Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee

[bogie]

The more people involved = the more likely folks hear about it. If they keep the whole dang thing in the NSA, no leaks.

By now, it's a moot point anyway. Do you think that they're still using cell phones? Heck, some of the troll-crap I've been reading may even be coded messages...

When there's another large-scale coordinated attack, y'all are going to be asking why we didn't know about it beforehand. Sheesh.

 

[Manedwolf]

Do you really believe that the terrorist attacks on Spain transit, English subways, and French infrastructure facilities in 2005 (last year) were from boogeymen Manedwolf? I can document each with photos if you wish...

Of course they happened. But you know what? The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are close to that of winning the lottery.

I am not scared. If you are, that's your deal.

 

[Camp David]

Of course they happened. But you know what? The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are close to that of winning the lottery.

I am not scared. If you are, that's your deal.

If you wish to resort to sarcasm, that's your deal! But for many in the world today, dealing with terrorism is hardly a "winning the lottery" consideration. In regions of the world terrorism strikes daily. Efforts domestically are framed to prevent such a threat from happening here... The president's first responsibility is defending the homeland. He is trying to do that, with reluctlance by many that such a threat exists... As I am sure you know, for those that died in 09/11/01, terrorism was probably furthest from their minds when it occurred. Don't we owe it to them, the fallen, their families, and the remaining Americans, to take the steps to assure that it never happens again?

I am not scared, as you allege, that causes me to strongly support the process to address a foreign threat... you might say, however, I am rightly concerned that my country fulfills its primary Constitutional obligation to protect its citizenry from a demostrated threat to the populace! Terrorism.

 

[crashm1]

So CD one terrorist attack in 200+ years is a reason enough to toss out the 4th amendment? I don't think so.

 

[NineseveN]

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.

Except the Repubs are asking the same questions and have the same concerns...did you not get the memo? Democrat is being misused when it means "just about everyone but blind supporters of GWB's office and people who just don't care".

 

[NineseveN]

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?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Gotta love that Ben Franklin guy.

 

[WT]

Gonzalez sounded like John Gotti or Jimmy Hoffa.

I don't trust Gonzo.

As the one senator said, "Thank God for the newspapers telling us (Congress) what you are doing because you surely aren't."

 

[carlrodd]

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

+1 as much as i am fed up with all the double-speak from the administration, it is an absolute laugh that people like these are the ones probing. here you have the cream of the crap. i am ashamed that joe biden "represents" me.

 

[fourays2]

If you wish to resort to sarcasm, that's your deal! But for many in the world today, dealing with terrorism is hardly a "winning the lottery" consideration. In regions of the world terrorism strikes daily. Efforts domestically are framed to prevent such a threat from happening here... The president's first responsibility is defending the homeland. He is trying to do that, with reluctlance by many that such a threat exists... As I am sure you know, for those that died in 09/11/01, terrorism was probably furthest from their minds when it occurred. Don't we owe it to them, the fallen, their families, and the remaining Americans, to take the steps to assure that it never happens again?

I am not scared, as you allege, that causes me to strongly support the process to address a foreign threat... you might say, however, I am rightly concerned that my country fulfills its primary Constitutional obligation to protect its citizenry from a demostrated threat to the populace! Terrorism.

If he cares so much then why are the borders wide open? why are citizens who try to prototect the borders labeled "vigilantes"?

 

[Master Blaster]

i am ashamed that joe biden "represents" me.

+1 I have been voting against him for the last 25 years.
One only has to look at his campaign contributors to know whose interest he represents in Washington. It sure aint the people of Delaware.

Hint: American Trial Lawyers Assoc members from across the country $3.5 million. Thats for his opposition to any tort reform bill.

Then there are the big credit card banks, he was the original author of the bankruptcy reform bill about 12 years ago, every year he pushed it, and then this year when it passed , His name was not on it!!! Tom Carper (our other senator was the sponsor), and get this the day of the vote he was one of two senators absent.

My guess is that this was intentional, and gives him the opportunity to deny his involvement with this "terrible bill" when he runs for president in 2008, that makes him a liar and a hypocrit.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The president's first responsibility is defending the homeland.

That is not correct. The president's first responsibility is to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

If you don't believe me, re-read the Presidential Oath of Office, which says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

His job is to protect the Constitution. He should not protect the homeland by weakening the Constitution. In fact, to compromise the Constitution over homeland security would seem to me to be clearly against his oath, a dereliction of duty, and an impeachable offense.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

10-4

What I find increasingly irritating about this administration is their constant use of the word "war" to justify their illegal and unconstitutional actions. We are not at war against anyone. The Congress has not enacted a declaration of war (and I'm not at all persuaded that the Congress even can declare "war" against a non-government entity such as al-Qaida, or against an individual such as Osama bin-Laden (or, for that matter, against a noun, as in "War on Terror").

In short, I do not accept the rationale that GWB is entitled to invoke any supposed "war powers," for the simple reason that we are not at war. It doesn't surprise me when GWB says it, but it DOES surprise me when the AG says it, because he certainly should know better.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am not scared, as you allege, that causes me to strongly support the process to address a foreign threat... you might say, however, I am rightly concerned that my country fulfills its primary Constitutional obligation to protect its citizenry from a demostrated threat to the populace! Terrorism.

The President's oath of office does not mention the populace, nor does it mention terrorism. It does, however, affirmatively bind him to protect and defend the Constitution. Ergo, that's his primary duty. After he's done defending the Constitution he can go full-tilt after terrorists ... but not by ignoring and emasculating the Constitution that he is sworn to protect and defend.

See the difference?

 

[NineseveN]

Well said Lone Gunman and Hawkmoon.

 

[Camp David]

The President's oath of office does not mention the populace, nor does it mention terrorism. It does, however, affirmatively bind him to protect and defend the Constitution. Ergo, that's his primary duty. After he's done defending the Constitution he can go full-tilt after terrorists ... but not by ignoring and emasculating the Constitution that he is sworn to protect and defend.

Hawkmoon; You see... I am in a bit of a bind... when one goes marching to support of our President folks herein mistakenly believe that that person is somehow against the Second Amendment. I am not. I am, however, in full support of the administration's proposals and actions toward terrorism... Important distinction.

Insofar as your statement above, the President's Oath of Office, as you correctly state, charges the Chief Executive to safeguard the Constitution. Chief among its provisions, in the preamble, "...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence..." are maintained. Certainly you can see that foreign-born terrorism plots against this nation and its citizenry are well within the scope of providing for the "common defense". However, if you indeed feel that the president has "emasculated" the Constitutionally-given freedoms, you are well within your rights to so assume. I would ask, however, that you cite which freedoms you believe you personally have been denied and date of occurence?

Once again, I am a supporter of the Second Amendment freedoms we all hold dear. Additionally, I am a supporter of the current administration and its War on Terror.

 

[TequilaMockingbird]

"protecting freedom"

Team Bush constantly invoke "freedom" as the justification for concentrating power in the executive branch.

What does Bush mean by "freedom"? Check out the remarks he made before the Australian Parliment in 2003.

Bush:

We see a China that is stable and prosperous, a nation that respects the peace of its neighbors and works to secure the freedom of its own people.

Source: "Remarks as Delivered by President George W. Bush to the Australian Parliament," Federal news Service, October 23, 2003.

The president praised the Chinese communist dictatorship for its committment to "freedom."

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I would ask, however, that you cite which freedoms you believe you personally have been denied and date of occurence?

Campaign Finance Reform, although not related to the President's anti-terrorism plan, clearly is in violation of the First Amendment. The President himself said so, prior to signing it into law. The fact that he would be willing to sign things he think are un-constitutional makes me think he probably would take liberties with our rights in other areas.

The parts of the Patriot Act that grant the government the power to look at your library records without cause violates the 4th Amendment, and has a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment.

