Former Classmates Criticize Gonzales
56 class of '82 Law School alums
publish open letter in Washington Post
Published On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:10 AM
Fifty-six members of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ graduating
class at Harvard Law School signed a quarter-page open letter in
yesterday’s Washington Post excoriating their former classmate for
his “cavalier handling of our freedoms.”
The letter stops short of calling for Gonzales’s resignation, even
as the attorney general comes under rising heat on Capitol Hill. But
it is a stinging rebuke to Gonzales, just two weeks after the Law
School Class of 1982’s 25th reunion.
“Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who
will do the tough job of providing independent counsel,” the letter
says. It calls on Gonzales to “relent from this reckless path, and
begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love
many years ago.”
The decision to write the letter was made a few days after the
reunion. One of the signatories, Barbara C. Moses of New York, said
that the attorney general’s appearance—which drew a small group of
protesters, including one who donned an orange jumpsuit and black
hood—motivated some of her classmates to go public with their
criticism of Gonzales.
“It grew directly out of our re-meeting him, and thinking about what
our responsibilities were to speak out,” Moses said.
Marshall Winn of Greenville, S.C., added that the attorney general’s
appearance caused many of his classmates to consider whether it was
time to issue a public rebuke against the Bush Administration’s
“I think the fact that he came to the reunion made us think that its
really time for us to make a statement on what’s been going on in
this administration,” he said.
The classmates debated whether their criticism of Gonzalez should be
made publicly. About 15 to 20 individuals declined to sign out of
courtesy or because “their job prevented them from joining,”
according to David M. Abromowitz of Boston, who helped write the
However, Abromowitz said that the decision was made to run the open
letter because the organizers wanted to encourage other individuals
to express their opinions publicly.
“We thought it was important to speak up on these issues even if, on
a personal level, it might cause discomfort,” Abromowitz said. “We
hope that it encourages others in the private sector who are
concerned about their civil liberties.”
Abromowitz added that none of those who declined to sign the letter
did so because they disagreed with its content.
“There were differing views on the method of presenting them, but
there was no disagreement over the importance of the civil liberties
issues that it raised,” he said.
Nancy R. London, who also signed the letter, said that a copy was
delivered in advance to Gonzales’ office in Washington, D.C., as a
“The public-private dichotomy is an interesting thing to reflect
upon,” she said. “But I think that we made that distinction pretty
Though the letter criticized the attorney general’s views towards
domestic wire-tapping and torture, the signatories insisted that it
was not intended to be a personal attack against Gonzales.
“I’m sure he is a very fine fellow, but it’s really troubling what
he is standing for and what the administration of George W. Bush is
standing for,” Winn said. “We couldn’t stand by this any longer.”
situation is so bad that 56
members of Alberto's Harvard Law school class took out an ad in the
Washington Postexcoriating him for his outlaw abuse of power. The
Harvard Crimson further reports that there
was NO dissent whatsoever in this from members of that class, even
among those who for professional reasons could not sign on publicly."
A the time the following was written, Gonzales had not resigned, and
just as predicted, our brave white congressmen did NOTHING to speed the
process along. Had he not resigned, this Mexican gardener would
still be in his affirmative action position of attorney general of the
united states of america:
The finest attorney general affirmative
action can buy
This man's [I use the term "man" loosely in reference to latrinos]
breathtaking candor in his admission that the pristine spirit behind the
U.S. Constitution is way beyond his grasp proved once and for all that
this government was founded by our Founding Fathers ONLY for THEIR
posterity, which Gonzo is not. It's enough to make a White first
grader blush, or cry. We may never know if he LIED when he
claimed, or was just plain too STUPID to know how STUPID it is to
claim, he lived by the rule of law in the very same breath he claimed
the law applies neither to him nor the White House. His
Alice in Wonderland approach to law was exceeded only by his Alice in
Wonderland reasoning, wherein the Cheshire Cat is the final authority
and abstract justice can just take a hike.
His TREASON against the U.S. Constitution he SWORE to uphold would
have been a DEATH PENALTY to our Founding Fathers, in this country for
the vast majority of its existence, and to most civilized nations of the
world today. To over-reach the invasion of our privacy by IGNORING
a law which already over-reached the invasion of our privacy is a
- The Patriot Act ALREADY invades our privacy, UNNECESSARILY, and
makes a mockery of the blood spilt by our Founding Fathers.
- To EXCEED that is not simply unnecessary, it's a SLAP across the
Face of God.
- To have this done by an alien enemy foreign agent which all
Hispanics are must ENRAGE the White Race.
- To do this and then FLAGRANTLY LIE about it in front of the very
White men who are supposed to be representing us is a warning that
we must OUTLAW affirmative action, NOW.
- Our rule of law will be reduced to rubble when Congress fails to
hold this traitor accountable, as they inevitably will.