(
Bumped -- kos)
To catch up a bit on where we're at in the hearings, we've heard Gonzales say, essentially "We're not spying on al Qaeda, we're spying on Americans." Interestingly, he says that the outcry against such surveillance would be worse that what is going on now. Huh?
I think Gonzales has it backwards. Democrats have criticized Bush for NOT going after Al Qaida. At Tora Bora. By diverting for the Iraq Debacle. For not finishing the job in Afghanistan. For not protecting the "homeland."
For getting an F from the 9/11 Commission.
The Bush Administration is failing us in the fight against Al Qaida AND demolishing the Constitution at the same time.
As for Gonzales' justifications thus far, as SusanG says, "I'm detecting NOT a slippery slope, but a backfill operation."
Feingold up now. Reiterates Bush's "Pre-1776 view of the world."
Update [2006-2-6 14:10:24 by Armando]:This is what Feingold is referring to:
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?
GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes.
. . . And so what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation that...
FEINGOLD: Judge Gonzales, I've asked a broader question. I'm asking whether, in general, the president has constitutional authority -- does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law when there are duly enacted statutes, simply because he's commander in chief?
FEINGOLD: Does he have that power?
GONZALES: Senator, in my judgment, you phrase it as sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what is the national interest that the president may have to consider.
What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question.
I can say is 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 we would take with a great deal of care and seriousness.
FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.
GONZALES: No, sir.
Gonzales NOW says the President's power as King as Commander in Chief trumps the law.
He is, and always has been, a liar in service of BushCo.
He is, and always was, unfit to be Attorney General.