With debates raging over whether the United States should go to war with Iraq, Judge Alberto R. Gonzales advises the president on the constitutional issues involved in war and other areas of law.

Gonzales spoke Friday at SMU.

“The president has two conditions that would allow him to invade Iraq without going before the Congress and Senate,” Gonzales said, “but he has chosen not to utilize these options.”

Gonzales said that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that there is not a law that requires the president to follow its dictates. Gonzales based his interpretation on the Constitution itself.

He also said that the argument can be extended to state that al-Qaeda is a threat and is being harbored in Iraq. Iraq can be invaded under the resolution passed by Congress and Senate during the elder Bush’s presidency.

Gonzales said that not all of the mission objectives were met and that there are clauses that would allow the president to invade Iraq under the old resolution.

“The president has refused to consider these options,” Gonzales said. “Even though they are constitutionally legal, Mr. Bush chooses to wait on invading Iraq until he has the support of the legislature and the American people. He’s that kind of man.”

John Attanasio, dean of the Dedman School of Law, asked about the resolution that the White House previously presented to the UN and the legislature about a possible invasion of Iraq.

“Now that the resolution has been rejected by the legislature,” Attanasio asked, “What’s next?”

Gonzales said that a resolution has been presented to Congress and the United Nations that narrows the focus on the attack on Iraq. The resolution was sent up last Tuesday. During the next week there will be several congressional meetings and Trent Lott and Richard Gephardt should review the resolution and offer modifications.

One change to the resolution is the deletion of a clause that would provide the president to use any and all means necessary to restore peace. The president will still have the power necessary to protect the nation and to enforce UN resolutions. Gonzales feels that this will

provide the president sufficient power to protect the United States.

Ugy Offobche, a foreign student from Nigeria, asked Gonzales what he thought about the protestors picketing against an invasion of Iraq.

“It’s America,” Gonzales said. “It’s their right to disagree. I believe we’re doing the right thing.”

Gonzales advises the president on Constitutional law, litigation and legislative matters as a part of his job as White House Counsel.

” The world has changed in 200 years, but our Constitution has not,” Gonzales said. “The interpretation of law doesn’t always fit with the civil liberties theories, it’s up to us to work for a balance. We welcome an examination of what we do, this is how we preserve the rule of law.”

To explain why the rule of law is important, it is necessary to define it. The Supreme Court states that the rule of law consists of several important concepts.

First, government decisions are made according to written law and rules, government sanctions cannot be made up after the fact (ex post facto). Rules need to be consistently applied. Courts provide should citizens consistent, written process (due process) before life, liberty, or property is taken. Lastly, the courts provide reasons based upon the law for their decisions. These are the rules of law and are the bedrock upon which American liberty and justice are based. If not

protected from neglect or abuse, the rule of law can be undermined.

“The interpretation of law is just as important as a soldier who fights in the war on terrorism,”

Gonzales said. “It’s important for you (the law students) to protect our civil liberties.”

Gonzales joked initially when asked about the people who are “disappearing” and “reappearing” in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and their rights.

“They haven’t disappeared.” Gonzales said. “They’re in Cuba.”

Gonzales sobered and said that the detainees in Cuba are all foreigners and are not subject to protection under the Constitution. They receive the treatment described under the Geneva Convention as prisoners of war should.

“If you have an 80 year old detainee and we decide that he is not a treat, we’ll release him,”

Gonzales said. “Otherwise they stay in the camps as past presidents kept prisoners of war in camps during World War II and other conflicts. We do not know how long that will be, a day, week, year, or several years. Whatever, so be it. An enemy of the nation that threatens our security is an enemy.” said that it is necessary to wait and see what regulations are created by the Department of Defense for handling these cases. The Department of Defense is now in the process of promulgating the rules and regulations by which — which will govern these military commissions that will decide if these people are a threat.

“I will tell you that already the Department of Defense has had informal consultations with the Department of Justice,” Gonzales said, ” it will have formal consultations with DOJ and other agencies so that people should feel comfortable that the rules promulgated by the Department of Defense will be fair. Terrorists who were tried pursuant the military commissions will receive a full and fair trial. That is the command from the commander in chief, down to the secretary of defense.”

Gonzales said that he has every expectation that these regulations created by the Department of Defense will be made public and people will be able to judge for themselves that the secretary of defense has followed the orders of the commander in chief.