye, Ivan Kral on guitar and bass, Jay Dee Daugherty on drums and Richard Sohl on piano. Ivan Kral was a refugee from Czechoslovakia, fleeing in 1968 after the fall of Alexander Dubček. Financed by Sam Wagstaff, the band recorded a first single, "Hey Joe / Piss Factory", in 1974. The A-side was a version of the rock standard with the addition of a spoken word piece about fugitive heiress Patty Hearst ("Patty Hearst, you're standing there in front of the Symbionese Liberation Army flag with your legs spread, I was wondering were you gettin' it every night from a black revolutionary man and his women...").[19] The B-side describes the helpless anger Smith had felt while working on a factory assembly line and the salvation she discovered in the form of a shoplifted book, the 19th century French poet Arthur Rimbaud's Illuminations.[2]
|
|
Problems listening to these files? See media help. |
The Patti Smith Group was signed by Clive Davis of Arista Records, and in 1975 recorded their first album, Horses, produced by John Cale amid some tension. The album fused punk rock and spoken poetry and begins with a cover of Van Morrison's "Gloria", and Smith's opening words: "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine" (an excerpt from "Oath," one of her early poems). The austere cover photograph by Mapplethorpe has become one of rock's classic images.[20] As the popularity of punk rock grew, Patti Smith Group toured the United States and Europe. The rawer sound of the group's second album, Radio Ethiopia, reflected this. Considerably less accessible than Horses, Radio Ethiopia initially received poor reviews. However, several of its songs have stood the test of time, and Smith still performs them regularly in concert.[21] She has said that Radio Ethiopia was influenced by the band MC5. [12]
On January 23, 1977, while touring in support of Radio Ethiopia, Smith accidentally danced off a high stage in Tampa, Florida, and fell 15 feet into a concrete orchestra pit, breaking several neck vertebrae.[22] The injury required a period of rest and an intensive round of physical therapy, during which time she was able to reassess, re-energize and reorganize her life. Patti Smith Group produced two further albums before the end of the 1970s. Easter (1978) was her most commercially successful record, containing the single "Because the Night" co-written with Bruce Springsteen. Wave (1979) was less successful, although the songs "Frederick" and "Dancing Barefoot" both received commercial airplay.[23]
It was around this time Mick Jagger uttered his famous quote about her[24]:
"I think it's crap! I think she's so awful...she's full of rubbish, she's full of words and crap. I mean, she's a poseur of the worst kind, intellectual bullshit, trying to be a street girl when she doesn't seem to me to be one, I mean, everything...a useless guitar player, a bad singer, not attractive. She's got her heart in the right place but she's such a POSER! She's not really together musically, she's...all right.
Patti Smith also has had other artists comment about her. Flo and Eddie did a part in their act where they suggested she used Industrial Strength Janitor in a Drum as a feminine-hygiene spray.[25] Southside Johnny was heard to shout: "She tries too hard!" at a party once. [25]
She's never directly replied but in later years her interest in the Stones seems to have waned. When asked if she still listened to the Rolling Stones, she replied[26]
Not as much as I used to. If I'm somewhere and hear a Rolling Stones song come over the radio, it's still exciting. I don't sit around listening to them. I listen to a lot of opera records. A lot of Glenn Gould. If I'm in a car, and the Rolling Stones, you know -- "Gimmie Shelter" or "Under My Thumb," and something comes on and it's "19th Nervous Breakdown" - it's still exciting.
|
|
Problems listening to this file? See media help. |
Before the release of Wave, Smith, now separated from long-time partner Allen Lanier, met Fred "Sonic" Smith, former guitar player for Detroit rock band MC5 and his own Sonic's Rendezvous Band, who adored poetry as much as she did. (Wave's "Dancing Barefoot" and "Frederick" were both dedicated to him.)[27] The running joke at the time was that she married Fred only because she would not have to change her name.[28] They had a son, Jackson (b. 1982) who would go on to marry The White Stripes drummer, Meg White in 2009[citation needed]; and a daughter, Jesse (b. 1987). Through most of the 1980s Patti Smith was in semi-retirement from music, living with her family north of Detroit in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. In June 1988, she released the album Dream of Life, which included the song "People Have the Power". Fred Smith died on November 4, 1994, of a heart attack. Shortly afterward, Patti faced the unexpected death of her brother Todd[8] and original keyboard player Richard Sohl. When her son Jackson turned 14, Smith decided to move back to New York. After the impact of these deaths, her friends Michael Stipe of R.E.M. and Allen Ginsberg (whom she had known since her early years in New York) urged her to go back out on the road. She toured briefly with Bob Dylan in December 1995 (chronicled in a book of photographs by Stipe).[15]
|
|
Problems listening to this file? See media help. |
In 1996, Smith worked with her long-time colleagues to record Gone Again, featuring "About a Boy", a tribute to Kurt Cobain. Smith was a fan of Cobain, but was more angered than saddened by his suicide.[citation needed] That same year she collaborated with Stipe on "E-Bow the Letter", a song on R.E.M.'s New Adventures in Hi-Fi, which she has also performed live with the band.[29] After release of Gone Again, Patti Smith had recorded two new albums: Peace and Noise in 1997 (with the single "1959", about the invasion of Tibet) and Gung Ho in 2000 (with songs about Ho Chi Minh and Smith's late father). Songs "1959" and "Glitter in Their Eyes" were nominated for Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance.[30] A box set of her work up to that time, The Patti Smith Masters, came out in 1996, and 2002 saw the release of Land (1975–2002), a two-CD compilation that includes a memorable cover of Prince's "When Doves Cry". Smith's solo art exhibition Strange Messenger was hosted at The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh on September 28, 2002.[31]
|
|
Problems listening to this file? See media help. |
On April 27, 2004, Patti Smith released Trampin' which included several songs about motherhood, partly in tribute to Smith's mother, who had died two years before. It was her first album on Columbia Records, soon to become a sister label to her previous home Arista Records. Smith curated the Meltdown festival in London on June 25, 2005, the penultimate event being the first live performance of Horses in its entirety.[32] Guitarist Tom Verlaine took Oliver Ray's place. This live performance was released later in the year as Horses/Horses.
On July 10, 2005, Smith was named a Commander of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by the French Ministry of Culture.[4] In addition to Smith's influence on rock music, the Minister also noted her appreciation of Arthur Rimbaud. In August 2005, Smith gave a literary lecture about the poems of Arthur Rimbaud and William Blake. On October 15, 2006, Patti Smith performed at the CBGB nightclub, with a 3½-hour tour de force to close out Manhattan's music venue. She took the stage at 9:30 p.m. (EDT) and closed for the night (and forever for the venue) at a few minutes after 1:00 a.m., performing her song "Elegie", and finally reading a list of punk rock musicians and advocates who had died in the previous years.[33]
On November 10, 2005, Smith received the Woman of Valor Award from ROCKRGRL Magazine at the ROCKRGRL Music Conference, marking the 30th Anniversary of the release of "Horses."
Smith was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on March 12, 2007.[5] She dedicated her award to the memory of her late husband, Fred, and gave a performance of The Rolling Stones staple "Gimme Shelter". As the closing number of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony, Smith's "People Have the Power" was used for the big celebrity jam that always ends the program.[34]
From November 2006 - January 2007, an exhibition called 'Sur les Traces'[35] at Trolley Gallery, London, featured polaroid prints taken by Patti Smith and donated to Trolley to raise awareness and funds for the publication of Double Blind, a book on the war in Lebanon in 2006, with photographs by Paolo Pellegrin, a member of Magnum Photos. She also participated in the DVD commentary for Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters. From March 28 to June 22, 2008, the Fondation Cartier pour l'Art Contemporain in Paris hosted a major exhibition of the visual artwork of Patti Smith, Land 250, drawn from pieces created between 1967 and 2007.[36] At the 2008 Rowan Commencement ceremony, Smith received an honorary doctorate degree for her contributions to popular culture.
Smith is the subject of a 2008 documentary film, Patti Smith: Dream of Life.[38] A live album by Patti Smith and Kevin Shields, The Coral Sea was released in July 2008. On September 10, 2009, after a week of smaller events and exhibitions in the city, Smith played an open-air concert in Florence's Piazza Santa Croce, commemorating her performance in the same city 30 years earlier.[39] In 2010, Patti Smith's book, Just Kids, a memoir of her time in 1970s Manhattan and her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe, was published; it later won the National Book Award for Nonfiction.[6][40] On April 30, 2010, Patti Smith headlined a benefit concert headed by band-mate Tony Shanahan, for The Court Tavern of New Brunswick.[41] Smith's set included "Gloria", "Because the Night" and "People Have the Power." She has a brief cameo in Jean-Luc Godard's 2010 Film Socialisme, which was first screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. [42]
On May 17, 2010, Patti Smith received an honorary doctorate in fine arts from Pratt Institute, along with architect Daniel Libeskind, MoMA director Glenn Lowry, former NYC Landmarks Commissioner Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel, novelist Jonathan Lethem, and director Steven Soderbergh.[43] Following the conferral of her degree, Smith delivered the commencement address[44] and sang/played two songs accompanied by long-time band member Lenny Kaye. In her remarks, Smith explained that in 1967 when she moved to New York City (Brooklyn), she would never have been accepted into Pratt, but most of her friends (including Mapplethorpe) were students at Pratt and she spent countless hours on the Pratt campus. She added that it was through her friends and their Pratt professors that she learned much of her own artistic skills, making the honour from the institute particularly poignant for Smith 43 years later.[45]
Smith is currently working on a crime novel set in London. "I've been working on a detective story that starts at the St Giles in the Fields church in London for the last two years," she told NME adding that she "loved detective stories" having been a fan of Sherlock Holmes and US crime author Mickey Spillane as a girl.[46] Part of the book will be set in Gothenburg, Sweden.[47]
On May 3, 2011, it was announced that Patti Smith is one of the winners of the Polar Music Prize: "By devoting her life to art in all its forms, Patti Smith has demonstrated how much rock’n'roll there is in poetry and how much poetry there is in rock’n'roll. Patti Smith is a Rimbaud with Marshall amps. She has transformed the way an entire generation looks, thinks and dreams. With her inimitable soul of an artist, Patti Smith proves over and over again that people have the power."
On June 19, 2011, Patti Smith made her television acting debut on the TV series Law & Order: Criminal Intent, appearing in an episode called "Icarus".[48]
Smith has recorded a cover of Buddy Holly's classic "Words of Love" for the CD Rave On Buddy Holly, a tribute album tied to Holly's seventy-fifth birthday year which was released June 28, 2011.[49]
Smith is also contributing a track to "AHK-toong BAY-bi Covered", a U2 covers album due to be released through Q Magazine on October 25th. Smith recorded a cover of "Until The End Of The World" for the compilation.
In February 2012, she was a guest at the Sanremo Music Festival.
Smith has been a great source of inspiration for Michael Stipe of R.E.M. Listening to her album Horses when he was 15 made a huge impact on him; he said later, "I decided then that I was going to start a band."[50] In 1998, Stipe published a collection of photos called Two Times Intro: On the Road with Patti Smith. Stipe sings backing vocals on Smith's songs "Last Call" and "Glitter in Their Eyes." Patti also sings background vocals on R.E.M.'s songs "E-Bow the Letter" and "Blue".
The Australian alternative rock band, The Go-Betweens dedicated a track off their 1994 album The Friends of Rachel Worth, When She Sang About Angels in reference to Smith's long time influence on themselves.[51]
In 2004, Shirley Manson of Garbage spoke of Smith's influence on her in Rolling Stone's issue "The Immortals: 100 Greatest Artists of All Time", in which Patti Smith was counted number 47.[52] The Smiths members Morrissey and Johnny Marr shared an appreciation for Smith's Horses, and reveal that their song "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" is a reworking of one of the album's tracks, "Kimberly".[53] In 2004, Sonic Youth released an album called Hidros 3 (to Patti Smith).[54] U2 also cites Patti Smith as an influence.[55] In 2005 Scottish singer-songwriter KT Tunstall released the single "Suddenly I See" as a tribute of sorts to Patti Smith.[56] Canadian actress Ellen Page frequently mentions Smith as one of her idols and has done various photo shoots replicating famous Smith photos.[57] In 1978 and 1979, Gilda Radner portrayed a character called Candy Slice on Saturday Night Live based on Smith.
American pop-dance singer Madonna has also named Smith as one of her biggest influences.[58]
In 1993, Smith contributed "Memorial Tribute (Live)" to the AIDS-Benefit Album No Alternative produced by the Red Hot Organization.
Furthermore, Smith has been a supporter of the Green Party and backed Ralph Nader in the 2000 United States presidential election.[59] She led the crowd singing "Over the Rainbow" and "People Have the Power" at the campaign's rallies, and also performed at several of Nader's subsequent "Democracy Rising" events.[60][dead link] Smith was a speaker and singer at the first protests against the Iraq War organized by Lou Posner of Voter March on September 12, 2002, as U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Smith supported Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election. Bruce Springsteen continued performing her "People Have the Power" at Vote for Change campaign events. In the winter of 2004/2005, Smith toured again with Nader in a series of rallies against the Iraq War and calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush.[59]
Smith premiered two new protest songs in London in September 2006.[61] Louise Jury, writing in The Independent, characterized them as "an emotional indictment of American and Israeli foreign policy". The song "Qana"[62] was about the Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese village of Qana. "Without Chains"[63] is about Murat Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen who was born and raised in Germany, held at Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for four years. Jury's article quotes Smith as saying:
I wrote both these songs directly in response to events that I felt outraged about. These are injustices against children and the young men and women who are being incarcerated. I'm an American, I pay taxes in my name and they are giving millions and millions of dollars to a country such as Israel and cluster bombs and defense technology and those bombs were dropped on common citizens in Qana. It's terrible. It's a human rights violation.
In an interview, Smith stated that Kurnaz's family has contacted her and that she wrote a short preface for the book that he was writing.[64] Kurnaz's book, "Five Years of My Life," was published in English by Palgrave Macmillan in March 2008, with Patti's introduction.[65]
On March 26, 2003, ten days after Rachel Corrie's death, Smith appeared in Austin, Texas, and performed an anti-war concert. She subsequently wrote a song "Peaceable Kingdom" which was inspired by and is dedicated to Rachel Corrie.[66]
In 2009, in her Meltdown concert in Festival Hall, she paid homage to the Iranians taking part in post-election protests by saying "Where is My Vote?" in a version of the song "People Have the Power".[67]
1974 | |
---|---|
1975–1979 |
|
1988 |
|
1996–2006 |
|
2007–present |
|
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Patti Smith |
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Patti Smith |
|
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Smith, Patti |
Alternative names | Smith, Patricia Lee (birth name); Patti Smith Group |
Short description | Singer-songwriter, poet, artist |
Date of birth | December 30, 1946 |
Place of birth | Chicago |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
Alberto Gonzales | |
---|---|
80th United States Attorney General | |
In office February 3, 2005 – September 17, 2007 |
|
President | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | John Ashcroft |
Succeeded by | Michael Mukasey |
30th White House Counsel | |
In office January 20, 2001 – February 3, 2005 |
|
President | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | Beth Nolan |
Succeeded by | Harriet Miers |
Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court | |
In office 1999–2000 |
|
Appointed by | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | Raul A. Gonzalez |
Succeeded by | Wallace B. Jefferson |
100th Secretary of State of Texas | |
In office 1997–1999 |
|
Governor | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | Antonio Garza, Jr. |
Succeeded by | Elton Bomer |
Personal details | |
Born | Alberto R. Gonzales (1955-08-04) August 4, 1955 (age 56) San Antonio, Texas |
Political party | Republican |
Alma mater | Rice University (B.A.) Harvard Law School (J.D.) |
Religion | Catholic |
Military service | |
Service/branch | United States Air Force |
Years of service | 1973–1975 |
Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th, and the first Hispanic United States Attorney General, appointed in February of 2005 by President George W. Bush, becoming the highest-ranking Hispanic in government to date.[1] Prior to his elevation, he was the first Hispanic White House General Counsel, and earlier he had been Bush's General Counsel during his governorship of Texas. In Texas Gonzales had also served as Secretary of State of Texas and then as a Texas Supreme Court Justice. Gonzales's tenure as US Attorney General was marked by several conflicts with Congress. Following bipartisan calls for his removal, Gonzales resigned from the office without explanation. Democrats were particularly opposed to Gonzales for his role in the firing of several US District Attorneys which they believe had politicized his office.[2]
Contents
|
Alberto Gonzales was born to a Catholic family[3] in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in Humble, a town outside of Houston. Of Mexican descent, he was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a migrant worker and then a construction worker with a second grade education. His mother worked at home raising eight children and had a sixth grade education. Gonzales and his family of ten lived in a small, two-bedroom home built by his father and uncles with no telephone and no hot running water.[1] According to Gonzales, he is unaware whether immigration documentation exists for three of his grandparents who were born in Mexico and who, like Gonzales and his family, were poor and uneducated and thus they may have entered and resided in the United States illegally from Mexico or they may have entered and resided legally.[4]
An honors student at MacArthur High School in unincorporated Harris County, Gonzales enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment. He served one year at a remote radar site with 100 other GIs at Fort Yukon, Alaska, located north of the Arctic Circle, before being released from active duty to attend the USAFA Prep School. Subsequently he received an appointment to at the United States Air Force Academy.[5] Gonzales was on the Dean’s List every semester and served as President of the Freshman Class Council at the Academy. He was on the Superintendent’s List and Commandant’s List for two semesters. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he left the Academy and was released from the enlistment contract. He transferred to Rice University in Houston, where he was a resident of Lovett College,[6] Gonzales had dreamed of attending Rice as a boy when he sold soft drinks at Rice University football games. He went on to be selected as the Charles Parkhill Scholar of Political Science and he earned a bachelor's degree with honors in political science in 1979.[7] He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982.
Gonzales has been married twice: he and his first wife, Diane Clemens, divorced in 1985; he and his second wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner – the first Hispanic partner (along with one other new partner that year) in the firm’s history – and where he worked primarily with business clients. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. Gonzales received the endorsement of every statewide official and every major Texas newspaper in his election bid to remain on the court in the Republican Primary in 2000, a race he won with over 57% of the vote. The citizens of Texas elected Gonzales to a full six-year term on the Supreme Court in the November 2000 general election with 81% of the vote.[8]
In addition to his political and legal career, Gonzales was active in the community. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was a board trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation from 1996 to 1999; a board director for the State Bar of Texas from 1991 to 1994; a board director for Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Greater Houston from 1985 to 1991; a board director for Catholic Charities of Houston from 1989–1993, a board director for INROADS/Houston, Inc. in 1994; and a board director for the Association for the Advancement of Mexican-Americans from 1991 to 1992. Gonzales was Special Legal Counsel for the Houston Host Committee for the 1990 Summit of Industrialized Nations, and provided pro bono legal services to the Host Committee for the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston. He served as Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Texas Real Estate Center (a committee to which he was appointed by Texas Governor Bill Clements), President of the Houston Hispanic Forum, President of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association and Chair of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Harris County. Gonzales has received numerous professional honors, including the President’s Award in 1989 from the Houston Bar Association, and the Hispanic Salute Award in 1989 from the Houston Metro Ford Dealers and Ford Division, Ford Motor Company for his work in the field of education. He was recognized as the Woodrow Seals Outstanding Young Lawyer of Houston in 1992 by the Houston Young Lawyers Association and as the Outstanding Young lawyer of Texas in 1992 by the Texas Young Lawyers Association. Additionally, he received the Commitment to Leadership Award in 1993 from the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast. He was recognized as one of the Five Outstanding Young Houstonians in 1994 by the Houston Junior Chamber of Commerce, and as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans in 1994 by the Texas Junior Chamber of Commerce, and in 1999 was elected to the prestigious American Law Institute based upon his contributions to the law. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association.
Based on his record of accomplishments, Gonzales was recognized as a Distinguished Alumnus of Rice University in 2002 by the Association of Rice Alumni and was honored the same year by the Harvard Law School Association with its Harvard Law School Association Award. He received President’s Awards in 2003 from both the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the League of United Latin American Citizens. He was recognized with the Outstanding Texas Leader Award in 2002 by the John B. Shepperd Public Leadership Forum. Additionally, in 2003, he received the Gary L. McPherson Distinguished Alumni Award from the American Council of Young Political Leaders; the Chairman’s Leadership Award from the Texas Association of Mexican American Chamber of Commerce, the Truinfador Award from the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the Hispanic Hero Award from the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans and the Good Neighbor Award from the United States-Mexican Chamber of Commerce for his dedication and leadership in promoting a civil society and equal opportunity. In 2003, Gonzales also received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Travis County, Texas Republican Party. In 2004, Gonzales was honored with the Exemplary Leader Award by the Houston American Leadership Forum. In 2005, he was honored with the Hector Barreto, Sr. Award by the Latino Coalition and with a President’s Award by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
As the son of former migrant workers, many recognized Gonzales’ appointment as Attorney General of the United States as the embodiment of the American dream. His work in the Hispanic community and his achievements as a role model earned him recognition as Hispanic American of the Year by HISPANIC Magazine in 2005 and one of The 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America by TIME Magazine. Gonzales was inducted into the Class of 2005 in the Academy of Achievement.[9] Gonzales received the Distinguished Leadership Award in 2006 from Leadership Houston. In 2007, as he left government service, he was honored with the Director’s Award from the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service.
While born in San Antonio, Gonzales is considered a native son of Houston. On May 20, 2006, Houston Mayor Bill White proclaimed “Alberto R. Gonzales Day” in Houston for his contributions to the betterment of the City of Houston. Academic institutions have also recognized Gonzales’ achievements and contributions. He received an Honorary Doctor of Laws in 2002 from The Catholic University of America; an Honorary Degree in Arts and Letters in 2003 from Miami-Dade Community College; an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws in 2005 from the University of District of Columbia; an Honorary Degree in Associate of Arts in 2005 from the Houston Community College System; and an Honorary Alumnus Award in 2007 from Southern Methodist University.
As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped advise Bush in connection with jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.[10] Gonzales made no formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty (to the contrary, Gonzales made it clear Bush was ready to serve as a juror), however, he did raise a possible conflict of interest because as the Governor, Bush might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. The defense counsel has stated he had already thought of this conflict of interest problem for his client and had planned on his own to ask the judge to strike Bush from the jury. Nonetheless, Texas Monthly described Gonzales’ work here as “canny lawyering”.[11]
As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, and failed to second-guess convictions and failed appeals. The White House said the executive summaries prepared represented a small fraction of information provided to the Governor and sought only to document the governor’s final decisions rather than recommend a course of action. Pete Wassdorf, head of the General Counsel’s office for the Texas Attorney General, who served as Gonzales’ deputy at the time, also said additional information about some of the cases was provided to Bush in other documents.[12] Under Section II, Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, the Governor cannot grant a pardon or commute a death sentence except with a majority vote recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, so Bush was constrained in granting clemency even if he had wanted to do so in a case. Only one death sentence was overturned by Governor Bush, and the state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales's term than any other state.[13][14] Gonzales’ deputy general counsel from 1995 to 1999, Pete Wassdorf, wrote that The Atlantic Monthly story written by Berlow paints an inaccurate and incomplete picture of the clemency process under Bush. Wassdorf, who served with General Gonzales’s office during the period of the clemency memo wrote: “Berlow also fails to recognize that according to American jurisprudence, clemency is a discretionary act of grace bestowed by the governor under the state’s constitution. It is not part of the judicial process. If the governor chooses never to grant clemency; or to exercise that constitutional authority sparingly, and then only when legitimate questions about guilt or innocence persist or when legal issues are raised that have not been reviewed by the courts, or to grant it in every case, he may clearly do so. Governor Bush took a consistent, principled position on clemency, and Gonzales’ counsel served his client well by bringing all credible matters raised by the condemned to the Governor’s attention. The fact that the author disagrees with the governor’s standards does not make them wrong; nor does it make Gonzales’ summaries deficient. Finally, I want to state for the record that the general counsel’s office approved each of these cases with the greatest of care and sensitivity. I categorically disagree with any suggestions otherwise.”[15]
Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales, was issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, although the White House had been working on on this order for some months. The order dealt with the release of presidential records, making it possible for current and former presidents to assert executive privilege over the release of privileged presidential records. The order gives to the President the power to delay the release of presidential records longer than the congressionally mandated period of 12 years after the president leaves office. Executive Order 13233 revoked President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12667 on the same subject and had the effect of delaying the release of Reagan's papers, which were due to be made public when Bush took office in 2001. While the policy was being drawn up, Gonzales as Counsel to the President issued a series of orders to the U.S. Archivist to delay the release of Reagan's records.[16] This order was the subject of a number of lawsuits and Congressional attempts to overturn it. A D. C. district court in 2007 ordered the Archivist not to obey this order, finding it to be "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."[17] In 2009 Executive Order 13233 was revoked by President Barack Obama, who largely restored the wording Reagan's Executive Order 12667.
Gonzales is considered a key architect in establishing the legal foundations for the war on terror.[18] His service as White House Counsel and as Attorney General in the fight on terrorism was recognized by the Director of the CIA in 2007 with a Directors Award, that includes a citation that reads: “During a period of tremendous tumult and change brought on by an unparalleled series of terrorist attacks and continuing threats against the American people, he [Gonzales] has provided unstinting support and wise counsel to many elements of the Community in their conduct of a critical and unprecedented range of operational activities that saved countless lives and protected the nation from further attacks. He performed his role with exemplary skill, dedication, and humor, all the while ensuring that the Community could carry out its vital mission in a manner faithful to the country’s laws and values. For his service, Judge Gonzales has earned the lasting gratitude and respect of U.S. intelligence officers everywhere, reflecting great credit upon himself and the Federal Service.[19]
After consulting with lawyers from throughout the Administration, including the Department of Justice which is charged by law to provide legal advice to the Executive Branch, Gonzales helped draft a controversial memo in January 2002 that explored whether The Geneva Convention section III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) applied to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and against providing GPW protection to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The memo concluded that certain provisions of GPW were outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. In the memo, Gonzales described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments," because "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war." (The British government later reached a similar conclusion when it said, “the Geneva Conventions are failing to provide necessary protection because they lack clarity and are out of date”[20]) The memo went on, "It (the war against terrorism) is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for GPW. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians."[21]
Gonzales later explained, “The old ways may not work here. That’s what the memo was intended to convey to the President. I never meant to convey to the President that the basic values in the Geneva Convention were outdated." He noted that he was not the first to draw such conclusions from some of the more nitpicky requirements in the international treaties. He argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He also expressed a concern that undefined language in Common Article III of GPW, such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes Act of 1996 if actions were deemed to constitute violations of the Act.[21] Attorney General John Ashcroft made a similar argument on behalf of the Justice Department by letter to the President dated February 1, 2002, when he wrote that a presidential determination “against treaty application would provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violations of parts of the Geneva Convention a crime in the United States.”[22]
Shortly after September 26, 2002, a Gulfstream government jet carrying David Addington, Gonzales, John A. Rizzo, William Haynes II, two Justice Department lawyers, Alice S. Fisher and Patrick F. Philbin, and the Office of Legal Counsel's Jack Goldsmith flew to Camp Delta to view Mohammed al-Kahtani, then to Charleston, South Carolina to view Jose Padilla, and finally to Norfolk, Virginia to view Yaser Esam Hamdi[23] and to examine related facilities to confirm they were consistent with legal requirements.
According to a New York Times report, despite an unclassified legal opinion issued in December 30, 2004 that declared torture "abhorrent," shortly after Gonzales became Attorney General in February 2005 the Justice Department issued another, classified opinion dated May 10, 2005, which for the first time provided CIA explicit authorization to apply to terror suspects a combination of uncomfortable physical and psychological tactics (under strict guidelines administered by trained personnel to ensure safety, and monitored carefully by medical personnel). The legal opinion covered 13 techniques; it was recommended by Deputy Attorney General James Comey for approval by Gonzales. That opinion echoed the earlier December 30, 2004 memo by declaring, “Torture is abhorrent both to American laws and values and to international norms. The unusual repudiation of torture is reflected not only in our criminal laws, see e.g. [8U.S.C. §§2340-2340A], but also in international agreements, in centuries of Anglo-American law, see e.g., John H. Langbeen, Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (1977) (“Torture and the Law of Proof”), and in the long standing policy of the United States, repeatedly and recently reaffirmed by the President. Consistent with these norms, the President has directed unequivocally that the United States is not to engage in torture.”[24] The May 10 opinion approving the 13 techniques claimed that its reasoning and conclusions are based upon and fully consistent with the legal opinion issued on December 30, 2004, stating “Our analysis of this question is controlled by this office’s recently published opinion interpreting the anti-torture statute. ... Much of the analysis from our 2004 Legal Standards Opinion is reproduced below; all of it is incorporated by reference herein.”[24] Gonzales reportedly approved the a second May 10, 2005 classified legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the policy objections of James B. Comey, the outgoing deputy attorney general, who told colleagues at the Justice Department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it. Patrick Leahy and John Conyers, chairmen of the respective Senate and House Judiciary Committees, requested that the Justice Department turn over documents related to the classified 2005 legal opinions to their committees for review. [25]
Gonzales also helped draft the Presidential Order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. The order was approved as to legality by lawyers at the Department of Justice. The order directs that the accused will receive a full and fair trial, and persons charged will be entitled to be represented by competent counsel. The order was written to duplicate the military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and found to be constitutional for use against Nazi saboteurs by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Exparte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 30 (1942). The use of military commissions has been found to be so vital to our national security in the war on terror that their use have been approved and codified twice by Congress.[26] (In 2009, The Obama administration stated it would abide by the Geneva Convention and described some of the enhanced interrogation techniques established under Attorney General Gonzalez' tenure as torture.[27] On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations "unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance.")[28]
Gonzales fought with Congress to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy task force documents from being reviewed, and his arguments were ultimately upheld by courts. On July 2, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Vice President, but remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit. On May 11, 2005, the D.C. Circuit threw out the lawsuit and ruled the Vice President was free to meet in private with energy industry representatives in 2001 while drawing up the President’s energy policy.[29]
Gonzales was also an early advocate of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The PATRIOT Act was subsequently renewed by Congress and the President in March 2006 and again in February 2010. FBI Director Bob Mueller testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that many of the FBI’s operational counter-terrorism successes since September 11 are the direct result of the changes incorporated in the PATRIOT Act.[30]
Gonzales's name was sometimes floated as a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court during Bush's first presidential term. On November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General John Ashcroft for Bush's second term. Gonzales was regarded as a moderate compared to Ashcroft because he was not seen as opposing abortion or affirmative action. Although he has never stated publicly his support for abortion and later as Attorney General, was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Carhart, which reinforced the ban on late-term abortion that was previously overturned, and had stated publicly his opposition to racial quotas, some people assumed Gonzales did not oppose abortion or affirmative action. According to a Texas Monthly article, Gonzales has never said he was pro-choice and he has publicly opposed racial quotas.[31]
The perceived departure from some conservative viewpoints elicited strong opposition to Gonzales that started during his Senate confirmation proceedings at the beginning of President Bush's second term. The New York Times quoted anonymous Republican officials as saying that Gonzales's appointment to Attorney General was a way to "bolster Mr. Gonzales's credentials" en route to a later Supreme Court appointment.[32]
Gonzales enjoyed broad bipartisan support in connection with his nomination, including the support of former Democratic HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. One writer noted, “ A senator from Pennsylvania said, “I have always found him [Alberto Gonzales] to be completely forthright, brutally honest – in some cases telling me things I did not want to hear but always forthright, always honest, sincere, serious. This is a serious man who takes the responsibilities that have been given to him as a great privilege and a great honor which he holds very carefully and gently in his hands.” Said another senator, this one from Kentucky, “Judge Gonzales is proof that in America, there are no artificial barriers to success. A man or woman can climb to any height that his or her talents can take them. For Judge Gonzales, that is a very high altitude indeed. And luckily for his country, he is not quite finished climbing yet.”[1] The nomination was approved on February 3, 2005, with the confirming vote largely split along party lines 60–36 (54 Republicans and 6 Democrats in favor, and 36 Democrats against, along with 4 abstentions: 3 Democrat and 1 Republican).[33] He was sworn in on February 3, 2005.
Shortly before the July 1, 2005 retirement of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O'Connor, rumors started circulating that a memo had leaked from the White House stating that upon the retirement of either O'Connor or Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, that Gonzales would be the first nominee for a vacancy on the Court.
Quickly, conservative stalwarts[34] such as National Review magazine[35] and Focus on the Family, among other socially conservative groups, stated they would oppose a Gonzales nomination.[36]
Much of their opposition to Gonzales was based on his perceived support of abortion rights as a result of one vote on a single case before the Supreme Court, In re Jane Doe 5 (43 Tex. Sup. J.910).
In a series of cases before the Texas Supreme Court in 2000, the court was asked to construe for the first time the 1999 Texas parental notification law forbidding a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant, unaccompanied minor without giving notice to the minor’s parents at least 48 hours before the procedure. However Texas legislators adopted a policy to create a judicial bypass exception in those cases where (1) the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents; (2) notification will not be in the best interest of the minor or (3) notification may lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the minor. The court was asked in these cases to discern legislative intent for the first time to these subjective standards, presumably included in the law as a matter of Texas policy and to make the law constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents. In the seven parental notification decisions rendered by the court, Gonzales voted to grant one bypass. For In re Jane Doe 5 his concurring opinion began with the sentence, "I fully join in the Court's judgment and opinion." He went on, though, to address the three dissenting opinions, primarily one by Nathan L. Hecht alleging that the court majority's members had disregarded legislative intent in favor of their personal ideologies. Gonzales's opinion dealt mostly with how to establish legislative intent. He wrote, "We take the words of the statute as the surest guide to legislative intent. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices." He added, "[T]o construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism" and "While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature."
Political commentators had suggested that Bush forecast the selection of Gonzales with his comments defending the Attorney General made on July 6, 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Bush stated, "I don't like it when a friend gets criticized. I'm loyal to my friends. All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it, at all." However, this speculation proved to be incorrect, as Bush nominated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
After the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3, 2005, creating another vacancy, speculation resumed that President Bush might nominate Gonzales to the Court. This again proved to be incorrect, as Bush decided to nominate Roberts to the Chief Justice position, and on October 3, 2005, nominated Harriet Miers as Associate Justice, to replace Justice O'Connor. On October 27, 2005, Miers withdrew her nomination, again renewing speculation about a possible Gonzales nomination. This was laid to rest when Judge Samuel Alito received the nomination and subsequent confirmation.
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Alberto Gonzales |
On September 11, 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter was quoted as saying that it was "a little too soon" after Gonzales's appointment as Attorney General for him to be appointed to another position, and that such an appointment would require a new series of confirmation hearings. “He [Gonzales] is attacked a lot,” observes Larry Sabato, a political analyst and the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who adds that the serious political spats “virtually eliminated him from the Supreme Court chase.[37]
Gonzales has been recognized for his work in the fight against terrorism[19] and his fight against sexual predators. His leadership on behalf of children has been widely noted; Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, described Attorney General Gonzales’ example in raising this issue to prominence as a “clear profile in courage”.[38] President Bush in accepting Gonzales’ resignation as Attorney General said, “Al Gonzales has played a role in shaping our policies in the war on terror, and has worked tirelessly to make this country safer. The PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act and other important laws bear his imprint. Under his leadership, the Justice Department has made a priority of protecting children from internet predators, and made enforcement of civil rights law a top priority. He aggressively and successfully pursued public corruption and effectively combated gang violence. As Attorney General he played an important role in helping to confirm two fine jurists in Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He did an outstanding job as White House Counsel, identifying and recommending the best nominees to fill critically important federal court vacancies.”[39] Hector Flores, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said this about Gonzales “He is an American leader who happens to be Hispanic. When you are breaking new ground, especially in the Attorney General’s office, representing all of the federal government, he is ruling on his knowledge of the law, whether you like or don’t like it.”[40]
During Gonzales’ tenure, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were accused of improperly, and perhaps illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens.[41] The actions taken were found by the Justice Department Inspector General to be unintentional and technical in nature. There was no finding of intent to violate the rights of citizens. Despite making himself available to answer questions at multiple hearings under oath, and turning over thousands of pages of documents, and despite no finding of any evidence of wrongdoing, critics still try to claim Gonzales should resign because of inability to explain his role and influence in the dismissal of U.S. attorneys led several members of the United States Congress from both major political parties to call for his resignation. Through his testimony before Congress on issues ranging from the Patriot Act to U.S. Attorney firings, he commonly admitted ignorance.[42]
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2011) |
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy ( ) |
Articles |
---|
G. W. Bush administration officials involved |
|
Involved administration officials who resigned |
|
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 110th Congress |
|
U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary 110th Congress |
|
By law, U.S. Attorneys are appointed for a term of four years, and each U.S. Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President and is subject to removal by the President for any and no reason, so long as it is not for an illegal or improper reason.[43] Nonetheless, the removal of a group of U.S. Attorneys at the same time was "unprecedented" until Gonzales's term as Attorney General. When Gonzales became Attorney General in 2005, he ordered a performance review of all U.S. Attorneys[44] On December 7, 2006, seven United States attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the George W. Bush administration sought their resignation.[45] One more, Bud Cummins, who had been informed of his dismissal in June 2006, announced his resignation on December 15, 2006 effective December 20, 2006 upon being notified of Tim Griffin's appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.[46][47][48] In the subsequent congressional hearings and press reports, it was disclosed that additional U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation to the dismissee in 2005 and 2006, and that at least 26 U.S. attorneys were at various times considered for dismissal.[49]
Although U.S. attorneys can be dismissed at the discretion of the president, critics claimed that the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party ("loyal Bushies," in the words of Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’s former chief of staff) or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party. At least six of the eight had received positive performance reviews at the Department of Justice.[50] However, DOJ officials Will Moschella and Monica Goodling both testified under oath that EARS evaluations are office-wide reviews, they are not reviews of the U.S. Attorneys themselves[51] Gonzales testified under oath that EARS evaluations do not necessarily reflect on the U.S. Attorney.[52] In other words, these reviews were not evaluations of the performance of the fired federal prosecutors.
