Talk:Alberto Gonzales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Alberto Gonzales is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: Adam Wild Aba. "Arab Americans Alarmed at Gonzales' Nomination", Islam Online, January 8, 2005.

His two year obligation was counted at the Air Force Academy because of his prior enlistment. The article should be changed to reflect this fact.

Contents 1 Is POV an issue? 2 Texas Executions 3 Judge? 4 Middle name? 5 Fact Checks? 6 His position vs. position of his critics 7 "far right" 8 Acute accent 9 Misc. 10 Supreme Court 11 the "quaint" quote 12 La Raza 13 Presidential surveillance quote 14 POV template (neutrality disputed) in Legal problems section 15 middle name 16 Resignation due to U.S. Prosecutor scandal 17 Young Turks Source 18 Calls of resignation 19 Enron

[edit] Is POV an issue?

Is it a negative POV issue to ask for anyone to provide the pronunciation of (attribution / verification for)... GW Bush's (rumor on many blogs only?) nickname of "Fredo" for the Attorney General? I would be glad to 1) verify it's authenticity, 2) know how to pronounce this nickname Millerik 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is so much Negative POV in this article. It needs to be deleted unless someone can give a good reason... 90% of this stuff is just bashing Gonzales (and by proxy, bashing Bush) -- 130.74.138.53 20:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the negative POV. --Brooks 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd assume those 2 paragraphs weren't by the same person. So, I don't think what Brooks said has any importance in this discussion. NPOV should always be about gathering the information on both sides, not about determining which side is more favorable. The suggestion to delete is tempting, but the preferred method around here is only to remove that which is found irrelevant or innaccurate, and to not remove the one-sided argument but balance it out with whatever can be argued on the other side. Right? --Al Fox 21:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Al Fox. Is the material factually incorrect? I don't think it's POV to document that someone has taken actions that were controversial. How about adding something to balance. What has been done that you think should be highlighted as a positive accomplishment? It's always easier to find negatives about political figures in the news, which is where most of this article comes from. Gwimpey 21:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Let's not wave the NPOV flag unnecessarily. If something is libelous or factually incorrect, then we are obligated to correct that. If it is noteworthy about the person, it belongs here. Otherwise (and yes, this is the worst analogy possible but it makes a point) we should all be heading straight over to the Hitler article to try to "balance" that out too. Give me a break. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the npov tag from this article. I think it's too early. I don't think any of what is in the article is actually disputed, in that it was reported and is widely available. Gwimpey 00:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think the NPOV questions are due to the fact that only the first paragraph in the Texas Career section deals with non-controversial items. This is a bit skewed - just gleaning from the .gov site:

prior to 1994

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.

1994-97

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 chosen as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994

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

Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent.

1997-1999

1999 Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association

I'd put this info in myself, but I don't trust my English skills as of yet. :-) Rmann

I have added the information mentioned above by RMann. Thanks! Gwimpey 01:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Good info. That helps to balance the article out quite a bit. (And I say that as an avid Gonzales-hater.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I removed parts of the article that were based on op-ed journalism. Sure it's in the news, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. For Example: "In 2004, when this memo was leaked to the press, Gonzales said about the memo in Senate confirmation hearings that "... I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department." This indicates that, despite the Bush administration's withdrawal from the memo, Gonzales still believes that the Justice Department was correct in its reasoning about torture. " That section in bold is clearly opinion based and tries to make readers think that Gonzales is some kind of evil sadist by insinuating that he supports torture.~pete6982 3/27/07

[edit] Texas Executions

Why is the GW Bush, execution thing relevant? Its a known fact that the state of texas (read: not Bush) executed a lot of people... and continues to do so. That sentence just seems out of place and anti Gonzales and anti-Bush. I'm gonna delete it, unless someone gives me a good reason. (edit: I'm changing it to read, the state of texas and leave out Bush... anyone disagree?)

As the person who wrote that sentence, I agree that your version of the sentence is better (more accurate). – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I edited this part too. I think it's ironic that Gonzo is criticized for attempting to uphold the integrity of the gubernatorial pardon by removing the governor from jury duty and criticized for not second guessing the verdicts of juries in death penalty cases. Once again the piece criticizing him here is an op-ed which uses its opposition of execution of the mentally retarded to attack the non-pardons of then Governor Bush. ~pete6982 3/27/07

[edit] Judge?

