Why believe me when I said I loved you when you know I've been a liar all my life?

[SacTown Chronic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort.


Sigh, I miss the good old days of stained blue dresses and lies that had no impact on my life.

[scaeagles]

Don't kid yourself - warrantless wiretaps and echelon and illegal access to FBI files and....well, you get the idea....were going on before this administration in just about every administration I can think of. Please understand this is not intended as any justification or approval or condemnation of the practice based on past events - only refuting the implication that lies and secrets from the administration immediately prior had no impact on privacy or personal freedoms.

I am not so naive as to think Gonzales didn't lie or dodge questions. I am also not so naive as to believe this is new and unique. However, it is possible to say the Gonzales was walking a fine line. There is disagreement within the legal community - and I completely admit I do not know well all of the legal points - as to whether or not the taps are illegal. Both sides spin in the way they believe is politically beneficial. Based on the public response - or rather lack thereof - it's a pretty much dead issue politically (IMO).

[SacTown Chronic]

I am not so naive as to think Gonzales didn't lie or dodge questions. I am also not so naive as to believe this is new and unique.
Did you also shrug when Clinton lied under oath? Or did you call for his impeachment?

However, it is possible to say the Gonzales was walking a fine line. There is disagreement within the legal community - and I completely admit I do not know well all of the legal points - as to whether or not the taps are illegal
Could you provide a link to a nonpartisan source who says Bush isn't breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants? I'd love to read it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I dislike Gonzalez for many reasons, this isn't one of them. He had knowledge of a classified program, he had no choice but to evade the question. And, as legal council, he did and does believe the actions to be legal (remains to be seen if that will hold up), so his statement about the "policy of this President" was true from that perspective.

[Gemini Cricket]

Waitaminute. Gonzales lied under oath. Shouldn't that be a big deal to the GOP? They're not supposed to stand for that sort of thing. They proved that with the Clinton impeachment...
???

[SacTown Chronic]

I dislike Gonzalez for many reasons, this isn't one of them. He had knowledge of a classified program, he had no choice but to evade the question.
He didn't evade the question. He lied under oath.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He didn't evade the question. He lied under oath.
1) It's a lie because you deam it a lie. He didn't say, "Bush isn't authorizing wire taps." He's said, "Bush isn't doing anything illegal." To the best of his knowledge, that was true. You may disagree (as do I), but I don't consider that a lie.

2) What else could he have said? The knowledge he had was classified, he could not give anything other than what he said.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, I don't know who you hang out with or where you get your news, but the idea that people don't care that the President is breaking the law and laying waste to the Constitution is a bit of a stretch. Remind me again what the supposed definition of a Republican is?

[scaeagles]

Scaeagles, I don't know who you hang out with or where you get your news, but the idea that people don't care that the President is breaking the law and laying waste to the Constitution is a bit of a stretch. Remind me again what the supposed definition of a Republican is?

If I thought he were breaking the law, I would be upset.

If I thought he were laying waste to the Constitution, I would be upset.

I disagree with the premise of your statements. Kind of like the anecdote of the lawyer saying "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

I base my opinion on polls I've read. It all depends on how the question is asked. Some have asked questions something like "should the President be permitted to authorize spying on American citizens without a warrant?" and the response is that only 35-40% agree. If the question is phrased somehting like "In matters of national security, should the Presaident be permitted to authorize wiretaps without judicial warrants?", the response is around 60-65% agree.

[SacTown Chronic]

He didn't say, "Bush isn't authorizing wire taps." He's said, "Bush isn't doing anything illegal." To the best of his knowledge, that was true.

He said, "I can't answer such a hypothetical question". Calling the situation "hypothetical" when you know it's not is a lie.


Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
Gonzales says he believes the president is well within his right to spy without warrants. It seems to me he could have answered Sen. Feingold's question without lying under oath or discussing a classified program.

[scaeagles]

Did you also shrug when Clinton lied under oath? Or did you call for his impeachment?

I disagree that he lied under oath. In reading it, he said it was not the policy of the President to violate the law. You may disagree with that, but that does not make it a lie. The policy of the administration is that it is legal.

Could you provide a link to a nonpartisan source who says Bush isn't breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants? I'd love to read it.

I can't find what I consider to be a nonpartisan source on either side of the issue. But that's the nature of legal disagreements. Our legal system is adversarial, so you have those that look at it one way and those that look at it another way.

[scaeagles]

He said, "I can't answer such a hypothetical question". Calling the situation "hypothetical" when you know it's not is a lie.


It is hypothetical when the question was asking if the President could act in contravention of existing law. Gonzalez does not believe that is the case, therefore making it hypothetical.

