Despite Alberto Gonzales’ stonewalling about torture during his confirmation process, some Latino groups continue to back him as the President's nominee for Attorney General. It appears likely the committee and then the full Senate will vote to confirm him as early as next week. Incredibly, it doesn’t seem to matter that he has been a principal architect of the Administration's no-law-applies scheme to fighting terrorism and that rarely does a week pass without Americans learning about still more abuses by U.S. authorities in Iraq and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that Guantanamo detainees have sustained sexual humiliation, beatings, and prolonged isolation. A recently released FBI report says interrogators in Iraq engaged in “strangulation, beatings,” and “placement of lit cigarettes into detainees' ear openings.” The man poised to become the nation's chief lawyer seems to have been instrumental in advising the President that he could reject prohibitions on many of these activities.

We respect Gonzales’ inspiring personal story. We welcome the prospect of more Latinos serving in leadership positions in the government. But we reject the notion that Latinos should loyally support Gonzales’ nomination when he appears to have sat quietly while administration officials discussed using torture against people in American custody.

As Latino law professors who oppose double standards whether they benefit or hurt Latinos, we reluctantly have to ask: if these abuses primarily victimized Latinos instead of non-Latinos, would Latino groups be so united in their support of the Gonzales nomination? We should not forget that Latinos’ history in the U.S. shows the importance of fighting to ensure the rule of law is respected and honored. Whenever one group of people is denied the protection of the laws, it is a threat to us all. Already, harsh immigration laws enacted as anti-terrorism measures are being used against vulnerable immigrant communities with no connection to terrorism at all. And while this Administration has dismissed the importance of our allies’ concerns about international law, we must remember that America's own concern about how it was perceived abroad was an important factor during the civil rights movement in breaking down barriers of opportunity for African-Americans and Latinos.

When President Bush nominated Gonzales, he praised him as a man who “always gives me his frank opinion” and whose “sharp intellect and sound judgment have helped shape our policies in the war on terror.” At his hearing, these attributes were noticeably absent. Judge Gonzales exhibited a distressing lack of candor, giving incomplete, inaccurate and evasive answers. Senators should not simply accept Judge Gonzales’ vague answers about his involvement in the crafting U.S. policy toward detainees and should insist on seeing the full record of Judge Gonzales’ involvement in the development of a policy on the use of torture that has coincided with massive abuses in Iraq and Guantanamo and that even the White House now seeks to disavow.

Prior to the confirmation hearing, both retired military leaders and human rights groups expressed serious concerns regarding three particular positions he had taken during his tenure as White House Counsel: (1) his role in commissioning and disseminating a memo substantially watering down the federal prohibition against torture; (2) his opinion on the view that the President could constitutionally circumvent the laws Congress passed against torture by personal fiat; and (3) his advice to the President that the “war on terror” rendered provisions of the Geneva Conventions obsolete.

At his confirmation hearing, Gonzales made almost no effort to clarify or disavow his positions. Judge Gonzales answered “I don’t recall” on nine separate occasions when asked about his role and views regarding detainee and interrogation policy, including once when he was asked whether he had requested the memo analyzing the torture statute and interrogation standards. His follow-up written answers released this week provided even less reassurance. Gonzales continued to maintain he can't remember how the infamous torture memo was generated. Gonzales refused to explain the language in his own memo which implied that rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Conventions would insulate US personnel from prosecution for war crimes they might "need" to commit. Gonzales asserted that the Convention Against Torture's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment doesn't apply to aliens overseas. This is precisely the attitude of tolerance toward bending the law that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.

No one thinks someone in Judge Gonzales’ position can stop all such abuse from ever happening. What he can do is to forcefully reject those tactics, especially when they violate laws and treaties we promised to honor. Unless the interpretations he articulated and defended as White House Counsel are rejected, Judge Gonzales’ nomination risks sending a telegram to the world that America lacks a firm commitment to freedom and human dignity. These are the principles, we are told, that America is fighting for and that groups like Al-Qaeda most want to annihilate.

In response, we urge the Senate to weigh Judge Gonzales’ own principles. The Attorney General, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, should demonstrate a clear commitment to enforcement of the law. By now, Gonzales should have given the American people a straight answer on whether he still thinks the legal requirements of the Geneva Conventions are as quaint and worthless as he advised the President they were. He should have committed to consistently uphold legal prohibitions on torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Although given ample opportunity to make these commitments during his confirmation process, Gonzales still has not done so. That sends a message about what kind of Attorney General he will be, and the message is clear: Judge Gonzales is not committed to enforcing the law and should not be confirmed.

Confirming a Latino candidate for Attorney General who does not respect the rule of law does not represent advancement for the Latino community. The Attorney General decides whose rights are protected and how our laws and treaties should be applied. Given the stakes, the Senate must study the facts and remember to advise instead of simply consenting. Nothing less than this will safeguard the interests of all Americans at such a delicate time in our history.

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar is an Associate Professor of Law and Deane F. Johnson Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School whose expertise includes federal and international criminal law. He previously served a law clerk to Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Jenny S. Martinez is an Assistant Professor of Law at Stanford Law School whose expertise includes international and constitutional law. She previously served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.