Tuesday, July 18, 2006

The plot thickens...

With our current administration doing whatever they can do to destroy the concept of checks and balances, a lot of people were thrilled (and surprised I must say) to see SCOTUS smack-down the Bush Administration a few weeks ago when they ruled that all detainees have basic rights under the Geneva Convention.

Did that decision take the legs out from under the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program?

Anyone with a brain can see that the program is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but the administration has insisted that the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) from September 2001 makes the program okay

We’re going to ignore the fact that there is no language about wiretapping in the resolution, and no evidence to suggest that AUMF was created in order to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps and jump ahead to this week… this week in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was going before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In his testimony before the committee yesterday, AG Gonzales said that Bush "personally blocked” attorneys from the Justice Department from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program.

According to an article from the Associated Press, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) claimed that they “could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) found this puzzling: “It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?”

Gonzales’ response?

“The president of the United States makes the decision” on whether or not to use OPR for an investigation.

Oooookkayyy….

Correct me if I’m wrong since this event was slightly before my time, but the last time it came to light that a President had specifically told the Justice Department to “back off” an investigation, a whole gaggle of Republicans went to jail and one resigned in disgrace… from the Oval Office.

Let’s see here… let me ‘google’ this… Tricky Dick… Tricky Dick… uhhhh… here we go… what does Count 4, Article 1 of the impeachment of Richard Nixon say?

Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States...


And that’s different than what Bush did… how?

4 comments:

Canuckistani said...

Having recently been pilloried by my opinion on a right-wing blog, it's nice to see you welcome varied discourse.

Kemp said...

Thanks canuckistani, that's what we aim for.

Scott and I are liberal on most things, but not all, and we welcome all comments that spark debate.

The only time we use our 'veto' power is when the comments get personal and/or nasty and derogatory.

Thanks for coming by and leaving a comment, and come back and share your views; we welcome them.

John Haser said...

I like your layout. Very nice.

As for your posts, certainly you know how to be partisan. They aren't exactly catalyst for debate though. Personally, I agree with just about every word you write. Others would completely disagree, but would probably be personally offended by some of your lines.

But then again, you might not be trying to build debate and discussion. You may just be printing your opinions. If your surfing sometime, check out rational-rants.blogspot.com, its my site and, as I said, politically we have a lot in common, though I don;t think our writis styles are the same.

Keep up the pressure on our President!

Cheers.

Bob Higgins said...

I have placed a link to your blog
on my site at Worldwide Sawdust
Please review my site and consider linking back to me.

Thanks

Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust