Three Questions Gonzales Must Answer
Three Questions Gonzales Must Answer
On Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance programs. Here are some critical questions he must address –
1. Why did you mislead the Judiciary Committee about Bush’s warrantless surveillance during your confirmation hearing last year?
While under oath during his confirmation hearings in January 2005 Gonzales dismissed an inquiry by Sen. Russ Feingold questions about warrantless wiretapping as a “hypothetical situation” and said that it is “not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.” In fact, Gonzales had personally approved warrantless domestic wiretapping in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence surveillance act on multiple occasions.
2. If you are so confident that this program is legal, why don’t you let the FISA court review it and make an independent legal judgment?
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, suggested this today during his appearance on Meet the Press:
SEN. SPECTER: I think this issue, Tim, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is really big, big, big, because the President—the administration could take this entire program and lay it on the line to that court and go through what is involved in some detail, but they don’t want to deal with Congress because of leaks. That court has really an outstanding record of not leaking, out of being experts, and they would be preeminently well-qualified to evaluate this program and either say it’s OK or it’s not OK. And if they said it was OK, it would give the American people great reassurance; and if they said it wasn’t OK, knowing all the facts, then that ought to be changed.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you asked the administration, the President, to take the program and present it to the court?
SEN. SPECTER: Yeah, I have. I did that, in effect, in the letter that I sent to the attorney general, and his answer was unresponsive, simply said something like, “Well, we’ll exhaust all alternatives.â€
As Specter said, the FISA court would be an ideal body to review the legality of the program because they are experts in this area of the law and regularly deal with highly classified information.
3. Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?
Here, the burden of proof is on the administration. The Pentagon has already admitted to improperly targeting anti-war protesters with its domestic surveillance program. General Michael Hayden, who headed NSA when the program was created, was asked today on Fox News Sunday and refused to answer directly:
FOX’s CHRIS WALLACE: Let me ask another question which I’m sure concerns a lot of people. Can you assure Americans that there is no spying on political opponents or political critics of the Bush administration?
HAYDEN: Chris, this is focused on al Qaeda. The only justification we have to undertake this program is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States. We don’t have the time or the lawful authority to do anything except that.
It sounds nice, but it doesn’t answer the question. We’ll be expecting more from Gonzales on Monday.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
For the latest domestic spying news, legal documents, statutes, and other key materials, see:
“The NSA Domestic Spying Resources.”
February 6th, 2006 at 12:02 amOnly more lies.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:10 am“HAYDEN: Chris, this is focused on al Qaeda. The only justification we have to undertake this program is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States. We don’t have the time or the lawful authority to do anything except that.”
They used to call this, a non-denial, denial.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:12 amI doubt that Gonzalez will answer any questions. When the Bush admin wants to stonewall they will stonewall.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:13 amwill our guys ask Gonzo?
will they – figuratively – beat the shit out of him until he comes clean on this?
will they let the Repub senators shout them down and call them traitors? Probably………..
February 6th, 2006 at 12:14 amThis will be an interesting thread for comments Judd!
All 3 questions are very important, but I bet Gonzales would evade answering them directly! I believe the main reason Bush had the NSA bypass the FISA Court, is because the FISA Judges would have a list of names and records! Bush wanted NO records on file of who he authorized to be wiretaped, so did he have NSA spy on political opponents?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:15 amMost likely, but we may never know, because NO records may exist > a catch 22!
To extract information from Gonzales, would it be inappropriate to water-board him?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:20 amHERE is a pdf link to the original letter sent to AG Gonzales from Spector.
ENJOY :)
February 6th, 2006 at 12:21 amAkaDad,
To extract information from Gonzales, would it be inappropriate to water-board him?
Not on the Senate floor.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:25 amComment by WaltTheMan — February 6, 2006 @ 12:25 am
What if we “rendered” or “disappeared” him to the basement?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:26 amAkaDad,
February 6th, 2006 at 12:30 amOnly under UN humanitarian observation. Turkishstan will provide an inspector.
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 6, 2006 @ 12:30 am
LOL
February 6th, 2006 at 12:31 amHe’s gonna claim that it was all OK’d by the Oct 02 decree. When he’s confronted by the records showing it wasn’t covered, he’s going to clam up or just get up and leave the hearing.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:32 amAkaDad,
February 6th, 2006 at 12:33 amI’m off to the sack to harvest some honey.
I know Walt, I’m NSA =]
February 6th, 2006 at 12:36 amComment by Jay Randal — February 6, 2006 @ 12:35 am
LOL
Only thing missing is a walkman with N’sync blasting in his ears.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:39 amBTW Y’all,
Specter is in charge of the investigative committee that adjourns on Monday, Feb. 6, 2006.
It is Specter’s discretion to swear in those that testify. His choosing or lack of choosing will reveal allegiances.
Gonzales is already under scrutiny regarding the spy issue during his testimony during his Appointment Hearings. This investigation is separate in and of its self, being lead by Russ Feingold. READ IT HERE
If Specter swears in Gonzales, you had bet that Specter is out for blood and such testimony may and can be used to further Feingold’s investigation into the truthfulness of Gonzales’s testimony during his Appointment Hearings regarding his prior knowledge of such “PRIVY” information about the NSA and the subsequent spy ring. If Specter does not swear in Gonzales, then the testimony of the AG will be, as in the words of the White House, “NOT RELEVANT”.
Will Specter play into the White House’s plan of “RELEVANCY” therefore it means nothing, therefore there’s no body, there is nothing to investigate, therefore there’s no crime? Or will Specter actually grow some and play hard ball for once?
Hearings start at 9:30am.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:41 amYes AkaDad I forgot about the music treatment and somebody taking flash photos > could force him to do a nude man pile with Gonzales and Cheney > lol.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:45 amThat’s why Alberto Gonzales is #5 of the Avenging Angel’s Top 10 Transgressors List.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:48 amHow did they find out that Nixon was spying on his political opponents???
February 6th, 2006 at 1:01 amJudd,
You inadvertently called Chris Wallace, “Mike Wallace” so you may want to edit the post to refflect that correction
February 6th, 2006 at 1:09 amAnd does anyone here truly believe that anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee — or anyone anywhere on the Senate floor, for that matter! — is actually going to have the cojones to hold this man’s feet to the fire (metaphorically speaking, of course) and ask him those questions??
I wish I could be optimistic, but I’m afraid that’s more than likely wishful thinking…*sigh*…
February 6th, 2006 at 1:50 amI sure hope Senator Feingold tears into Gonzales tomorrow. Here’s the rest of my take on tomorrow.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:26 am#21 Comment by Bill from Dover
Q: How did they find out that Nixon was spying on his political opponents???
A: In 1975, a Senate committee led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho revealed that the N.S.A. had intercepted the phone calls and telegrams of Americans.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:09 amIt would be nice if at least one Senator asked Alberto Gonzales those 3 questions, but I am not sure if any senator on the committee even reads thinkprogress threads?
If anyone posting on here knows a Dem senator on the Judiciary committee, then please tell them to ask Judd’s 3 questions today! (By knowing I mean well enough to persuade a senator to do it!)
February 6th, 2006 at 4:33 amAnd does anyone here truly believe that anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee — or anyone anywhere on the Senate floor, for that matter! — is actually going to have the cojones to hold this man’s feet to the fire (metaphorically speaking, of course) and ask him those questions??
And if anyone does ask, the response will go something like this: “As you know, Senator, this matter is currently under investigation. This administration has a policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations unless we choose to. Now, if you want me to answer your quiestions, why don’t you ask me if I think Tom DeLay is innocent.”
And if the question is repeated, the response will be: “I have already responded to that question and the administration policy is quite clear.”
February 6th, 2006 at 6:21 amYou forgot one: What is the arrest per illegal wiretap ratio. Where’s the proof it even works?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:34 amHayden: “The only justification we have is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States.” Just substitute “the President” for “the United States” to understand the real thrust of their police state spying operation.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:36 ampurvis,
February 6th, 2006 at 6:55 amYou know, at the end of the day the thing that most angers me is the fact they have been telling us the war in Iraq is what has been preventing attacks on our soil. Now I’m inclined to believe it’s the spying.
At the same time we don’t have a barometer of how well the “program” works. It’s more deception and dishonesty and quite frankly I’m shocked more people/members of congress haven’t thrown these guys out. Just lock them up.
Bush: “L’etat, c’est moi”— “I am the state.”
February 6th, 2006 at 6:55 amThe problem with Question 3 above is Christiane Amanpour. She might have called Brashir asssad for her interview with him. Highly likely any conversation was followed.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:06 amMy question would be about the NY Times, and their possesion of classified material and thier subsequent release of it. Great point Gus #27.
Heads up. Glenn Greenwald will be on SPAN this am 07:45-08:15 EST.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:17 amC Span, sorry.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:17 amAMERICA WAKE UP
The elephant trumpets, listen closely.
Scenario: Osama bin Landen’s calling
In the mountains he’s hiding away,
with his agents there they stay.
Osama’s calling you know who,
Osama, Osama.
Osama who?
What no one of importance gets, and No one asks, is how does the NSA know who’s on the line?
I mean, let’s just say that Osama is calling agent X, here in the USA. Do you actually think that the NSA finds Osama’s number in directory assistance? NO. Somehow they would have you believe that they’ve obtained his phone number. From where?? That doesn’t matter and here’s why…
The NSA would have to listen in on virtually every phone call from across seas so as to validate their claim that they know the specific call and number. You see, who’s to say that Osama doesn’t call from a newly acquired phone? Who’s to say that each contact he makes is from a new phone. I mean, lets just say that he finds a phone, or borrows a phone, or acquires a new phone, according to the administrations argument, how do they know the new phone number, specifically without broadly scanning a vast majority of calls.
O.K. so I rambled on a bit. But please consider the idea. And for agents here in the USA a cell phone is easy to trade, buy, steal, or acquire. And the Administration would have you to believe that they still know who is calling whom and from what phone to what phone.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:31 amWe will see if any senator has the guts to even ask questions like thinkprogress postulates on here? If the hearings for Alito are any indication of the one for Gonzales, then it looks bleak?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:39 amhttp://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm
READ THIS YOU THIEFS
February 6th, 2006 at 7:53 amI watched First Amendment lawyer, Glen Greenwald on C-Span today. Legally, Bush broke the law with Gonzales’ approval, no doubt. But politically, with the Republicans in charge, the outcome is in question.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:47 amSpecter is a reasonable man, but in the end he is a party loyalist.
First thing to go wrong!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:48 amGonzales is not going to have to testify under oath, per Specter!!
[...] This morning, ThinkProgress listed three questions that Alberto Gonzales needed to answer during today’s hearings. Question No. 3 read, “Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?” [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 6:01 pm1. Why did you mislead the Judiciary Committee about Bush’s warrantless surveillance during your confirmation hearing last year?
Duh, because the information is above your security clearance and it was none of you damn business. Next question…
2. If you are so confident that this program is legal, why don’t you let the FISA court review it and make an independent legal judgement?
Duh, because certain members of that court are known ratbasardcommiemofos and would leak the information to our enemies. In addition Senator Fucwit since we know the program is legal there is no need to pass it through a partisan committee made up of aforementioned ratbastards to tell us what we already know.
3. Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?
I can guarantee you Senator Blabbermouth that there was no spying on political opponents or journalists that in the past have shown themselves not to be sympathetic with the enemies of our country. By the way Senator you really should go with the red velvet curtains in the apartment you are setting up for your homosexual aid. Regardless of what he says it doesn’t clash with the brown leather sofa.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:48 amSpecter has already set the tone for how this entire episode will go: there will be no feet being held to any fire, metaphorical, or otherwise because said “fire” may possibly be terrorist in nature, and therefore part of an ongoing investigation. Second, the President’s wartime powers extend to the U.S. Attorney General, meaning he can say, do, and/or act any way he deems necessary to protect himself in time of war (a.k.a. I can cover my a$$ any way I see fit). Third, I didn’t mislead Congress earlier. My hypothetical merely had an element to it that may or may not have been true, but the details of this are part of an ongoing investigation, and…well, you guys, c’mon, you know the routine: step, step, slide, step, step, schloop, you just stepped in elephant poop. Next question.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:21 pmNude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 2:52 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 4:57 amNude Mariah Carey Nude Paris Hilton Nude
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 2:26 amPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pmPreteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am