Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

I know it was unintended. I wasn't really offended. I've been called so many names both unintentionally and intentionally its not that big of a deal.

Now you do it again I breaka you legs..

 

Sorry Jorgie

Wishing it doesn’t make it so.

Once again, no one is against the president wiretapping possible AQ in America. No one is against the president doing what is necessary to keep us safe.

What we are against is circumventing established law because of laziness or because someone thinks it's the best interest of the nation. A president cannot take it upon himself to break laws he feels are a hindrance.

So once again I will ask, please explain to us lowly liberals why the republicans in congress refused to grant Bush the specific ability to circumvent wiretapping laws in the AUMF?

 

Please point out my "lie".

 

The standard bearer of newspapers for King George II's loyal subjects, like yourself. The rest of us, when we read it, read it for financial news, since we already know what the WSJ's editorial stance is.

Nice try, Parrot.

 

Who is lying here? The supreme court hasn't heard a case on this. The one that has been brought up has been shot full of holes.

Again the President can wiretap anyone he wants, but the constitution, congress, and the courts have all said there has to be oversight, to provide for checks balances.

Please tell me where the oversight is?

 

The Gonzales argument has already been shot down. You haven't answered any questions about the reasonable statements made to counter Gonzales' spin.

 

There is no lie in that statement.

The president cannot take it upon himself to circumvent established law. If he doesn't like the law, he can try and change it.

Again

Wishing it so does not make it so.

And you refuse to answer anyone else's questions. All you do to accuse people of things that are not true. So who is lying here?

 

And another thing...

If, as Jorge claims, Gonzales set the record straight on surveillance, then why did he spend four hours behind closed doors briefing congress yesterday?

White House Gives Details on Surveillance

WASHINGTON - After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of its domestic eavesdropping, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the program.

The White House has been under heavy pressure from lawmakers who wanted more information about the National Security Agency's monitoring. Democrats and many Republicans rejected the administration's implicit suggestion that they could not be trusted with national security secrets.

The shift came after Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., chairwoman of a House Intelligence Committee subcommittee, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the NSA's program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_congress

 

Did you fail to realize that the "article" you posted without a valid link I might add, was nothing but an opinion piece?

WSJ.com - Opinion Main
... DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. and LEE A. CASEY. Inherent Authority. NSA oversight is not the business of the courts ...
online.wsj.com/redirect/opinion.html?mod=1_0045 - 52k -

These are opinions.

Opinions aren't facts.

(and you still haven't answered any of my simple questions.)

cluck cluck

 

i realized that, too. i found it rather odd that he'd post an article, but only provide a link to the front page. i couldn't even find the article on the front page.... no wonder you love bush so much, he's practically a mentor to you.

at least you're taking good notes.

 

Can you cite the specific case? There has been no case dealing with this specific issue which is why it is so controversial.

 

thats what he means by "setting the record straight"

 

1) The federal courts have ruled in favor of the program

Please site the statute or law where the federal courts have granted the president the power to circumvent established law.

2) A majority of Supreme Court Justices approve it

Again, please site the opinion

3) AUMF authorizes it

No it doesn't. Please go back and read why the republican members of congress specifically deleted the clause Bush wanted.

4) Similar programs have been conducted during war times under several past administrations

No programs have been conducted by any president since the establishment of FISA

5) The Fourth Amendment allows for it

No it doesn't. Please site the language in the 4th amendment that grants the president the power to break the law.

6) The program is vital to fighting terror

That is your opinion

 

Great responses. They show the weaknesses in all of TJ's arguments.

TJ's arguments went right into these clear rebuttals that I am starting to change my mind about TJ.

People before have thought that his clownish posting style, and tendency to run from arguments when backed into a corner by facts meant that he was secretly a liberal trying to make the conservatives look bad.

I dismissed it, though I knew that TJ was having fun with his posts rather than being all that serious.

But now I wonder if TJ really is a liberal. He knows the rebuttals to his arguments before hand, and then tries to lead posters into bringing out clear facts that totally eradicate his previous arguments. He is like the Washington Generals who go out there and play hard enough to make the Globetrotters look good.

I wonder if TJ gets frustrated when people don't come up with the answers he was hoping to draw out of them.

 

You can run away from your thread and the truth now.

 

it's got to be great just having to right click and select "paste" for every one of your posts. your time is wwwaaayyyyy to important to waste typing the same thing over and over again.