Gonzales' Testimony
I have not seen much discussion of our Attorney General's testimony before the Senate. Not so much his defense of the Constitutionality or legality of the NSA spying. I am thinking of some of the amazingly stupid things he said.
After acknowledging that Bin Laden was undoubtedly aware that his conversations were being listened to Gonzales suggested he might forget this except for being reminded by mentions in the newspapers. Is there any doubt why we have not caught Bin Laden? Bush treats him as if he was a moron.
In his prepared remarks Gonzales talked about the much broader electronic eavesdropping done by previous presidents including Washington and Lincoln. Washington and Lincoln?
I am not sure what is more disheartening. That our government has distain for rights and values or that they seem so stupid.
I wouldn't use the term stupid as much as the word disturbing. Apparently the legal basis Gonzales is using for warrantless surveillance is war powers the President has under Article II on Americans. Using this claim empowering the President at his sole discretion to spy, jail and possibly even torture and kill American citizens in America. Warrants are not needed and judges cannot review his actions according to the principles outlined by Gonzales. Further, Congress has no legal authority to amend or legislate anything that can reduce or regulate this power. I make no claim as to the legality of this position, that will be left to the courts to decide if an action is brought.
My concern is that such a claim can be brought. In monotone, mutisyllabic talking points fashion Gonzales stated very clearly this position and should be a prima facia outrage to all Americans. This is a gigantic shift from what most Americans believe and is wholly foreign to our way of life. I am truly concerned about this.
http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com
February 9, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will adopt your term disturbing.
American's education is obviously as poor as we all fear if they accept the idea that Article II can be interpreted, what happened to strict construction, to give the President all this unbridled power.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 9, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink