Ummm. Spy on Members of Congress. Spy on members of his own administration?
Todays NYT reports that we finally have some clear sense of the line that Alberto Gonzales wanted to cross but could not convince John Ashcroft to do.
"While the N.S.A.’s operations in recent months have come under examination, new details are also emerging about earlier domestic-surveillance activities, including the agency’s attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip, current and former intelligence officials said." (NY Times).
Well, I think we've all known this for some time. But since occassionally I hear the snarky remark or tin foil hat -- whatever --
In a past comment, I suggested that it was exactly this line that might have devided them (Ashcroft having been a legislator, Gonzales a judge) -- That Gonzo wanted to cross constitutional lines that even Ashcroft wouldn't.
It is implausible at best to attempt to pretend that Ashcroft was anything but a hardened rightwing conservative. But unlike Gonzales, there appeared to be some line -- something beyond the pale that even Ashcroft couldn't stomach.
Some asked "who knew Ashcroft would turn out to be on the right side of something?" Others said, "we can't believe it." Still others said: "tin foil hat."
I knew. I don't like being right about this. Believe me.
I said this in January:
"Let's all ask ourselves "What exactly was it that Alberto Gonzales was willing to do that John Ashcroft would not authorize. What exactly did they want to monitor that even Ashcroft, one of the most hardened and right wing of all the GOP administration members, would not do?"
Let's ask: "What WOULDN'T John Ashcroft Do?"
The answer is: "'taint much Johnny wouldn't do that 'Berto would."
I am completely certain that the spying extended beyond ordinary citizens and members of the press. I believe it included members of congress, specifically members of the opposition and POSSIBLY members of the administration suspected of leaking details of the program to the press.
Ashcroft would not do that. It's the only reasonable answer.
Ashcroft objected to the inclusion of Members of Congress in the spying. That's probably just about the only thing that could account for that visit."
I think we need to ask ourselves when it's o.k. to use the word TREASON in reference to the Bush Administration. It is my belief that the arguement "when the President does it, it's legal" propogated by Nixon an then ultimately Bush, Gonzales, Cheney is inherently treasonous in that it violates the core precept of our consitution and our nation:
No One is Above the Law.
If we had wanted to have a KING we would not have revolted in order to form a more perfect union. We would have been happy with King George. But we weren't -- we made a choice -- and that choice binds us -- no one is exempted from justice. No amount of money or power should shield a person who has done wrong.
I would argue that the very proposal of such an extraconstitutional arguement as an act of a governmental agency constitutes sedition at best and treason at worst.
The government cannot make the arguement that the consitution does not apply to the government.
Doing so is a violation of the oath of office (to defend the constitution) and of the governments mandate (to serve the people in ways defined within the constitution).
It is time to starting calling a traitor a traitor and punish the people who have violated our laws and constition with such zeal.
And for all you GOP flacks & trolls who don't want to see Gonzales & Cheney & Bush punished for this, I have one question:
Would it be o.k. for President Obama or future Presidents like Hilary Clinton to spy on members of congress without legal authorization? Or would you call for their impeachment. Yeah? Thought so.