America is a country obsessed with the concept of good versus evil, a cultural entity that compartmentalizes life into shades of black and white, and is led by a president who sees himself as the prototypical crusader for "justice." In other words, we live in a country with such a bad case of bipolar disorder that it would reduce the entire American Psychological Association to tears in but a single therapy session. So why bother pushing the limits of political and social mania any further?

But the Attorney General’s office has just declared a vacancy. On November 10, when the White House announced that John Ashcroft would step down, speculation ran wild about who would be appointed as the Justice Department’s next archangel of vengeance. Within days, the world learned the story of Alberto Gonzales - advisor during Bush’s reign in Texas and legal counsel to the Bush White House.

There’s no question about it, Gonzales is an intelligent and accomplished individual whose resume is the envy of even Yale students. A graduate of Rice University and Harvard Law School, Gonzales has served on the Texas Supreme Court and has been honored multiple times by organizations such as The United Way, the Bar Association, The Hispanic Scholarship Fund Hall of Fame, and the Harvard Law Association. And, if confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic to ever hold the position of Attorney General. But, like many members of the Bush Administration, Gonzales’ intelligence, prestige, and diverse heritage were never the issue. One must, instead, question his motives and ideals.

Gonzales’ past actions would certainly place him at the pinnacle of the ladder of justice, but not the type of merciful, rational justice that follows the patterns of logic and reason. No, Gonzales seems to be the vindictive, retributive angel: a true disciple of the Evangelist-loved Ashcroft who brought this country Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the Patriot Act. Gonzales, however, could be even more polarizing than our former holy warrior of Justice.

During his time as advisor to then Governor Bush, Gonzales played the critical role of providing Bush with briefs outlining the issues and facts needed to make decisions on clemency for those slated for execution. Anyone familiar with Bush’s execution record in Texas knows that it is less than admirable. During his six-year tenure as governor, the state of Texas put 150 men and two women to death, and some suggest that Gonzales may have ignored the facts in order to pass a greater amount of executions through the system.

Alan Berlow, who attained access to the memoranda outlining the executions, wrote a scathing report of Gonzales’ legal competency regarding these important issues. He wrote that these memoranda offered “the most cursory briefings” failing to “apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.” In one case, a memorandum lacked the important information that the criminal intended for execution was mentally retarded and had the linguistic competency of a seven-year old.

But Gonzales’ resume doesn’t end there. As a supporter of the detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Gonzales blasted the Geneva conventions as “obsolete” and “quaint.” According to Gonzales, these conventions don’t apply to any modern-day prisoners of war at all. Terrorists, according to Gonzales, should not deserve the same treatment as our soldiers would abroad.

These radical positions culminated in the “torture memos” produced by Gonzales earlier in Bush’s term. This official Counsel advice included a memo in which argued that “certain acts [done to the U.S. to prisoners of War] may be cruel human and degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within… [the] proscription against torture.” Fifty pages of calculated legal defense follows, in which Gonzales alternately argues that the U.S. can torture without falling under the umbrella of the Geneva Convention’s view of torture, or that the president has the unilateral power to ignore this agreement’s prescriptions. Another memo declared that an interrogator is “guilty of torture only if he act[ed] with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control." These are hardly the words of a moderate focused solely on enforcing the law.

Yet, Senator Pat Leahy and other members of the Democratic leadership have become cheerleaders for Gonzales, foreshadowing his easy appointment into the Attorney Generalship. Unfortunately, Leahy’s reasons for supporting Gonzales remain cryptic. Apparently, his only reason is that, “I like and respect Judge Gonzales.” Citing the chance for greater executive oversight, Leahy believed Gonzales could usher in a new era of accountability. Democrats must truly wonder whether Leahy has lost his mind.

The New York Times recently published an article that more or less proclaimed that Gonzales’ time as Attorney General would be marked by increased secrecy and a consolidated executive branch. Time and again, on matters as diverse as national security and energy policy, Gonzales has advocated the President’s right to complete discretion. Daniel Brian, President of the Project on Government Oversight recently spoke against Gonzales, “Gonzales is credited with preserving the power of the White House, but it seems to come at the expense of giving Congress the authority to do its job." The evidence in this area compiled against Gonzales seems to give Leahy’s assertion a tone of ignorance or simple falsehood.

Alternately, Leahy may support Gonzales for his relatively moderate views on gay marriage and abortion. Or, he may support Gonzales because the political backlash from not supporting a minority appointment may be too great for the Democratic Party to handle. But socially moderate stances and a minority background should not form the litmus tests for the Democrats’ support. Gonzales’ clear past actions foreshadow his future, one that promises to be wracked by the same scandals that hit Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

These incidents paint the picture of a man who visualizes the world in terms of good and evil, without any middle ground. So much so, that, according to Gonzales, terrorists are not truly people, and murderers are evil men not worthy of the full defense of the law. Bush’s nomination of Gonzales calls to question the commitment and likelihood of Bush’s second term actually improving relations and unifying the country. One thing is for sure: beware all ye who tempt the fury of the new avenging angel at the helm.