Ten Questions for Gonzales

President Bush is asking the United States Senate to confirm his nominee to be attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, without all the facts. Despite repeated requests from senators, the White House still refuses "to provide copies of his memos on the questioning of terror suspects." Instead, the Senate will be forced to rely on "press reports or leaks" for information about his role in drafting legal memorandum that provided legal justifications for torture. Gonzales had personally promised Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that he would "engage in an open exchange" regarding his testimony, but so far Gonzales hasn't bothered to answer Leahy's letters requesting the documents. In any event, there are serious questions – regarding his role in the prisoner abuse scandal and other issues – that need to be asked, and answered. We've drafted ten tough questions for Alberto Gonzales.

1. Are there any circumstances under which you believe the president of the United States could legally authorize torture?

Alberto Gonzales approved a now-infamous memo which contended the president "wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department." Despite the fact that the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture – which states "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" – the memo stated the president had the authority "to approve almost any physical or psychological action during interrogation, up to and including torture." Once the memo was made public, Gonzales backtracked, saying the memo contained "unnecessary, over-broad discussions" about "abstract legal theories." He also said the policy was "under review, and may be replaced, if appropriate, with more concrete guidance addressing only those issues necessary for the legal analysis of actual practices." The Justice Department recently released a new memo redefining the U.S. stance on torture. The new policy, however, does not address the question of whether the president is entitled to disregard laws and treaties.

2. Has your position on the Geneva Conventions changed since evidence of widespread detainee abuse at U.S. prisons was uncovered? If not, which provisions of the Geneva Conventions do you still consider "quaint" or "obsolete"?

The Geneva Conventions of 1949, signed and ratified by the United States, are the primary instruments of humanitarian law used to protect those involved in international armed conflicts. A Jan. 25, 2002 memorandumissued by Alberto Gonzales claims the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." The memo pushes to make al Qaeda and Taliban detainees exempt from the Geneva Conventions' provisions on the proper, legal treatment of prisoners. The memo also expresses concern, however, that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions "could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries." The evidence of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have borne these concerns out.

3. In your view, what limits did the Sept. 14 joint resolution passed by Congress place on which countries the president could invade?

On Sept. 14, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing President Bush to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but narrowing the scope of the authority to only countries specifically connected to the attacks. On Sept. 25, just 11 days later, the Justice Department sent a memo to Alberto Gonzales which "essentially argued that what Congress authorized didn't matter." The memo argued there were "no limits" on Bush's powers to respond to the attacks and, in the first known statement of Bush's pre-emptive doctrine, the memo "startlingly" argued Bush could deploy military force preemptively against any country he suspected of harboring terrorists "whether or not they can be linked to the specific terror incidents of Sept. 11." It also said his decisions were "for him alone and are unreviewable." Gonzales's response to the memo is unknown.