|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 7, 2005 / 29 Iyar , 5765 Q&A with Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales just passed a milestone, having completed his first 100 days in office. Some say that Gonzales' appointment — as the nation's first Latino attorney general — is itself an important milestone for the country. For other Americans, what matters most is how President Bush's longtime confidant deals with the central issue of our time: terrorism. Gonzales was interviewed May 23 at the Justice Department in Washington.
QUESTION: There are those who insist that the reason that you've gotten this far is because you tell the president what he wants to hear, not necessarily what he needs to hear. They point to the war on terror and to the terror memos in particular. How do you respond to that criticism?
ANSWER: I tell the president what I believe is my best advice. I've often said that he's a wonderful client and that in all the years that I've known him I think he's always taken my advice. There have been many instances in which I've said, "This is a mistake, not a good idea, you can't do this," and he's followed that advice. I can't talk about that, I mean, as a lawyer giving advice to his client, that's not something you talk about publicly. But the reason, quite frankly, that the president has had me do a number of jobs is because he knows that I will give it to him straight, and I think he respects me for that.
So you don't consider any of that criticism to be fair in terms of how you've been able to achieve what you've achieved?
It's not a question of being fair. It's not accurate. I mean, I think those of us in public service know that there's going to be criticism, because people oftentimes make accusations based on a lack of information and wrong information and they wouldn't have the information in this case. But the president, I think, is very comfortable with my judgment and the way that I've been in my job and, I mean, these jobs are too important to have around people who are not going to give it to you straight and give you their best judgment.
Looking back, do you regret — personally regret — anything about any of the memos that came to play such a role in your confirmation hearings?
Well, there was only one memo that I wrote and that was the one regarding Geneva, of course. What was ultimately believed was a draft of a memo that was circulated to the principles of the mass treaty counsel, I wrote comments on the memo and then ultimately prepared a final memo to the president. That's never been discussed or disclosed. That's the only memo. The other memo that sometimes is the subject of some debate is the memo that was written by head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. That was not my product. That was the advice from the Department of Justice in connection with the permitted range of activities under the anti-torture statute. That was not my file.
Given the stories that are still developing and surfacing about how prisoners were treated at Abu Ghraib or in Afghanistan, would you give different advice today? Any regrets about how any of that played out?
Oh, absolutely not. My job was to solicit advice from the Department of Justice as to what was the appropriate range of conduct, and the Department of Justice provided that. I asked questions. I accepted their advice ultimately. I think it was the right advice. I think what happened, say at the night shift at Abu Ghraib in this one particular cell bloc was an aberration, and this is not just me talking. You can look at reports like the Schlesinger report that concluded that it was an aberration. We had the day shift of that same cellblock that was not engaged in that conduct. They obviously received the same instructions, so you had a group of people on the night shift that just did these crazy things. And it is abhorrent and we condemn it, and the people involved in that conduct should be held accountable. But I think the lawyers did the best job they could in interpreting a very difficult statute and I think, well, we'll just leave it at that.
When you took office on the first day, you said this, you told the staff that the department's mission was to combat terrorism and safeguard the country in ways that are consistent with our values. What did you mean by that? What values do you think are at stake in all this?
Well, I mean, I think that obviously we're all very concerned about the protection of everyone's privacy rights and our civil liberties. So, to the extent that we're fighting terrorism here in this country, we need to do so in a way that's consistent with the expectations of what our government is doing in terms of respecting our privacy rights and our civil liberties. That's what I meant by that.
There was an interesting article recently in Hispanic Business magazine about how Latinos are of mixed minds regarding you and your appointment, but the article concedes that most of them agreed this is hugely significant, a wonderful thing to see in their lifetimes. What does it means to you personally, and to other Latinos, to have a Latino attorney general, and what should it mean to the country and for future generations?
Well, you know, I'm the attorney general for every American no matter their skin color or heritage and my first obligation is to the Constitution and to all of the American people. I do understand that there is a significant population in our country that takes pride in the fact that I am the attorney general. I think it shows there are wonderful opportunities in this country for people who work hard and who prepare themselves for the wonderful opportunities that do come along in this country.
Do you think President Bush deserves a special amount of credit for breaking this barrier?
You know, I think that he does deserve credit. It's like when he appointed me to the Supreme Court of Texas, and he was asked if it made a difference that I was Hispanic. And he said, of course it made a difference. He said, "Now, the No. 1 thing I look at is qualifications. Is the person qualified to serve in this position?" But he did feel that it was significant that I was Hispanic. And I think that was certainly true in this particular case as well.
How does your own background and ethnicity impact how you see an issue like immigration, or does it?