In a press conference given on March 13, Gonzales suggested that "incomplete information, was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress" and he accepted full responsibility.[53][54] Nonetheless, Gonzales avowed that his knowledge of the process to fire and select new US attorneys was limited to how the US attorneys may have been classified as "strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers." Gonzales also asserted that was all he knew of the process, saying that "[I] was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General."[53]
However, Department of Justice records released on March 23 appeared to contradict some of the Attorney General's assertions, indicting that on his Nov 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge."[55] Despite insisting that he was not involved in the "deliberations" leading up to the firing of the attorneys, newly released emails also suggest that he had indeed been notified and that he had given ultimate approval.
In his prepared testimony to Congress on April 19, 2007, Gonzales insisted he left the decisions on the firings to his staff. However, ABC News obtained an internal department email showing that Gonzales urged the ouster of Carol Lam, one of the fired attorneys, six months before she was asked to leave.[56] During actual testimony on April 19, Gonzales stated at least 71 times that he couldn't recall events related to the controversy.[57]
His responses frustrated the Democrats on the committee, as well as several Republicans. One example of such frustration came in an exchange between Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Gonzales regarding a November 2006 meeting. Sessions is one of the most conservative members of the Senate, and was one of the Bush Administration's staunchest allies. At the meeting, the attorney firings were purportedly discussed, but Gonzales did not remember such discussion. As reported by the Washington Post, the dialogue went as follows:
GONZALES: Well, Senator, putting aside the issue, of course, sometimes people's recollections are different, I have no reason to doubt Mr. Battle's testimony [about the November meeting]. SESSIONS: Well, I guess I'm concerned about your recollection, really, because it's not that long ago. It was an important issue. And that's troubling to me, I've got to tell you. GONZALES: Senator, I went back and looked at my calendar for that week. I traveled to Mexico for the inauguration of the new president. We had National Meth Awareness Day. We were working on a very complicated issue relating to CFIUS. GONZALES: And so there were a lot of other weighty issues and matters that I was dealing with that week.[58]
Another example came when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who had been the first lawmaker to call for Gonzales' ouster, declined to ask his last round of questions. Instead, a visibly angry Schumer said there was no point to further questioning since Gonzales had stated "over a hundred times" that he didn't know or couldn't recall important details concerning the firings, and also didn't seem to know about the workings of his own department. Gonzales responded that the onus was on the committee to prove whether anything improper occurred. Schumer replied that Gonzales faced a higher standard, and that under this standard he had to give "a full, complete and convincing explanation" for why the eight attorneys were fired.[59]
The Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility commenced an investigation into the removal of nine U.S. Attorneys. Their report was issued in September 2008. The report cited serious issues of accountability removing a few of the U.S. Attorneys, but there was no finding that the nine U.S. Attorneys were removed for illegal or improper reasons. To the contrary, the report concluded that Margaret Chiara and Kevin Ryan were removed appropriately for management issues. Paul Charlton was removed for his action relating to a death penalty case and unilateral implementation of an interrogation policy. The report found Carol Lam was removed because of the Justice Department’s concerns about the low number of gun and immigration prosecutions in her district. The report concluded John McKay was asked to leave because of his disagreement with the Deputy Attorney General over an information-sharing program. The report could not cite to a reason Dan Bogden was asked to leave, but there was no finding that anything illegal or improper occurred with his removal. The report concluded Bud Cummins was asked to leave to make room for another political appointee that he himself conceded under oath was qualified to serve as a U.S. Attorney. These findings were consistent with testimony given by Gonzales. Politics was clearly involved. Likewise, the report concluded Todd Graves was removed to settle a political dispute in Missouri. Again, this was motivated by politics. Finally, the report found that it could not conclude that David Iglesias was removed for an improper reason. However since the IG had no authority to investigate Congress or the White House, the IG asked Attorney General Mukasey to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Iglesias removal.[60] This special prosecutor found no wrongdoing in the removal of David Iglesias. The DOJ IG found no criminal wrongdoing in the records. As the Wall Street Journal reported “the Justice Department informed Congress on Wednesday that a special investigator in the case found no evidence of wrongdoing….the investigator’s final word is that no Administration official gave ‘false statements’ to Congress or to the DOJ Inspector General, which carried out their own investigation.”[61]
The report also found no evidence that Gonzales made false or misleading statements to Congress, thus clearing him of accusations of perjury.[62]
The IG report did find that some statements made by Gonzales at a March 13, 2007 press conference about his involvement were inaccurate. The report however does not conclude that Gonzales deliberately provided false information.[63] He acknowledged from the outset his misstatements, accepted responsibility, and attempted to set the record straight well before congressional testimony on April 19, 2007. Gonzales testified 18 months before the IG reports that statements he made at the March 13, 2007 press conference were misstatements and were overboard.[64] Further, in his written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, presented April 19, 2007, Gonzales wrote: “I misspoke at a press conference on March 13th when I said that I “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” That statement was too broad. At that same press conference, I made clear that I was aware of the process; I said, “I knew my Chief of Staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers, where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that’s what I knew”. Of course, I knew about the process because of, at a minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson. Thus, my statement about “discussions” was imprecise and overboard, but it certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people.”
In August 2009, White House documents released showed that Rove raised concerns directly with Gonzales and that Domenici or an intermediary may have contacted the Justice Department as early as 2005 to complain.[65] In contrast, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007: "I don't recall . . . Senator Domenici ever requesting that Mr. Iglesias be removed."[65] In July 2010, Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firings were not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[66]
The conclusion of the investigation caused one commentator to note, “a career Justice Department prosecutor not beholden to any administration shows us that the witch hunt against Albert Gonzales was a politically motivated sham.”[67]
As the Wall Street Journal noted, when referring to Iglesias, “we’ll note that his successor in New Mexico, who was appointed by a panel of judges and not by President Bush, picked up the pace considerably in prosecuting and winning convictions in political corruption cases. The contrast bears out the criticism at the time that Iglesias has mismanaged his office.”[68]
Gonzales acknowledged in his testimony in April 19, 2007 that he should have been more involved in the process. He acknowledged this well before the Inspector General reached this conclusion. He said in his congressional testimony that he should have been more precise in his press conference statements about the firings well before the Inspector General reached this conclusion. Gonzales clarified misstatements made at the March 13 press conference in subsequent interviews. Gonzales asked the Office of Professional Responsibility to examine the records and supported the involvement of the Inspector General. He directed full cooperation with all investigations by DOJ employees and agreed to release thousands of pages of internal DOJ documents. The Inspector General found no intentional or criminal wrongdoing by Gonzales.[69]
On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas corpus in the United States Constitution.[70] An excerpt of the exchange follows:
GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme—
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?[71]
Senator Specter was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established.[72] Indeed, there is a respectable argument, based on the original understanding of the Suspension Clause, that the Constitution itself creates no habeas corpus right at all for persons of any type in federal custody and that all such rights are entirely a creature of Congress. Professor Ervin Chemerinsky said “[a]though the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of habeas corpus except during times of rebellion or invasion, this provision was probably meant to keep Congress from suspending the writ and preventing state courts from releasing individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned. The constitutional provision does not create a right to habeas corpus; rather federal statues [do so].”[73] Additionally, “the Constitutional Convention prevented Congress from obstructing the states courts’ ability to grant the writ, but did not try to create a federal constitutional right to habeas corpus”.[74] “After all, if the suspension clause itself were an affirmative grant of procedural rights to those held in federal custody, there would have been little need for the first Congress to enact as it did, habeas corpus protections in the Judiciary Act of 1789.[75] On the other hand, Chereminksy's argument has been denied by Justice Paul Stevens in a 2001 opinion in an immigration case involving the issue, where Stevens touches upon what he believes the 'far more sensible view':
"The dissent reads into Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807), support for a proposition that the Chief Justice did not endorse, either explicitly or implicitly. See post, at 14—15. He did note that “the first congress of the United States” acted under “the immediate influence” of the injunction provided by the Suspension Clause when it gave “life and activity” to “this great constitutional privilege” in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and that the writ could not be suspended until after the statute was enacted. 4 Cranch, at 95. That statement, however, surely does not imply that Marshall believed the Framers had drafted a Clause that would proscribe a temporary abrogation of the writ, while permitting its permanent suspension. Indeed, Marshall’s comment expresses the far more sensible view that the Clause was intended to preclude any possibility that “the privilege itself would be lost” by either the inaction or the action of Congress. See, e.g., ibid. (noting that the Founders “must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation” imposed by the Suspension Clause)."[76]
Justice Steven's assertion is backed up by sentiments found in the Federalist No. 84, which enshrines the right to petition for habeas corpus as fundamental:
"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."[77]
The Constitution presupposes that courts in the United States will have the authority to issue the writ as they historically did at common law. See, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 666 (1996). The text of the Constitution provides that “[t]he privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9m cl.2. As some commentators have noted, “the text does not explicitly confer a right to habeas relief, but merely sets forth when the Privilege of the Writ may be suspended”.[78] [79]
As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:
“ | Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment…[80] |
” |
In a December 2005 article[81][82] in The New York Times, it was revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants in cases where (i) intelligence experts at the National Security Agency had reason to believe one party to the call was a member of al Qaeda or a group affiliated with al Qaeda, and (ii) the call was international.[83] President Bush warned that if you are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know why. The New York Times acknowledges that the activities were classified, and that it had disclosed the activities over the Administration’s objections. After the publication of the article, Gonzales publicly threatened the Times with prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917.,[84] since knowing publication of classified information is a federal crime. Attorney General Gonzales raised the possibility that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of terrorist-related calls between the United States and abroad. He said, “I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to protect and respect . . .” As for the Times, he said, “As we do in every case, it’s a case-by-case evaluation about what the evidence shows us, our interpretation of the law. We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity.”[85]
The publication led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) over the role of DOJ lawyers in giving legal advice to support various intelligence collection activities. OPR is responsible for investigating allegations of professional misconduct by DOJ attorneys. The objective of OPR is to ensure that DOJ attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards.[86]
The Bush Administration and Attorney General Gonzales believed that OPR did not have the authority to investigate Gonzales’ role as White House Counsel in connection with certain intelligence activities authorized by the President. In response to suggestions that Gonzales blocked the investigation or that the President blocked the investigation to protect Gonzales, Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling informed Chairman John Conyers on March 22, 2007, that “the President made the decision not to grant the requested security clearances to” OPR staff. Judge Gonzales “was not told he was the subject or target of the OPR investigation, nor did he believe himself to be…” Judge Gonzales “did not ask the President to shut down or otherwise impede the OPR investigation”. Judge Gonzales “recommended to the President that OPR be granted security clearance.”[87]
Gonzales disclosed to the Senate by letter dated August 1, 2007, that shortly after the September 11 attacks, the President authorized the NSA under a single Presidential Authorization to engage in a number of intelligence activities described as the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP) by the DOJ IG. One of the authorized activities was the Terrorist Surveillance program described by the President to the nation on December 16, 2005. According to Gonzalez, the dispute between the President and James Comey that led to the hospital visit was not over TSP, it concerned other classified intelligence activities that are part of PSP and have not been disclosed. However, Comey stated that the disagreement had been over TSP, including the hospital visit. Gonzalez later used a spokesperson to deny his previous assertion, claiming he misspoke. The controversy over these conflicting statements led Senator Schumer requesting appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzalez for perjury.[88]
According to May 15, 2007, testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee (as reported in the New York Times[89]) on the evening of March 10, 2004, Gonzales and Bush's then-chief-of-staff Andrew H. Card Jr. tried to bypass his authority [on order of the President of the United States][90] by visiting then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The President’s Surveillance Program included the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Other Intelligence Activities, which was the source of the dispute between the White House and the Department of Justice.[91] Card and Gonzales went to visit Ashcroft at the direction of the President.[90] The purpose of this visit was to reauthorize the PSP, which included the Other Intelligence Activities, which Comey (as acting AG) had refused to reauthorize but which his boss, General Ashcroft, had approved for over two years. (Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.) However, testimony from Gonzales, Goldsmith and others confirmed that Ashcroft was not disoriented. Ashcroft was at least competent enough to recite to Card and Gonzales the basis of the Departments’ legal arguments, and he complained about clearance decisions by the President relative to the PSP.
“ | In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval for a matter. I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.[92] | ” |
Comey's testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales's assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify."[92] He added that some "top Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over it."[92]
In a preview of his book "The Terror Presidency" to be published later in September 2007, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, corroborates many of the details of Comey's Senate testimony regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room visit of Gonzales and Card on former Attorney General Ashcroft. Jeffrey Rosen writes this in the September 9, 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine of his extended interview with Goldsmith, who was also in the hospital room that night:[93]
As he recalled it to me, Goldsmith received a call in the evening from his deputy, Philbin, telling him to go to the George Washington University Hospital immediately, since Gonzales and Card were on the way there. Goldsmith raced to the hospital, double-parked outside and walked into a dark room. Ashcroft lay with a bright light shining on him and tubes and wires coming out of his body. Suddenly, Gonzales and Card came in the room and announced that they were there in connection with the classified program. “Ashcroft, who looked like he was near death, sort of puffed up his chest,” Goldsmith recalls. “All of a sudden, energy and color came into his face, and he said that he didn’t appreciate them coming to visit him under those circumstances, that he had concerns about the matter they were asking about and that, in any event, he wasn’t the attorney general at the moment; Jim Comey was. He actually gave a two-minute speech, and I was sure at the end of it he was going to die. It was the most amazing scene I’ve ever witnessed.” After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked out of the room. “At that moment,” Goldsmith recalled, “Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn’t believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. She had no idea what we were discussing, but this sweet-looking woman sticking out her tongue was the ultimate expression of disapproval. It captured the feeling in the room perfectly.”
The suggestion that Ashcroft was unable to think clearly is contradicted by sworn testimony. Comey testified that Ashcroft expressed himself in very strong terms”[94] Goldsmith testified that Ashcroft spoke at length about the legal issue. “Attorney General Ashcroft… [gave] a couple of minute’s speech in which he said that he…. shared the Justice department’s concerns.”[95] As further evidence of Ashcroft’s state of mind, FBI Director Bob Mueller testified, “Ashcroft complained to Judge Gonzales about White House compartmentalization rules preventing Ashcroft from getting the advice he needed.[96] “Comey tells Mueller that Ashcroft reviewed for Card and Gonzales the legal concerns relating to the program.” There is ample testimony that while Ashcroft had just had surgery, he was competent to explain the legal issues and complain about the President’s decisions not to allow his Chief of Staff to be cleared into this important national security program. Gonzales testified that he and Card were concerned about Ashcroft’s competency.[97] “Obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft’s condition. And we would not have sought nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn’t fully competent to make the decision.” In response to a question from Senator Hatch, Gonzales also testified, “Obviously were concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent. When we got there, I will just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes – five to six minutes. Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I’ve heard him talk about legal issues in the White House.[98]
On Tuesday, July 24, Gonzales testified for almost four hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He appeared to contradict the sworn account of James B. Comey regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room meeting with John Ashcroft. The IG concluded that there was nothing false or intentionally misleading in Gonzales’ account.
“ | Mr. Comey's testimony about the hospital visit was about other intelligence activities—disagreement over other intelligence activities. That's how we'd clarify it.[92] | ” |
Gonzales wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee that he defined TSP as the program the President publicly confirmed, a program that targets communications where one party is outside the United States, and as to which the government had reason to believe at least one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.[99] Gonzales provided the same definition of TSP in several public appearances[100][101][102][103] leading up to his February 6, 2006 testimony.[104]
The Inspector General concluded that the dispute between the White House and the Department concerned the Other Intelligence Activities that were different from the communications interception activities that the President publicly acknowledged as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but that had been implemented through the same Presidential Authorizations.[105]
Gonzales was confronted by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who told him "That is not what Mr. Comey says; that is not what the people in the room say."[92] Gonzales responded "That's how we clarify it."[92] The IG agreed with Gonzales.
The response to Gonzales's testimony by those Senators serving on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was one of disbelief. Russ Feingold, who is a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, said, “I believe your testimony is misleading at best,” which Sheldon Whitehouse—also a member of both committees—concurred with, saying, “I have exactly the same perception.” Chuck Schumer said Gonzales was "not being straightforward" with the committee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said, “I just don’t trust you,” and urged Gonzales to carefully review his testimony. The ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, said to Gonzales, “Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.” Leahy and Specter's comments were interpreted as warnings that Gonzales might have been perjuring himself. The DOJ Inspector General agreed with Gonzales noting in his report that the “dispute-which resulted in the visit to Attorney General Ashcroft’s hospital room by Gonzales and Card and brought several senior DOJ and FBI officials to the brink of resignations – concerned certain of the Other Intelligence Activities that were different from the communication interception activities that the President later publicly acknowledged as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but that had been implemented through the same Presidential Authorization.[106] After the meeting, Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said Gonzales was being "untruthful." Rockefeller's sentiments were echoed by Jane Harman, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, who accused Gonzales of "selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct."[107] Gonzales did not declassify any information. He received permission from the President to discuss in more detail the reason for the hospital visit. As the IG report confirms, the dispute involved Other Intelligence Activities, it was not about TSP.[108]
On July 26, 2007, the Associated Press obtained a four-page memorandum from the office of former Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte dated May 17, 2006, which appeared to contradict Gonzales's testimony the previous day regarding the subject of a March 10, 2004 emergency Congressional briefing which preceded his hospital room meeting with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, James B. Comey and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr..[109] However, there is no contradiction as the July 1, 2009 IG report confirms. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the President authorized a number of intelligence activities reported by the IG on the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP). One set of activities were TSP, but the dispute was about certain of the Other Intelligence Activities. The IG report is clear on p. 37 that the TSP “was not the subject of the hospital room confrontation or the threatened resignations.” P. 36 of the Inspector General report goes on to say that the White House had a major disagreement related to PSP. The dispute which resulted in the visit to Attorney General Ashcroft’s hospital room by Gonzales and Card and brought several senior DOJ and FBI officials to the brink of resignation-concerned certain of the Other Intelligence Activities that were different from the communications interception activities that the President later publicly acknowledged as the TSP, but that had been implemented through the same President Authorizations.[110]
On that same day, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III also seemed to dispute the accuracy of Gonzales's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of the previous day regarding the events of March 10, 2004 in his own sworn testimony on that subject before the House Judiciary Committee.[111]
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) asked Mueller "Did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft, or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?" He replied "I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft." Lee went on to ask "I guess we use [the phrase] TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program], we use warrantless wiretapping. So would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?" He responded "It was—the discussion was on a national—an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."[92]
On Thursday, August 16, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee released the heavily-redacted notes[112] of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III regarding the Justice Department and White House deliberations of March, 2004 which included the March 10, 2004 hospital-room visit of Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. on John Ashcroft in the presence of then-acting Attorney General James B. Comey. The notes list 26 meetings and phone conversations over three weeks—from March 1 to March 23—during a debate that reportedly almost led to mass resignations at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [113]
On July 26, 2007 a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement, Senators Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse urged that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate whether Gonzales had perjured himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the previous day. "We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress," the letter read in part.[114] According to the July 10, 2009 DOJ Inspector General Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress. There was no finding of perjury or other criminal wrongdoing by Gonzales[115]
On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the United States Department of Justice, the White House, and Vice President Dick Cheney seeking internal documents regarding the program's legality and details of the NSA's cooperative agreements with private telecommunications corporations. In addition to the subpoenas, committee chairman Patrick Leahy sent Gonzales a letter about possible false statements made under oath by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings before the committee the previous year.[116] In an August 17, 2007 reply letter to Leahy asking for an extension of the August 20 deadline [117] for compliance, White House counsel Fred Fielding argued that the subpoenas called for the production of "extraordinarily sensitive national security information," and he said much of the information—if not all—could be subject to a claim of executive privilege. [118] On August 20, 2007, Fielding wrote to Leahy that the White House needed yet more time to respond to the subpoenas, which prompted Leahy to reply that the Senate may consider a contempt of Congress citation when it returns from its August recess.[119]
On July 27, 2007, both White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Gonzales's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony regarding the events of March 10, 2004, saying that it did not contradict the sworn House Judiciary Committee account of FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, because Gonzales had been constrained in what he could say because there was a danger he would divulge classified material.[120] Lee Casey, a former Justice Department lawyer during the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, told The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer that it is likely that the apparent discrepancy can be traced to the fact that there are two separate Domestic Surveillance programs. "The program that was leaked in December 2005 is the Comey program. It is not the program that was discussed in the evening when they went to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room. That program we know almost nothing about. We can speculate about it. …The program about which he said there was no dispute is a program that was created after the original program died, when Mr. Comey refused to reauthorize it, in March 2004. Mr. Comey then essentially redid the program to suit his legal concerns. And about that program, there was no dispute. There was clearly a dispute about the earlier form or version of the program. The attorney general has not talked about that program. He refers to it as "other intelligence activities" because it is, in fact, still classified."[92]
On Tuesday, August 28, 2007—one day after Gonzales announced his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17—Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy indicated that it would not affect ongoing investigations by his committee. “I intend to get answers to these questions no matter how long it takes,” Leahy said, suggesting that Gonzales could face subpoenas from the committee for testimony or evidence long after leaving the administration. “You’ll notice that we’ve had people subpoenaed even though they’ve resigned from the White House,” Leahy said, referring to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Karl Rove, who resigned this month as the president’s top political aide. “They’re still under subpoena. They still face contempt if they don’t appear.”[121] Gonzales testified voluntarily to Congress and provided interviews to the Inspector General on numerous occasions. He ordered full cooperation by all Department of Justice employees with ongoing investigations.
On Thursday, August 30, 2007, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine disclosed in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as part of a previously ongoing investigation, his office is looking into whether Gonzales made statements to Congress that were “intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate,” both about the firing of federal prosecutors and about the terrorist-surveillance program, as committee chairman Patrick Leahy had asked him to do in an August 16, 2007 letter. Fine's letter to Leahy said that his office “has ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified." Fine said that his office is conducting a particular review “relating to the terrorist-surveillance program, as well as a follow-up review of the use of national security letters,” which investigators use to obtain information on e-mail messages, telephone calls and other records from private companies without court approval.[122] Fine concluded his investigation and found that Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress.[123]
It has been reported that a person involved in the incident of March 10, 2004 hospital room meeting with John Ashcroft has said that much of the confusion and conflicting testimony that occurred about intelligence activities was because certain programs were so classified that they were impossible to speak about clearly.[124] The DOJ Inspector General recognized that Gonzales was in the difficult position of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a highly classified program in an open forum[125] On July 31, 2007, Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell confirmed, in a letter to Senator Specter, that the activities publicly referred to “as the TSP did not exhaust the activities subject to periodic authorization by the President.[126] Gonzales was then able to explain publicly, on August 1, 2007, that while TSP “was an extraordinary activity that presented novel and difficult issues and was, as [he understood], the subject of intense deliberations within the Department,” the aspect of Mr. Comey’s advise that prompted the Gang of Eight meeting on March 10, 2004, was not about TSP, but was about another or other aspects of the intelligence activities in question, which activities remain classified.[127] Comey himself acknowledged that the nature of the disagreement at issue on March 10, 2004, is “a very complicated matter”, but he declined to discuss in a public setting.[128] Professor Jack Goldsmith appears to acknowledge that there is a difference between TSP and other classified intelligence activities that prompted the March 10, 2004 Gang of Eight meeting and visit to General Ashcroft’s hospital room.[129]
Alberto Gonzales, along with U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton, has been accused of failing to act despite strong allegations that teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates incarcerated in the Texas Youth Commission program.[130] Texas Governor Rick Perry has directed an investigation.
Gonzales has had a long relationship with former president George W. Bush. Gonzales served as a general counsel when Bush was the governor of Texas. Such relationship made critics question whether he would maintain independence in his administration of the U.S. Department of Justice.[131][132] Gonzales has been called Bush's "yes man." Even though the advice given by Gonzales was based and supported by other lawyers, specifically the Department of Justice, charged by statute to provide legal advice to the President, Critics claim that he gave only the legal advice Bush wanted and questioned Gonzales's ethics and professional conduct.[133][134] “To his backers, Gonzales is a quiet, hardworking attorney general notable for his open management style and his commitment to the administration of justice and to the war on terrorism.[135]
One publication reported, “Gonzales contends that his friendship with Bush makes him a better advocate for the rule of law within the executive branch.” My responsibilities is to ensure that the laws are enforced, that everyone in the country receives justice under the law—independent of my relationship with the White House, independent of my relationship with the President of the United States,” he told National Journal”[135] However, another report states that Gonzoles has ". . . a long history of dogged obedience to the President, which often has come at the cost of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law."[134]
As a White House counsel, Gonzales signed a controversial memorandum in January 2002 to the president which argued that the limitations on the questioning of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" when it deals with terrorism.[136][137]
The memo also states this new paradigm of non-nation states who fight in violation of the laws of war places a premium on getting information and “this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script (i.e. advances of monthly pay, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments).” [138]
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. But the President gave Gonzales a strong vote of confidence saying, “This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.” The President said that Gonzales’s testimony “increased my confidence” in his ability to lead the Justice Department. Separately, a White House spokeswoman said, “He’s staying”.[139]
On May 24, 2007, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced the Democrats' proposed no-confidence resolution to vote on whether "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and the American People." [140] (The vote would have had no legal effect, but was designed to persuade Gonzales to depart or President Bush to seek a new attorney general.) A similar resolution was introduced in the House by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).[141]
On June 11, 2007 a Senate vote on cloture to end debate on the resolution failed (60 votes are required for cloture). The vote was 53 to 38 with 7 not voting and 1 voting "present" (one senate seat was vacant). Seven Republicans, John E. Sununu, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman voted to end debate; Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman voted against ending debate. No Democrat voted against the motion. Not voting: Biden (D-DE), Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK), Dodd (D-CT), Johnson (D-SD), McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL). Stevens (R-AK) voted "present."[142][143]
University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman[144] has observed that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales if he willfully lied or withheld information from Congress during his testimony about the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys.[145] There was no evidence to support the allegation that Gonzales willfully lied or withheld information. Thus, according to the standard established by Professor Bowman, Congress had no basis, authority, or power to vote on this resolution.
Congress has impeached a sitting Cabinet member before; William W. Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War, was impeached in a unanimous vote by the House in 1876 for bribery, but the Senate fell just short of the votes necessary to convict him. Belknap had resigned before the House vote, and several Senators who voted to acquit him said they did so only because they felt the Senate lacked jurisdiction.
On July 30, 2007, MSNBC reported that Rep. Jay Inslee announced that he would introduce a bill the following day that would require the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation against Gonzales.[146][147] There were many, however, who supported Gonzales. One commentator wrote, “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales shouldn’t go quietly. In fact, he shouldn’t go at all.[148] The Latino Coalition issued a press statement in March 2007 announcing their continued and unwavering support of Alberto Gonzales saying, “we strongly oppose what is nothing but patently political calls for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. He has been, and continues to be, a leading example to all in the Hispanic community of what we can accomplish through hard work and by keeping true to our dreams.”[149] The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote expressing support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, “Attorney General Gonzales is a man held in high regard by the men and women of Federal law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep our nation safe. He is a strong law enforcement leader who is willing to listen to those of us out on the street every day serving and protection our nation. Mr. President, I urge you to convince Attorney General Gonzales to remain in his current position as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Our nation and the men and women who carry the badge and the gun need his leadership.”[150]
Partial list of Members of Congress calling for departure |
---|
Democrats calling for departure:
Republicans calling for Gonzales to leave:
In addition, several Republicans were critical of Gonzales, without calling for his resignation or firing:
Republican Senators Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch expressed support for Gonzales, although Hatch conceded that Gonzales had "bungled."[187] Others |
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,[189] by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales. Bush attributed the resignation to Gonzales's name having been "dragged through the mud" for "political reasons".[189] Senators Schumer (D-NY), Feinstein (D-CA) and Specter (R-PA) replied that the resignation was entirely attributable to the excessive politicization of the Attorney General's office by Gonzales, whose credibility with Congress, they asserted, was nonexistent.
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael B. Mukasey to serve as Gonzales's successor. Bush also announced a revised appointment for acting Attorney General: Paul Clement served for 24 hours and returned to his position as Solicitor General; the departing Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, Peter Keisler was persuaded to stay on, and was appointed acting Attorney General effective September 18, 2007.[190]
Soon after departure from the DOJ in September 2007, continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department led Gonzales to hire a criminal-defense lawyer George J. Terwilliger III, partner at White & Case, and former deputy attorney general under former president G.H.W. Bush. Terwiliger was on the Republican law team involved in Florida presidential election recount battle of 2000.[191]
On October 19, 2007, John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney for Washington's Western District, told The (Spokane) Spokesman-Review that Inspector General Glenn A. Fine may recommend criminal charges against Gonzales.[192] The Inspector General did not recommend criminal charges against Gonzales. To the contrary, the Inspector General found no criminal wrongdoing and no perjury.[193]
On November 15, 2007, The Washington Post reported that supporters of Gonzales had created a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses, which were mounting as the Justice Department Inspector General's office continued to investigate whether Gonzales committed perjury or improperly tampered with a congressional witness.[194] The Inspector General determined that Gonzales did not commit perjury or improperly tamper with a congressional witness.[193]
On September 2, 2008, the Inspector General found that Gonzales had stored classified documents in an insecure fashion, at his home and insufficiently secure safes at work.[195] The Inspector General investigation found no evidence showing that there was any unauthorized disclosure of classified information resulting from his mishandling and storage of the materials in question, and the IG did not make a referral to the National Security Division for violation of a criminal statute.[196]
Some members of Congress criticized Gonzales for selectively declassifying some of this information for political purposes.[195] The Justice Department declined to press criminal charges.[195] because there was no evidence of intent and no referral by the IG of criminal wrongdoing.
Gonzales had a mediation and consulting practice in Austin, TX and taught at Texas Tech. He is a public speaker and often quoted in publications on issues ranging from education to immigration. In October 2011, Belmont University College of Law announced that Gonzalez would fill the Doyle Rogers Distinguished Chair of Law.[197] Gonzalez also joined the Nashville law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis as Of Counsel.[198]
Gonzales gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2008, in which he discussed the effect that controversies in his Bush Administration roles had had on his career and public perception.[199][200] He stated:
For some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.[200][201]
Gonzales is solicited for his views on issues important to the country such as the war on terrorism, immigration and voter fraud. Since leaving public office he has appeared on a number of television and radio news shows, including The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, to discuss the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court,[202] Larry King Live with Larry King to discuss the challenges of immigration,[203] and Geraldo at Large, with Geraldo Rivera, to discuss terrorism related issues.[204] He has given numerous radio interviews on shows such as NPR’s Tell Me More with Michel Martin, covering such topics as Guantanamo Bay and Supreme Court nominations.[205] Additionally, his opinion pieces have found their way into major news publications such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, covering issues ranging from immigration to sexual predators.[206] He stated an intention to write a book about his roles, with the intention of publishing the book "for my sons, so at least they know the story." No publishing company had agreed to promote the book at the time of the interview.[201]
Gonzales was featured in the 2008 Academy Award-winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side.[207]
In 2009, Texas Tech University System hired Gonzales. He acted as the diversity recruiter for both Texas Tech University and Angelo State University.[208] Additionally, at Texas Tech, he taught a political science "special topics" course dealing with contemporary issues in the executive branch.,[209] and a graduate level course to students pursuing a masters degree in public administration. He began the new job on August 1, 2009.[210] After the announcement, more than 40 professors at Texas Tech signed a petition opposing the hiring.[211] Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance said Gonzales has generated interest in the University by recruiting outside of Lubbock and through his reputation in the news. “I had a young man come up to me Monday in a restaurant and he said, “I’m in Judge Gonzales’ class, and it’s the best class I’ve ever taken. Thank you for providing him to the community.” Hance said.[212]
In November 2008 Gonzales was indicted by a grand jury in Willacy County in Texas. He was accused of stopping an investigation into abuses at the Willacy Detention Center, a federal detention center. Vice president Dick Cheney and other elected officials were also indicted.[213] A judge dismissed the indictments and chastised the Willacy County district attorney, Juan Angel Gonzales, who brought the case.[214] The district attorney himself had been under indictment for more than a year and a half before the judge dismissed the indictment. The district attorney left office after losing in a Democratic primary in March 2008.[215] All charges were dropped after further investigation.[216]
On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany against Gonzales for his alleged involvement under the command responsibility of prisoner abuse by writing the controversial legal opinions.[217] On April 27, 2007, Germany’s Federal Prosecutor announced she would not proceed with an investigation. In November 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the decision. On April 21, 2009, the Stuttgart Regional Appeals Court dismissed the appeal.
On March 28, 2009, a Spanish court, headed by Baltasar Garzón, the judge who ordered the arrest of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, announced it would begin an investigation into whether or not Gonzales, and five other former Bush Justice and Defense officials violated international law by providing the Bush Administration a legal framework and basis for the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Garzón said that it was "highly probable" the matter would go to court and that arrest warrants would be issued. Also named in the Spanish court's investigation are John Yoo, Douglas Feith, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee, and David Addington.[218][219] Judge Garzon faces charges from earlier this year for knowingly overstepping the bounds of his authority in a probe of Spanish Civil War atrocities covered by an amnesty. Garzon has other cases against him pending. Critics say he has a mixed record winning convictions, cuts procedural corners, and that he’s less interested in promoting justice than in promoting Baltazar Garzon[220] In April 2010, on the advice of the Spanish Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido, who believes that an American tribunal should judge the case (or dismiss it) before a Spanish Court ever thinks about becoming involved, prosecutors recommended that Judge Garzon should drop his investigation. As CNN reported, Mr. Conde-Pumpido told reporters that Judge Garzon’s plan threatened to turn the court “into a toy in the hands of people who are trying to do a political action”.[221]
This is a list of opinions in which Alberto Gonzales wrote the majority court opinion, wrote a concurring opinion, or wrote a dissent. Cases in which he joined in an opinion written by another justice are not included. A justice "writes" an opinion if the justice has primary responsibility for the opinion. Justices are assisted by a law clerk who may play an important role in the actual analysis of legal issues and drafting of the opinion. The Texas Supreme Court issued 84 opinions during Gonzales's tenure on the court, according to LexisNexis.
Find more about Alberto Gonzales on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
Definitions and translations from Wiktionary |
|
Images and media from Commons |
|
Learning resources from Wikiversity |
|
News stories from Wikinews |
|
Quotations from Wikiquote |
|
Source texts from Wikisource |
|
Textbooks from Wikibooks |
Political offices | ||
---|---|---|
Preceded by Antonio Garza, Jr. |
Secretary of State of Texas 1998–1999 |
Succeeded by Elton Bomer |
Legal offices | ||
Preceded by Beth Nolan |
White House Counsel 2001–2005 |
Succeeded by Harriet Miers |
Preceded by Raul A. Gonzalez |
Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court 1999–2000 |
Succeeded by Wallace B. Jefferson |
Preceded by John Ashcroft |
United States Attorney General Served under: George W. Bush 2005–2007 |
Succeeded by Michael Mukasey |
|
|
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Gonzales, Alberto |
Alternative names | Gonzales, Alberto R. |
Short description | 80th United States Attorney General |
Date of birth | August 4, 1955 |
Place of birth | San Antonio, Texas |
Date of death | |
Place of death |