So we have a symantic argument here.

Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[scaeagles]

And as an aside Wendybeth, if you want to discuss the administrations border policies, then I'm with you on laying waste to the Constitution. Protecting the integrity of the borders is one of the only explicit Constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government. Bush is failing at this and making it a joke (he's not alone - even my beloved Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, and previous administration have done nothing about this either, but Bush should damn well fix the problem.).

[Ghoulish Delight]

If the question is phrased somehting like "In matters of national security, should the Presaident be permitted to authorize wiretaps without judicial warrants?", the response is around 60-65% agree.

Scary.

Where does it stop? How much can be permitted with this "ends justify the means" mentality? The whole point of the protections afforded by our Constitution is that no matter how practical and righteous the motivations may seem, any intrusion on basic personal liberties is a danger to everyone. "Don't worry, we're only targeting the bad guys," is NOT an excuse. The rhetoric Bush is using to justify this scares me. It's really a VERY small step away from, "If it means that drug dealers will be stopped, then yes warrantless searches are justified." No thanks.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I agree GD - but the question to me is what the President is permitted to do under the Constitution during times of war.

I could once again go into what Lincoln did during the civil war - and I have no qualms about doing so because history is completely relevant to the issue - but I have done that previously. Lincoln did some majorly unconstitutional things, but is regarded as one of the best Presidents. (Don't take this to mean I regard Bush to be equivalent in standing to Lincoln. That is not my point.)

A brief note - anyone remember the 2004 debates when Kerry criticized Bush for not be faster to have over 100,000 hours of tapes of wiretaps analyzed? I wonder if all 100,000 hours were authorized by warrant or if Kerry really cared. I would suspect he was trying to sound hawkish on national security by being critical of not spying fast enough.

[SacTown Chronic]

Oh, I agree GD - but the question to me is what the President is permitted to do under the Constitution during times of war.
But when the war (War on Terror) is defined by the president, how do we know when the war is over? The battle against terrorists will be fought until the end of time. Should we give the president wartime powers for a war without end?

[mousepod]

My big problem with the "wartime" justification is that I don't really see a correlation between the war in Iraq (which isn't about terrorism no matter how you slice it) and the need for the executive branch to invade Americans' privacy. I have a feeling that if the prez could justify the "war on drugs" or the "war on child porn" as a legit "war", he would take advantage that way as well. The next thing you know, they'd be subpoenaing search engines for IP addresses.

[wendybeth]

Why, I'm sure they'd never do that, Mousepod.


We all know damn good and well that were the shoe on the other political foot the Repub's would be screaming bloody murder, Scaeagles. I honestly don't know how you or anyone else who truly loves this country and what we used to stand for can justify this. The claim that 'well, other Admins have done it, they were just better at hiding it' doesn't wash at all. Btw, there are breaks in the ranks at the White House:Palace Revolt (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/).

Seems there are still some people of integrity in the government. At least, there were.

[SacTown Chronic]

My big problem with the "wartime" justification is that I don't really see a correlation between the war in Iraq (which isn't about terrorism no matter how you slice it) and the need for the executive branch to invade Americans' privacy.

Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 3, 2003. I assume the wartime justification for listening to me talk dirty on the phone to my boss's wife is the so-called war on terror.

[Gemini Cricket]

...listening to me talk dirty on the phone to my boss's wife...
Well, who wouldn't want to tune in to that?
:D

[Alex]

He said, "I can't answer such a hypothetical question". Calling the situation "hypothetical" when you know it's not is a lie.

Speech parsing is fun.

The question Senator Feingold asked (if he was unaware of the program already in place) was in fact a hypothetical question. If I asked you how you would respond if your mother developed breast cancer is no less hypothetical on my part if it turns out you learned yesterday that your mother has breast cancer.

See, all squared away.

That said, if Russ Feingold did know of the program than he had no business asking the question in a public forum. Following the puplic testimony of appointment nominations there is always a closed door session where questions on classified and otherwise non-disclosable topics can be discussed.

If you want to point out the lie in this statement:

"that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question"

It would be in the use of the word "impossible." Of course it is possible to answer such a hypothetical question. To do so might be illegal, unethical, impractical, or without value, but it remains possible.

Since the Washington Post article mostly paraphrases the statements involved I wanted to look at the record. I can't find the exchange mentioned in the transcript (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:99932.wais) of Gonzales' testimony. The parts of this exchange mentioned in the article are not quite so clearly connected. Feingold asks the wiretap question as part of a five-part question. Gonzales answers in regard to just one part of that (about torture) and then Feingold asks another broad question and it is in response to this that Gonzales makes the "hypothetical" statement. After quite a bit more exchange, Gonzales then makes the "it's not the policy or agenda" statement.

All that said, of course Gonzales was trying to get through the hearing without sharing what he really thinks on any particular topic. It is a dispicable way to do business but has been true of an increasing number of appointment posts over the last 20 years. I await the first president to come along who decides to be above this particular silliness and will mourn when he only gets one term in office.


Feingold: Let me switch to a subject that has come up a lot here
today. In the August 2002 memorandum, the Justice Department
concludes that the President, as Commander in Chief, may
authorize interrogations that violate the criminal laws
prohibiting torture and that the Congress may not
constitutionally outlaw such activity when it is authorized by
the President. This is the claim, essentially, that the
President is above the law so long as he is acting in the
interest of national security.

A December 30 rewrite of the August memorandum does not
repudiate this view. It simply says the issue is irrelevant
because the President has prohibited torture.

Today, in response to questions on this subject, you have
been unwilling to repudiate this legal theory. You have danced
around the question a bit. But as I understand your answers so
far, you have said there may be a situation where the President
would believe a statute is unconstitutional and would therefore
refuse to comply with it, but would abide by a court's decision
on its constitutionality. You, also, I am told, said that many
Presidents have asserted the power not to enforce a statute
that they believe is unconstitutional. But there is a
difference between a President deciding not to enforce a
statute which he thinks is unconstitutional and a President
claiming to authorize individuals to break the law by torturing
individuals or taking other illegal actions.

So what I want to do is press you on that because I think
perhaps you have misunderstood the question, and it is an
important one. It goes to a very basic principle of the country
that no one, not even the President of the United States, is
above the law. Of course, the President is entitled to assert
that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

This President did so, for example, with respect to some
portions of our McCain-Feingold bill when he signed it, but his
Justice Department defended the law in court, as it is bound to
do with every law duly enacted by the Congress. And his
campaign and his party complied with the law while a court
challenge was pending. No one asserted that the President had
the power to ignore a law that he thought was unconstitutional.

The question here is what is your view regarding the
President's constitutional authority to authorize violations of
the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on
the books for many years when acting as Commander in Chief?
Does he have such authority? The question you have been asked
is not about a hypothetical statute in the future that the
President might think is unconstitutional. It is about our laws
in international treaty obligations concerning torture. The
torture memo answered that question in the affirmative, and my
colleagues and I would like your answer on that today.

I, also, would like you to answer this: does the President,
in your opinion, have the authority, acting as Commander in
Chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes
and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the
criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this
country?

Judge Gonzales: Senator, the August 30th memo has been
withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section
regarding the Commander in Chief's authority to ignore the
criminal statutes. So it has been rejected by the executive
branch. I, categorically, reject it. And, in addition to that,
as I have said repeatedly today, this administration does not
engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so what we
are really discussing is a hypothetical situation that--

Senator Feingold: Judge Gonzales, I have asked a broader
question. I am asking whether, in general, the President has
the constitutional authority, at least in theory, to authorize
violations of criminal law when there are duly enacted statutes
simply because he is Commander in Chief? Does he have that
power?

Judge Gonzales: Senator, in my judgment, you have phrased
sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what is
the national interest that the President may have to consider.
What I am saying is it is impossible to me, based upon the
questions you have presented to me, to answer that question. I
can say that there is a presumption of constitutionality with
respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath
to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a
decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very
significant decision and one that I would personally be
involved with, I commit to you on that, and one I will take
with a great deal of care and seriousness.

Senator Feingold: Well, that sounds to me like the
President still remains above the law.

Judge Gonzales: No, sir.

Senator Feingold: If this is something where you take a
good look at it, you give a presumption that the President
ought to follow the law, you know, to me that is not good
enough under our system of Government.

Judge Gonzales: Senator, if I might respond to that, the
President is not above the law. Of course, he is not above the
law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well.
And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is
a practice and a tradition recognized by Presidents of both
parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law.
Now, I think that that would be--

Senator Feingold: I recognize that and I tried to make that
distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed
to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in
contravention of the law.

Judge Gonzales: Senator, this President is not--it's not
the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions
that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

[scaeagles]

We all know damn good and well that were the shoe on the other political foot the Repub's would be screaming bloody murder, Scaeagles.

Well, no, actually I wouldn't. I could just as easily say that feminist groups would have had a hissy if it was a Republican president having an affair with an intern.

It's like Bosnia. It's like bombings on Iraq or the Sudan (the aspirin factory that was supposedly manuafacturing chemical weapons). I am not automatically supportive of republican positions and dismissive of democrat positions. Please note the earlier message regarding Bush and the border.