OK, I may be wrong, but wasn't Al also a judge for a time? This isn't mentioned in the article at all currently. --NightMonkey 21:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Check out the Texas section... mentions he was on the TX Supreme Court. Gwimpey 21:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I really need to not let my caffine level get too low. However, this would seem to point out that this article is less about Alberto Gonzales and more about George W. Bush and his relationship to him. His actual life history is given very short shrift in this article. --NightMonkey 22:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

The reason is, there are hundreds of Google hits about Gonzales's various controversies, and very few pro-Gonzales sites. It's just easier, in this case, to find the unpleasant facts than the pleasant ones. I'm glad the article has more to say now than just "here are the controversial facts about this man". – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am as well; and Quadell hits exactly the reason why the article was so anti-Bush at first; that's the information that was out there, and that's the information that the media was focused on (and will continue to be through the confirmation process) Thanks, folks, for continuing to dig and include the commendable things about him that are harder to find. -- Seth Ilys 15:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's mentioned that he was on the TX Supreme Court... but wouldn't it be a better article if we talked about some of the opinions and dissents he wrote? I'll start looking for some of those, but surely it would be best if I weren't the only person doing that. The Literate Engineer 7 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name?

There's been a bit of apparent secrecy regarding his middle name. Does anyone have a source for it? 66.159.150.86 00:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Checks?

Hullo in here...

I'm new to this game... am I in Freeper Land? The reason I'm asking is that Freepers would likely let the following comment in this article stand without oposition:

"Not mentioned is the fact Texas is the largest state by population, by far, so it would naturally have excecuted more inmates. Texas[3] [4]"

That just doesn't seem right. (Do you really want me to cite a source here? Ok... try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

I won't even begin to mention an exectutions/population ratio.

Maybe that's a good thing to some of you.

Maybe you WANT this guy enforcing your laws. Including those he'll probably find "quaint"... like the Bill of Rights. Good luck to you.

Reguards, Paulie

I would rather have someone who upholds the justice system and supports the convictions and failed appeals. ~pete6982 3/27/07

[edit] His position vs. position of his critics

Let's provide a bit more information about his position on the applicability of (1) Geneva Convention and (2) the U.S. Constitution to the "enemy fighters" locked up in Guantanamo. The article should clarify WHY Gonzales concluded as a lawyer that certain provisions are inapplicable; i.e., it should summarize the grounds that he provided. The cute quote about it being "quaint" strikes me as having been chosen more to portray Gonzales in a bad light than to shed any actual light on his reasoning.

Also, about the so-called "torture memos". Would the article please clarify what definition of torture is being used, and who advocates that definition? Moreover, could the article clarify the distinction between (A) traditionally proscribed modes of torture (i.e., banned by the West and most other countries in the civilized world) and (B) rough interrogation techniques which aren't allowed on U.S. citizens in the U.S.?

I'm a reader here - not just an editor. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, or I'd simply edit the article and insert them. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to provide as clear a view of the memo while removing the POV in it. What specificaly would you like clarified? TDC 05:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "far right"

"...the far-right base of the party would never allow a pro-choice Republican to be appointed to the Supreme Court"

The term "far-right" is used solely as a pejorative here. Abortion is pretty much a 50-50 issue in the US; it is ridiculous to say that opposition to Roe makes one far-right. I don't see anyone claiming that support for Roe is "far-left".

However, polls show that less than 30% of Americans wish to see Roe overturned http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[edit] Acute accent

Does anyone know for sure whether he uses the spelling Gonzales or Gonzáles? I know the acute accent is correct in Spanish, but as an American he might use an anglicized spelling without it. At the moment, the article is inconsistent, using both forms, and we need to find out what's right and use it consistently. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the rules of Spanish accentuation, he would only need the accent if his name ended in a "z". His LCSH is "Gonzales, Alberto R."[1], and his White House bio uses no accent. So I vote for moving it back.--Rockero 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support moving it back. Seems right without the accent. BD2412 T 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back. The modification to the redirect unlinked ~ hundred articles from this page when it was at the alternate spelling. That's been fixed. Both USDOJ and White House uses no accent, we need good sourcing before we move around major articles. NoSeptember ^talk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

I'd like to know how a person is a "current or on going event"? I have been working on an article that chronicles the cabinet nominations and hearings. Possibley the "on going" infomation could go in there. --The_stuart 20:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing the box, as he is the nominee, not incumbent. He has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Gwimpey 17:37, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Bill Richardson, who was secretary of energy under Clinton, would seem to be Hispanic. Thus would Gonzales be the highest-placed Hispanic ever in US Govt? Is AG considered "higher" than another Cabinet post? I don't know. Gwimpey 19:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

AG comes before Secretary of Energy in the presidential line of succession. So in that sense it's "higher". *shrug* 207.59.86.5 20:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there's a very specific heirarchy - AG is higher than energy. I believe only Secretary of State is higher than AG, in the cabinet. Then Treasury, Defense, etc. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 15:54 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court

Source on rumors: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050627.shtml

since this was all speculation, does it even belong in an encyclopedia? ~pete6982 3/27/07

[edit] the "quaint" quote

i made a minor edit to the sentence about gonzales's reference to sections of the geneva conventions as "quaint." the sections he was referring to are ones that allow POWs to receive parcels including the items listed, not, as the previous sentence implied, ones that require the capturing country to provide those items. --Robotica

[edit] La Raza

Is it just me, or has nobody noticed that this guy is a full member in good standing of one of the most racist organizations operating in the western hemisphere? Comments... anyone... ? Sweetfreek 19:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm hardly a booster of National Council of La Raza, but I hardly see how it counts as a racist organization, much less "one of the most racist organizations operating in the western hemisphere". I think you're reading too much into its name (which could mean "the people" as easily as "the race"--as, indeed, the word "race" used to mean in English).

Ethnocentric? Sure--but so is every ethnic advocacy organization. Is the Ancient Order of Hibernians "racist"? Narsil 21:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It says right in the introductory paragraph of La Raza's article that it adheres to the Spanish Colonialist mindset, which was intended to separate the native South American population by race, Mestizos and Natives, so that the native population would drop to the bottom of society and then die off. This native population still exists, to some extent, and still reap the destruction wrought by this policy. Look it up. ANON —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.248.151 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Presidential surveillance quote

The quotations section includes this:

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized [electronic] surveillance on a far broader scale."

I think the bracketed "[electronic]" is an error. Washington and Lincoln could not, of course, have authorized "electronic" surveillance (unless, in Lincoln's case, tapping a telegraph line is "electronic surveillance"--a real stretch).

At first read, the sentence makes Gonzalez look stupid ("Hah! He thinks there were computers in Washington's time!") until you notice that "electronic" is the editor's addition.

Can someone give me some context for this quotation? Did he really seem to be implying that he thought Washington used electronic surveillance? If not, then I'd suggest removing the bracketed "[electronic]", or perhaps changing it to "...have all authorized [domestic] surveillance..." if the context supports that. Any objection? Narsil 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be danged! I tracked down video here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043 He actually says "electronic surveillance", so the brackets are themselves an error--"electronic" is part of the direct quotation. Truly LOL-worthy, I say as a fire-breathing right-winger--though it's the kind of slip of the tongue anyone might make.

I'll remove the brackets from "electronic", and add a link to the video. Narsil 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV template (neutrality disputed) in Legal problems section

User:Mdeaton noted in edit summary it should be reworded. TransUtopian 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure about the facts listed in this section - and I'm not disputing them, either. The sentence starting with "Those and other incidents . . ." should probably be eliminated because it contains no facts, but appears to be unsubstantiated filler to enhance the argument of questionable integrity. Same goes for the next paragraph starting with "When Bush was sworn in . . ." Additionally, the phrase, "lied to Congress" introduces significant bias, and could surely be reworded in an objective manner while still stating the apparent inconsistencies in his statements; it would be best to include citations. The last paragraph also needs clarification, a citation, or elimination. I do not feel comfortable editing this section because as I stated, I do not know the facts discussed.Mdeaton 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the above-mentioned sentences ("Those and other incidents have led many to questions Gonzales' integrity and his perception of justice. Others, however, regard these accusations as politically motivated attacks," AND "When Bush was sworn in as President of the United States in 2001, he appointed Gonzales White House Counsel. In this position, Gonzales has been already party to controversial legal matters involving the Bush administration. As a result, he has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration's actions in these affairs.") Neither contains any facts and introduce bias. Also removed the statement, "Gonzales has avoided further investigation surrounding his testimony, partly because Republican Senator Arlen Specter refused to swear in Gonzales, but also because confirmation hearings testimony was ruled as off limits as a precondition to questioning Gonzales," because it badly needs clarification and obviously a source if it is to be included. Mdeaton 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy seems to disregard the rights which this nation was meant to guarantee. Then again, what politician doesn't? I don't personally know of any. It seems that there are two paths, left and right, but the problem is, both lead straight to totalitarianism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.6.202 (talk • contribs).

[edit] middle name

i dont think its correct on the page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.144.2 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Resignation due to U.S. Prosecutor scandal

We can't post this section yet, but anyone who wants should feel free to get to work on it. Eleemosynary 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Turks Source

I took the liberty of removing "[The Young Turks (talk show)]] radio program, on March 19, 2007, reported that White House sources have indicated that Mr. Gonzales would be fired during the coming week, and he could be asked to step down by Tuesday, March 20, 2007." from the Attorney General Nomination and Confirmation section. It is in the wrong section, and without linking to a transcript of the show or some other source, it is not verifiable enough. --D 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calls of resignation

I have a link to site that Tom Tancredo calls for him to resign i just dont know how to put it in correctly http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=ArIj4YEr5GCw82PEIPDuEh2yFz4D Thats the link if someone would like to put it in and also if you could message me on how to do it as well thanks Gang14 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enron

Why is this not mentioned in the article?:

Gonzales, who received his law degree from Harvard and graduated from Rice University, was a partner in a Houston law firm that represented energy giant Enron Corp. (search), which has been in the center of Justice Department efforts to clean up corporate fraud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.46.78 (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC).