1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Discussion in 'Legal' started by NineseveN, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    From Attorney Gonzales' appearance before Senate Judiciary
    Committee hearing on Wartime Execuitve Power 2/6/2006

    There's just something wrong about all of this.
  2. cosine

    cosine Well-Known Member

    Well, I'll see how long this lasts. (I mean the thread)

    I do think it sounds chilling, especially with regard to future presidents who might take precedent such as this to curb civil and human rights.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  3. crashm1

    crashm1 Well-Known Member

    I listened to parts of the hearings the other day. This administration makes me really cranky.
  4. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Well-Known Member

    Yeah -- the Senators are wearing makeup and asking these "probing" questions on national T.V. I guess it's all about protecting Liberty :rolleyes: - as Feinstein, Biden, Kohl, Durbin and Leahy have proven they care SO MUCH about in the past.:rolleyes:
  5. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    Well that's the thing, even though the Dems are screaming bloody murder over it, I'll bet the farm they don't give up such power when they get the White House seat sometime in the future. So even if one's Conservative bias won't allow them to see how bad this is, think of Hillary with this much power. Are we getting frosty yet?

    The only thing someone with power truly wants is more power.
  6. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Well-Known Member

    Well -- That's it right there, isn't it? Why was there no similar uproar when the Clinton Administration started sifting through Internet traffic? Before 9/11? When the threat-du-jour was DOMESTIC terrorosm?

    That was a heck of a lot scarier than Bush monitoring foreign conversations.
  7. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    Um, actaully there was an uproar, maybe you weren't listening? Why do some folks insist on bringing up Klintoon every time GW is taken to task for violating his oath and our rights? Clinton was a terrible president, GW is not much better. I fear our next will be even worse...especially if you folks blindly allow GW to continue to assume more power than he should by doing this stupid party line BS where the emporer can do no wrong because Clinton did this or did that and he stained an intern's dress.

    Who cares what Clinton did? This is not a history discussion, it is a concern of the right here and now, and the future (which is not as birght as it used to be). Last time I checked, Clinton is not in office, GW is.
  8. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member


    If a ship runs up on the reef, you don't blame the captain who retired five years ago, you blame the one who was at the helm...especially if they keep going full speed ahead ONTO the reef.

    There's been five whole years to go in varying directions, to correct courses. Clinton, whatever someone thinks of him, despite the seeming obsessive anger some people have about him, is now entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

    And I still think that when people blindly vote "straight ticket" for either party, without considering the platform of each and every individual listed, they're not being good American citizens at all. It's like grabbing and eating apples in the dark, you can't see which might be rotten till you've bitten into it.
  9. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Y'know, there's some senators on the RIGHT asking questions and being disturbed about the current course of things, too. Shh.

    Might wanna take those party blinders off. :rolleyes: Objectivity, in this case, is good. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a core civil liberties issue, an issue that goes right to the paper with "We the people..." on it itself.
  10. striker3

    striker3 Well-Known Member

    I view that as the most damning statement in the whole thing. I thought we were supposed to have gotten rid of the royalty in the 1700s...

    If this is how the so-called leaders view themselves, there is not much that we can do within the system itself to make changes.
  11. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    I don't know about Clinton, but if a future President does it, is there any doubt that George Bush's name will come up? I am calling double standard here, accusing this argument of clearing the way to rag on George Bush.

    Part of the argument is protecting Presidential powers and limiting Congress' desire to do everything of an executive nature by committee or rules they establish. There really is such a thing as "inherent powers".

    If there was martial law, suspension of habeus corpus, and all that, I suspect we wouldn't like that either. The real question here is the possibility, even likelihood of corruption and abuse. Laws are too frequently allowed to be applied beyond the scope of their original intent. RICO comes to mind as an example...a law applied in cases having nothing to do with organized crime.

    As we have seen with gun control case law, give a lawyer and a judge an inch, and they will take a mile...the end justifies the means.

    It is possible that FISA is unconstitutional and that the administration is right in ignoring its provisions in some instances. The question remains whether exercising power in extraordinary ways is proper and appropriate.