The extra powers we give Bush today will be Hillary's powers in 2008. Are you comfortable giving extra power to Hillary? The Republicans will eventually come to realize that increasing federal and executive authority was a bad idea, but it will take a Democrat in the White House before they realize it, and then it will be too late to stop.

 

[Coronach]

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

It is topical. It will stay open as long as it remains civil (it has), and the issues being discussed are legitimate civil liberty issues (they are). If it descends into merely being post after post of competing sound bytes for the three sides (Reps, Dems, and They Both Suck), it will be closed.

Mike

 

[roo_ster]

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

Incorrect. The charmen & ranking (opposition) members of the Intel committees as well the leadership of both parties in Congress were briefed repeatedly to include Jay Rockefeller, the likeliest source for the NYT article. If he was the source, he committed a felony that has had deleterious effects on our security and operations. Leaking such information truly is treason. Whoever did it ought to fry.

My take:
We have no expectation of privacy on calls that go outside the USA. We might want privacy there, but we can not realistically or legally expect it. Getting all excited about it is a waste of time and energy, as even if it was double-super-dooper illegal for us.gov to listen in, the destination country can do so and do not have to follow our laws.

Tell me, do any of y'all expect unencrypted email sent to be private? If you do, you might need to get a grasp on how email works.

Until strong encryption is ubiquitous on email and similar encryption is used in wired & wireless telephony, expecting privacy through those media is unrealistic. Even then, the source & destination will have to be out in the open.

It doesn't matter how arrogant GWB & his boy Alberto are. Reality is what bites us in the tuckus here, not their conniving. It would be nice to see the fallout bring strong encryption to the fore; but I suspect that the Dems, the MSM, and the misinformed will think this a political & constitutional issue, rather than a technical one.

 

[benEzra]

Hawkmoon; You see... I am in a bit of a bind... when one goes marching to support of our President folks herein mistakenly believe that that person is somehow against the Second Amendment. I am not. I am, however, in full support of the administration's proposals and actions toward terrorism... Important distinction.

The problem is, the Second Amendment is only one of the Bill of Rights (albeit a very important one). The Fourth Amendment is also important, and that's where the warrantless domestic wiretaps run afoul of the Bill of Rights, IMHO.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, there's the issue of privacy in a technical sense, and there is the issue of the powers of the government in exploiting whatever lack of privacy we have and being able to use it against us. I wouldn'y expect privacy if I set up a soapbox on Main Street and started ranting, but I would be very disturbed to hear that the government was recording me and preserving the recordings until such a time as someone in this or some future administration wants to use it. Just because I exercise my free speech, doesn't mean I want to give the government the power to use it against me.

Put another way, it's none of the government's business, unless I actually am a threat, and if I am a threat, there are ample ways for the government to get the information legally, e.g., FISA.

 

[Camp David]

The problem is, the Second Amendment is only one of the Bill of Rights (albeit a very important one). The Fourth Amendment is also important, and that's where the warrantless domestic wiretaps run afoul of the Bill of Rights, IMHO.

Not to make another "sound bite" and pollute the thread, however I believe (my opinion) there is a significant difference between the 2nd and 4th Amendments and that neither is being abridged by this administration, as I am sure you'd agree; and the word you used above; i.e., "warrantless" is more the domain of the Chief Executive to determine than you or I.

Stepping back off my soapboax....

 

[Manedwolf]

and the word you used above; i.e., "warrantless" is more the domain of the Chief Executive to determine than you or I.

No, it is NOT. The "chief executive" is the SERVANT of the PEOPLE. He is NOT an effing KING!

 

[seeker_two]

The Bush Administration needs to answer one question to this committee before I can give them any leeway....

What kinds of wiretaps do you need to do (or have already done) that are so important and vital to national security that you believe the FISA court (which has approved 99% of all requests made since its inception) would prohibit you from doing?

Answer me this....

 

[Biker]

I will indeed ditto that, Seeker.
Biker