| Squirming the attorney general
|
Tim Grieve at Salon has a good report on Alberto Gonzales' attempts to avoid telling the truth.
When Gonzales was confirmed, he was asked if the president has the right to wiretap Americans with warrants. Gonzales said it was a "hypothetical" question, even though he knew that that was exactly what Bush was doing. Gonzales replied by saying it was hypothetical that the wiretaps are illegal, thus avoiding the plain sense of the question.
But, says Grieve, Republican Lindsey Graham continued to press the issue:
Graham went after both prongs of the administration's defense of the warrantless spying program. First, he dismissed out of hand the notion that Congress somehow implicitly authorized warrantless spying when it adopted its use-of-force authorization after 9/11, and he cautioned Gonzales about making such a "dangerous" argument: If the White House reads the use-of-force authorization too broadly, Graham said, future Congresses will be wary when future presidents come looking for authority to use force against enemies.
Graham then set his sights on the argument that the president has inherent authority as commander in chief to do what it takes to keep America safe. It's a fine theory, Graham said, but it's one that knows "no boundaries." If the Constitution allows the president to engage in wiretap in seeming contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, doesn't the Constitution also allow the president to ignore the new law that prohibits the United States from engaging in torture? Graham put the question to Gonzales, but the attorney general wouldn't answer it, exactly, saying that the torture statute isn't the subject of today's hearings. Which is another way of saying, we suppose, that questions about it are "hypothetical."
It turns out usurping Congress' power is a bipartisan slap in the face.
Plus: Why is the chief law enforcement official in the US squirming, hairsplitting and dissembling? [Tags: george_bush alberto_gonzales politics]
Posted
by D. Weinberger at February 7, 2006 08:27 AM
Comments
The scariest part of this whole thing isn't that there are men like Bush, Cheney and Gonzales in the government willing to take a whiz on our Constitutional rights, it's the fact that there are so many Americans who think it's all perfectly reasonable. Ironically, these are often the same people who's righteous indignation literally knew no bounds during Clinton's presidency, claiming it was absolutely vital for us to prosecute the president to the fullest extent of the law over his personal dalliances.
What is the matter with us? Is it because of our puritanical roots that we are so obsessed with sin and personal failings over more substantial transgressions? Or maybe it's just human nature that we want to rubberneck at someone else's personal tragedies as opposed to their abstract legal and Constitutional peccadilloes.
A little bi-partisan browbeating doesn't do it for me; I wont' be satisfied until the impeachment hearings start.
Posted by: scott | February 7, 2006 09:22 AM
With the wiretaps, I think it's the fact that we're being told (and it may be true) that the victims were people for whom warrants would have been issued. So, there was no practical harm done (or so the reasoning goes): The people we wiretapped illegally deserved to be wiretapped legally. So, it looks like just a legal nicety. And since the wiretaps were done to keep us safe, it's not like the legal nicety of lying about getting blown.
So, I think it's going to hard to whip public fervor about this, although Congress seems to understand the real issue - a reckless, imperial presidency - and cares about it because it's their power that's being usurped.
Posted by: David Weinberger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 7, 2006 09:58 AM
Congress "...cares about it because it's their power that's being usurped."
Let's hope so. Over the last several years too many in Congress have seemed entirely content to give up their power, as long as the campaign funds (at best), or bribes (at worst), keep rolling in.
Posted by: johne | February 8, 2006 03:03 PM
They squirm because they are all POLITICIANS! No matter what their title - this at least explains the squirming.
Posted by: John | February 9, 2006 03:17 AM
Very well organized site. I particularly liked the resources section.
Will use it to plan my next trip to NWT. See you soon.
Posted by: pharmacy | February 15, 2006 04:39 AM