Here are some questions which came up in a discussion this morning -- and which I think need real answers:
Why were Gonzales' children at the Senate Confirmation hearings yesterday?
Would you have your children (or anyone else's children) attend hearings in which you knew torture would be discussed seriously?
Did everyone know that, although these hearings are supposed to be a serious inquiry into the suitability of the candidate for the office of Attorney General of the United States, the hearings would be ritualistic and unchallenging and that nothing which could offend the ears of children would be brought up?
Is this acceptable?
Update: And of course, this is not just about torture. It's about criminality in general. Josh Marshall writes today:
Alberto Gonzales believes that the president can immunize individuals for committing acts of torture and that he has the power to authorize violations of criminal law. That's how Chris Suellentrop interprets what Gonzales said today on the Hill in Slate. And he makes a very persuasive case. And this is the man who will soon be the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. It defies comment.
No, Marshall and Suellentrop aren't the only ones who heard that. In most of the discussion I've heard during and after the hearings, the same point has been made. I'm afraid it's just another example of this.