    Republicans like Lindsay Graham (SC), one of my Senators, may be questioning along with Democrats, but what may happen is that he will support explicitly granting such powers to the President, updating FISA. I think his concern is that it be legal and that Congress will have had their say more than the President's motives be opposed.

    Personally, I think it is a stretch to say that the 9/11 resolution granted war powers to the President, but Congress should have thought that through before voting on it. If there was trust inherent in that vote, then there will be discretion granted. Currently, I believe the President's motives are good, but that is often how abuse begins.

    Of course, another problem is the President's willingness to brief Congress. That means alerting bitterly partisan minority leaders of committees. If they see no need for confidentiality, an opportunity to create controversy is seized and somehow the word gets out. There then is actually a need to keep secrets from Congress. At that point, I think we're done. Partisanship is the real problem, a higher priority than doing the right thing. The proof of partisanship, both offensive and defensive, is in the hearings.
  12. Camp David

    Camp David member

    About a liberal Senator trying to make partisan points by questioning the manner in which an Attorney General determines the law? Yup... that's wrong!

    Here's another opinion (reference)
    Domestic' abuse
    Feb 7, 2006
    David Limbaugh

    Mr. Limbaugh makes the important point:
    "Let's be clear what we're talking about here. The NSA surveillance program involves intelligence of a foreign enemy during war. None of the interceptions of communications is for the purpose of criminal law enforcement but instead for the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States."

    In short: Dear NSA: Please Listen to my Phone Calls. Precisely! If you are a terrorist! Exactly... That's the point that Senator Leahy misses. Completely! There is something fundamentally wrong with a liberal Senator not wanting the administration to guarantee domestic security...
  13. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    Camp David...

    It's not possible to "guarantee domestic security". In counties with much less personal freedom than ours, terror attacks still occur. Keeping that in mind, why give up more of our liberty for for a false promise?
  14. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    Again I think liberal is being misused as a pejorative when what is intended is "Democrat". The opposition does not come from a liberal philosophy. It comes from being a member of the opposition party.
  15. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Well-Known Member

    Four posts. It took four posts for someone to totally disregard what is perhaps the most chilling excerpt I have ever read and resort to a reactionary ad hominum response that is totally irrelevant to the original post.

    Striker3, Biden was being sarcastic. That's what he does. That whistling sound you heard was Biden's caustic irony sailing past your cranium.

    First, the administration did not brief Congress until it got caught violating the Bill of Rights red handed:

    Second, the statement that members of Congress are any less trustworthy with secrets than members of the administration or NSA employees is ridiculous. What on earth makes some nameless NSA "carreer professional" any more capable of making decisions concerning the Constitution than our highest elected officials?

    How is it possible to keep supporting these people? Can you not see the implications? Imagine this same conversation, only with a Democratic administration, and the subject is unwarranted wiretapping of gun owners.
  16. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Fair criticism there Biker, but this Administration's attempts to do just that have been quite successful so far... that is the point I was trying to amplify!

    For safety? You might think the threat is "false" but that is hardly what Al Qaeda is saying... correct?
  17. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Well-Known Member

    CD, you can't really prove something in the negative. You could make as legitimate an argument that the administrations efforts to curtail terrorism have been successful as you could argue that these same efforts have resulted in the sky being bluer.

    The fact is that you need a positive example to legitimately make such a claim. Osama Bin Laden's head on a pike would be a good start.
  18. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Guarantee Domestic Security.

    And you realize the only way to do THAT is a police state, right? And not just that, but an ironfisted one?

    I've about had it with SCARED people wanting thumbsucking security over liberty. What happened to America the Brave?
  19. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Lobotomy Boy=>Nor can you prove the obverse; i.e., in this case, that such signals intelligence has not stopped terrorism. I believe that was precisely the point the Attorney General was making....
  20. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    If you personally are so frightened and want "safety" so badly, you may hide under your bed, put training wheels on your bike, wear a giant helmet whenever you step outside your door and a surgical mask when people might breathe on you.

    But what's left of the true America is unwilling to trade our liberties to be babied..that's right..babied and tucked in all snug and paranoid with scary bedtime stories of boogeyman terrorists and promises of "security" from an ever-more-bloated, ever-more-invasive Big Government.

Share This Page