Talk Walker

According to MediaMatters.org: “On the March 27 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “the first Hispanic-American attorney general — a minority” is “under fire by white liberal racists in the Senate.”

While I am honored Mr. Limbaugh has taken it upon himself to speak up for “people like me,” I can’t help but wonder what he is talking about. When Mr. Gonzales was nominated for for the position of Attorney Genereal, I as well as a number of other Latino activists did not support that nomination. In fact, several of us contacted LULAC (the oldest Latino civil rights organization) and questioned their endorsement. I for one, was not so much concerned with getting a Mexican-American promoted as much as I was concerned with having a qualified Attorney General for all Americans. I opposed Gonzales’ appointment not so much because of a dislike for him, but because I did not think he was qualified to hold such an important office (Interestingly enough, for all of LULAC’s support of Mr. Gonzales and their push for President Bush to nominate him to the Supreme Court, they have been amazingly silent since he has come under fire).

As a third-generation Chicana, with a true understanding of experiencing racism, I cannot help but wonder and question why, when virtually no Hispanic groups are stepping up to the plate to defend Mr. Gonzales, and thousands have openly opposed his appointment and policies, Rush Limbaugh has taken on the charge of attacking “white liberal racists in the Senate,” that would include Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and — Ken Salazar!

While I appreciate anyone working for civil rights and equality, when that same person tells a Black caller in the 70’s “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back,” and comments on the 1991 NYC Marathon victory of Mexican Salvador Garcia with “an immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles,” it gives me serious reason for pause.

Come on Rush, get off the oxycotin and join reality — living in it could bring on a whole new experience — and you won’t have to bug your housekeeper to go out and get you stronger doses of it.

One of the main problems I have with President Bush insisting on being able to torture “known terrorists” has to do with the foundation of his assertion the people in custody are indeed terrorists.

It has already been established the U.S. had questionable and faulty intelligence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and the possiblity of a Post-War insurgency, not to mention the Bush Administration ignored intelligence regarding Al Queda activity pre-9/11. Yet, they insist on being able to use torture on “known terrorists” currently in custody to glean information that would ”protect the American people,” and  forgiveness for “techniques” already executed.

While it is possible there are some known terrorists, it is just as likely some are someone’s uncle, brother, father or grandfather who got caught in a massive “sweep,” when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.  The former have been in custody for approximately four years, so their information is already dated and limited, and the latter should not be forced to surrender their human rights because the President has a right to know. There have already been new articles of a Canadian, American film-maker and AP photographer who were arrested and held in military/CIA custody for at least five months, as possible Al Queda operatives.

Given this Adminstration’s track record with intelligence (both personal and military), we should not give them permission to torture anybody, nor should we forgive any past mistakes and misjudgements.

 This is America.