I think it does make a difference. I think it makes a difference to our president who is a former governor of a border state. He understands the realities of life on our border, that we have people that come across the border every day, pursuing a dream to provide for their families. He understands that you must have an immigration policy that is reflective of reality of life on our border, and that's the way I approach it. We also happen to live in a post-9/11 world where we know that we need to have an immigration policy that results in having secured borders. We need to know who's coming into this country and why they're coming into this country, so our immigration policy needs to take into account these realities. But I think it does make a difference.
What do you think the American people need to understand about the immigration issue, that not all of them do at any given time?
I think one of the things is the fact that, I think they need to be reminded. ... Well, first of all, let me just emphasize that it is very important that we have our borders secure and, as I said, we need to know who's coming into this country and why. And if we have laws on the books, immigration laws on the book, and then they need to be enforced. They need to be respected. I think everyone understands that and appreciates that. On the other hand, as I said, I think we do need to remind people that our country was founded upon this notion of welcoming immigrants, that our society is based upon cultures, different cultures of immigrants that come into this country, and it would be a shame to lose that. I think we need to have a policy that reflects that in some way. And it's a tough issue because you've got these competing principles and that's what made it difficult before, and it's become even more difficult since 9/11. But I think it's something that we have to address. I think now there appears to be a great deal of momentum to deal with this issue both in the Congress and within the administration, and we'll see if we can do something.
In terms of what might be done, where should our enforcement efforts be directed? We typically focus on the immigrants, but what about employers? There's a bill, for instance, in Congress — the Dreier/Reyes bill — that would stiffen employer sanctions. Is it time to do something like that?
I think that, again, if you're going to have laws on the books, and those laws include employer sanctions, they need to be enforced. I was talking to a member of Congress who was involved when amnesty was granted back in the '80s. And part of the notion in granting amnesty was an understanding that the sanctions that were placed in the law at that time would be enforced, and they weren't. I think that absolutely if we're going to have some kind of temporary worker program and obligation to find employers and the law imposes sanctions, those sanctions have to be enforced.
Interesting things happening in Mexico. Your counterpart, if you can call him that, Interior Minister Santiago Creel, is taking a hard line and refusing to concede that the U.S. has a right to protect its border. He calls The Real ID Act an "extreme measure." How do you work typically with someone like that, someone with that mentality, and you ultimately do have to work together because the U.S.-Mexico immigration accord was pounded out by high level law enforcement officials on both sides?
Listen, you know, we need to work with Mexican officials to deal with this issue on our side of the border. I think Mexico has done a lot, but we continue to work with them. I think more can be done, and so we continue to work with them. I don't know if it's constructive to comment about (Creel's) views about what we're doing up on this side.
Likewise I don't think he'd appreciate me commenting on what they're doing on their side. I think both countries understand we have problems here, and that we're not going to solve them unless we work together.
One of the interesting flashpoints in the immigration discussion is whether local police officers should be used to enforce immigration laws. Do you think that's a good idea, a good policy?
Well, let me just say that state and local officials are never required to enforce immigration policy. In fact, some state laws prohibit it. We have entered into agreements with certain states to permit state and local officials to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws, but we understand the concern with some state and locals that they've got relationships in the community that they don't want to alienate, that they don't want to harm those relationships. They have limited resources, and they don't want to worry about helping the government deal with immigration problems, and so they want to worry about other things, and I understand that, and that's why this is optional. But, on the other hand, we have a very important job to do at identifying terrorists in this county. State and local officials know better than us whether or not there is suspicious activity going on within their communities, whether or not there are suspicious people in their communities, and there are times when they can help us and so if state and locals are willing to help us deal with the terrorist threat or deal with immigration problems, then I think we should make sure that we utilize all the resources that might potentially be available to the federal government.
This is a big issue. Judges are very, very important in our system of government. They make decisions every day that impact the lives of every person in this country, and so it is a big deal — who serves in the judiciary. I think the whole process of how those people are selected — certainly those of us in the executive branch care very much about how that process works and whether it's working. Our view is that the president has done his job in nominating people, and they have to be evaluated by the Senate, and that's happened. It's a question of fairness. Let's get these folks an up-or-down vote. Some people characterize these folks as out of the mainstream, but I think if you look at the records carefully and you look at the fact that they've all been rated "qualified" or "well qualified" by the American Bar Association, and the fact they would be confirmed by a Senate vote on the Senate floor, it's hard to say that they're not in the mainstream. They are.
Last question. On a personal note, what sort of message do you have for young people in Texas, California, of all colors and backgrounds, but particularly those who are Latino and who are going through life wondering if there's a place for them in our society and what opportunities are out there? What kind of motivational message do you have for them?
Well, to get an education. They need to get an education. They need to prepare themselves in the best possible way so, and I have said this many times, so when the next George W. Bush comes along and he's willing to give you a once in a lifetime opportunity, you're in a position to take it. It's very, very important.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment, please click here.
|
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
