10 Questions for Alberto Gonzales

By Viveca Novak

George W. Bush doesn't like having Alberto Gonzales too far from his side. In 2001, Bush tapped the Texas judge for White House counsel and in 2004 for Attorney General--both leading roles in the war on terror. Gonzales, who declined to discuss who he thinks should succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, spoke last week with TIME's Viveca Novak and others in the Washington bureau about detainee abuse, DNA testing and being attacked by fellow conservatives.

WHAT ISSUE HAS PROVIDED THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR YOU IN TERMS OF BALANCING COMPETING TENSIONS? Most of the hard decisions relate to the war on terror. We're fighting this new kind of enemy before an American population that has not seen the U.S. really engaged in this kind of fight for a generation. They don't remember that, say, in World War II we captured a lot of people. We didn't provide them lawyers. We didn't read them their rights. We simply held them because under the laws of war, we're entitled to do that.

IS THE DETAINEE-ABUSE PROBLEM BIGGER AND HIGHER UP THAN WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR? There have been about 10 independent outside investigations or reviews of detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib. They found there was some confusion, there was inadequate supervision on certain occasions, no good guidance. They also found, however, with respect to those horrifying pictures, that it resulted from a small group on the night shift. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this conduct doesn't occur in a nice clean conference room like this one. In every war, things like this happen. I'm not making an excuse for it.

WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE LONDON TERRORIST BOMBINGS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT? What this tells us is that we have an enemy that's very patient, very diabolical. I think they watch to see what we do and they adjust their conduct accordingly. This is why we're concerned about talking too freely about some of the things we're doing in the war on terror.

HOW CLOSELY IS YOUR DEPARTMENT MONITORING BORDER VIGILANTE GROUPS? My view is that it's a free country. You go wherever you want in most cases, say whatever you want in most cases. But if you engage in criminal conduct, you're going to be prosecuted. We ought to let the experts, the professionals, secure our borders.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS TO LIMIT ENDLESS APPEALS BY DEATH-ROW INMATES WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT DNA TESTING CAN CLEAR SOMEONE'S NAME AT THE 11TH HOUR? No one should be executed who's innocent--bottom line. But if additional delays are possible through DNA testing, that would be something I would worry about. We ought to be able to work out a system where you can take advantage of DNA testing but it wouldn't unduly delay the administration of justice.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHO LEAKED THE NAME OF CIA OPERATIVE VALERIE PLAME SEEMS TO BE WRAPPING UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW FOR JOURNALISTS? Since 1991, we've gone after, I think, 12 confidential sources. It's not something we do lightly. I don't know if this law is necessary.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT YOUR JOB? In the first Cabinet meeting of the second term, the President challenged us, and--you know he uses baseball metaphors--he challenged us not to play little ball but to play big ball. What I want to do is use the majestic power of the Department of Justice to do some good. On the minus side, I'm not big on budget issues or having to deal with the administrative issues that come with managing 112,000 employees. And, quite frankly, I do miss working in the White House. I miss seeing the President.

NOW THAT YOU'RE RUNNING YOUR OWN SHOW, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND WITH THE PRESIDENT? I don't feel like I'm running my own show sometimes. I get to talk to the President when I need to, which reminds me of Andy Card's old advice to all of us in the White House--that if you need to see the President, you get to see the President. If you want to see the President, you don't get to see the President.

WHEN YOUR NAME HAS BEEN FLOATED AS A POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, WERE YOU SURPRISED AT HOW VEHEMENTLY SOME OF YOUR FELLOW CONSERVATIVES ATTACKED YOU? It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as ill informed as it may be.

OF ALL THE JUSTICES WHO HAVE SERVED ON THE COURT, EXCLUDING THE CURRENT ONES, DO YOU HAVE ONE YOU ADMIRE MOST? I'm not going to answer that question.