Murray Waas in the HuffPo outlines the story behind the story.
That Gonzales was a stooge was aways known, that he also acted as an internal check and firewall to the now known criminal activities of this administration was less well known by the American public. That is about to change and is the reason Gonzo lawyered up.
He clearly stated, on repeated occassions, that there was no internal disagreement on the illegal wiretapping of Americans, when clearly there was, to the extent that three, so far, higher ups in DoJ and the DG of the FBI have contradicted his statements and were willing to resign en mass if these activities were not brought within the rule of law.
It is now, also, apparent why the OPR investigation was terminated by Bush, Gonzo was reviewing the investigation and realized that the writing was on the wall, he should never have been allowed near that investigation for all the obvious reasons, most notably because he, like the good servant he was, would report whatever progress was being made to the people being investigated, this administration and ironically, himself.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(243)
-
▼
October
(35)
- More Culture Of Life Hypocracy...
- Flogging A Dead Horse
- Endangered Species?
- Bush Speak... No One Listen
- Wankers Of The World Unite...Already!
- No One Could Have Predicted... Episode MMMCLXXI
- More Missiles...? Maybe Later.
- Dithering
- Gratuitous Grateful Dead Interlude
- Hey Hey Hey... Goodbye
- So Gonzo!
- Truth To Power
- Allez Le Bleu
- Mad World
- Merde
- Thompson The 'Tank' Engine
- Yikes!!
- Getting Whipped Up
- A Great American
- Gonzo
- Whah!
- Wingnuttia Unbridled
- Local Boy Done Good
- Christianist Dissonance
- SCHIPS & Salsa II
- Stand Up Guys
- Torture Incorporated
- Reynolds Update
- Too Funny
- More Mister Nice Guy
- Off Their Propoganda Game
- Veto
- Incompetance
- Golly Gee Willikers!
- SCHIP's And Salsa
-
▼
October
(35)
Links
About Me
- righterscramp
- In my mid forties, two kids, nuff said.
6 comments:
Just as Plamegate fell far short of Mr. Waas's breathless predictions of a Rove indictment, the current flurry of investigations into the terrorist surveillance program, and Al Gonzales are likey to prove disappointing.
Here's a prediction. After much investigation, someone in the Bush administration will be trapped in some sort of bogus obstruction or perjury charge resulting from the investigation. There will, of course be no underlying crime, but a Republican scalp will be claimed.
Of course Gonzales is lawyering up!
Not being a judge or a lawyer, I can't say for certain that every single aspect of the surveillance program is perfectly legal. But to me, the fundamental principle of electoral accountability should hold sway.
The American people presumably want to elect a President who takes responsibility for national security. Do you really want anonymous, unelected and unaccountable judges having final say over surveillance? What if they block a wiretap that ultimately allows a terror attack to take place?
These kinds of decisions clearly belong in the hands of the executive, who is accountable to the voters. I think the "oversight" arguments are spurious. Congress and the judiciary are always jealous of executive power, but Democrats would do well to realize that one of their own may soon hold the executive.
Plamegate is responsible for putting to an end the seeming invincibility and invulnerability of not only TurdBlossom but the entire Bush cabal. They have never recovered from being exposed as the corrupt, hypocritical incompetents the rest of us already knew they were. No storm in a tea cup I should hazard.
As for the shannanigans at DoJ vis-a-vis the illegal surveillance of the American people, I would imagine a lot less rosy scenario than the one you have conjured. That you would support or at least condone such utter contempt for the rule of law is just another example of the rights ideologically blinkered and transparent mendacity.
FISA was passed by our congress, after Watergate, to protect the American people from speculative and illegal incursions upon their privacy by Government, something any liberty loving Republican should be all for, to date FISA courts, those anonymous, unelected and unaccountable judges you're so quick to smear have turned down a mere handful of requests from this and any other administration and their proxies for access to surveillance in prosecution of their duties in protecting the American people.
In short, FISA works and with the enhancements enacted after 9/11 has proven itself adequate to the tasks within its pervue.
George Bush decided, unilaterally, that he could circumvent the process because he is king and can do anything he wants. He has admitted it and for all we know continues to break the law to this day.
He and his surrogates will be punished, it's the American way.
I'll share with you some verbiage:
"However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
from the Wikipedia site re: FISA
So perhaps it's a tad presumptuous to refer to "the illegal surveillance of the American people". The program is not intended to surveil Americans anyway. It's only utilized against foreigners who are strongly linked to terrorism. Occasionally they may make a call into the US, or a call between two foreigners may route through the US. It can take upwards of two hundred hours to prepare a petition for a FISA warrant, and although as you point out, warrants have only been denied a handful of times, one of those times was when the FBI wanted to search Zaccarias Mousaoui's laptop. So, it doesn't take too many refusals to result in a tragedy.
FISA never foresaw an era of mobile telecommunications, or the repeated changing of numbers that is used to thwart surveillance. It's obsolete, and was never constitutional anyway. The courts have held repeatedly that the President has the constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence. Period.
There's a simple trade-off here. The more we limit government's ability to conduct surveillance of terrorists, the greater the risk of another 9/11. Or worse. This is a moral issue. We're balancing the lives of thousands, maybe millions, against the vain preenings of a tiny minority of legal poseurs who are either completely ignorant of the Constitution they purport to defend, or who simply want to obstruct our ability to defend our selves.
Might the NSA be eavesdropping on my phone calls overseas? I doubt it, but if they are, I don't give a fuck. Let them. I WANT them to. It's a very small sacrifice, with a potentially huge payoff.
Puzzled as to why your beloved Dems have caved on FISA? It's simple. The President has the Constitution on his side and they know it. Besides, now that they're in power, they're accountable. Nobody wants to be the asshole who has to explain to some 8-year old that her mommy's dead because he stood up to block a program that could have prevented it.
My beloved Dems have not caved on FISA, Chris Dodd is mounting a rearguard action and is now pulling in some heavy weight support for his 'hold' and implied fillibuster...
Which brings us to the retroactive immunity from prosecution for the telecoms, who provided this administration with who knows what, why would this piece of obvious chickanery be slipped into a Bill updating FISA procedures? Just asking!
You know... wikipedia is not always the best source for information, the piece you quoted could have been written by John Yoo for all we know or any other White House lackey with a vested interest in protecting the preznits ass.
The only time FISA is likely to turn down a request is if it sees no 'just' cause.
And as for 200 hrs, FISA warrants can be applied for retroactively, that is merely a strawman and you sucked it up.
Stop believing the propaganda and you may actually learn something.
The government of the United States came to the telecom companies and asked them to perform a vital national security function. Does it not strike you as unfair that Congress is now threatening to open them up to prosecution, not to mention a million nutjob ACLU lawsuits after the fact?
Let me explain to you what that is. That is good old fashioned, John Murtha-style extortion.
By the way, I know the nature of Wikipedia, but the reference is correct.
Talk about sucking up propaganda! You've allowed yourself to get whipped up into some sort of self-righteous tizzy over a matter that's settled law. It's not even controversial. The constitution places the power to perform foreign intelligence in the hands of the Executive, where it belongs.
The telecoms were coerced... that's what all the fighting is about. You're so naive!
Post a Comment