Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps

flavio

flavio

Banned
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.
Source...
Click to expand...
 
so, did you have a comment....
Not like this is News. It's been going on over a week now.
I don't like the guy myself, but they are trying to make him into a scapegoat,
when there's nothing to scape. :confused:
 
oh BTW.
They are in the works now to change some way the law is read or something
so that the operations would remain exactly the same, but it'll look better, and
satisfy the nah sayers.
It's total politics.
 
Obviously Gonzales flat out lied in his confirmation hearing.


"not the policy or the agenda of this president"
Click to expand...
He knew it was

to authorize actions that conflict with existing law.
Click to expand...
Admits it is against the law.

He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance
Click to expand...
Ah, but he didn't.
 
Wiretaps were initiated by Bobby Kennedy and they have been known about since Nixon. Granted, it is a basic violation of civil rights... but the rules allow for the Prez to use the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper so long as he scribbles up a secret order for it first.
 
The flavio thread start collection is right out of the (D) handbook. Google yesterdays news for
Democrats are apparently not taking full advantage of GOP woes
Click to expand...
...it's everywhere
 
Gonz said:
The flavio thread start collection is right out of the (D) handbook. Google yesterdays news for ...it's everywhere
Click to expand...
That didn't work as promised. What does work is if you go to cnn.com right now the church fires are the tops story. Then hit "politics" and you'll see a similar Gonzales story.

It's called "news" so don't whine just because it's littered with GOP scandals.

More on Gonzales and Bush breaking the law....

In a long day of testimony, Gonzales argued that the 2001 resolution authorizing military action against the al Qaeda terrorist network and President Bush's "inherent constitutional authority" give Bush the authority for the program.

But the panel's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said President Bush "doesn't have a blank check" to bypass a special court set up to approve secret wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Specter said no "fair, realistic reading" of the 2001 resolution gives the administration the power to conduct electronic surveillance of people inside the United States without a warrant.

"There has been an express will of Congress to the contrary," Specter said. He urged the administration to submit its program to the federal court that oversees wiretap requests "lock, stock and barrel" for its review.

"Let them see the whole thing and let them pass judgment, because if they disagree with you, it's the equilibrium of our constitutional system that's involved," he said.
Leahy: Bush not 'above the law'

The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said Bush does not have "the power to decide what laws to ignore." (Watch Leahy's sharp questioning of Gonzales -- 1:45)

"Nobody is above the law -- not even the president of the United States," he said.....

.....The hearing began with a sharp partisan dispute when Specter ruled that Gonzales did not have to be sworn in to testify. Democrats demanded a role call vote on the issue, which Republicans won.
More....
Click to expand...
Republicans are saying "Please lie as much as possible about this!!!".
 
flavio said:
More on Gonzales and Bush breaking the law....
Click to expand...
well if they are "breaking the law", why haven't they been indicted?

I'll tell ya why.....
because it's a grey area. Surly someone from the left can understand that... :D
 
What?!?!?!? A politician lied (make no mistake, the Attorney General is first, last and always a politician)?!?!?!?

Say it ain't so. :rofl4:
 
Just another case of the Demo-rats whining like little
babies after they lost YET again heh heh heh

Losers!!!
 
What else in the Atty Gen going to say? "My boss, he's a crook. I hope he goes to jail for a long time. I better get started on that!"
 
catocom said:
well if they are "breaking the law", why haven't they been indicted?
Click to expand...
Being from the right I thought you knew the drill on how to avoid indictment. Lie, cover up the truth, and abuse power like this...


President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation...determined to assert presidential prerogatives on such matters and congressional inquiries.

he will block White House aides from testifying...will not release official White House photos ...

Facing repeated questions, Bush distanced himself ...Bush said he does not recall...
Click to expand...
...and this....

he White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
flavio said:
Being from the right I thought you knew the drill on how to avoid indictment. Lie, cover up the truth, and abuse power
Click to expand...
IMO, I'm not really that far right...I just play one on TV. :D
No if I fart wrong I get "Convicted"...that's my luck. :(
Shit I didn't even get my rights re-instated until, I think, 1992. :alienhuh:

I'm the most honest person I know...almost :evilcool:

All politicians know how to do those latter things there.
They practice all the time. (on both sides. Bill just wasn't good enough :p )
 
Winky said:
Just another case of the Demo-rats whining like little
babies after they lost YET again heh heh heh

Losers!!!
Click to expand...
What did they lose again? Questioning people when they lie under oath or commit crimes is whining? So I guess when cops bust criminals they are whining too then?
 
flavio said:
So you don't mind a bit? ....and are you ok with warrantless wiretapping too?
Click to expand...
nope...yep....I Expect it.
I'm a very paranoid person. I've always "expected" it.
I just don't talk about stuff on the phone, that I don't feel comfortable
about just "anyone" else hearing. :swing:
 
Shit. We got all these military personel "protecting our freedoms" and it turns out you don't even give a crap about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top