VIDEO: Bush Personally Blocked DOJ Investigation Of Wiretapping Program
VIDEO: Bush Personally Blocked DOJ Investigation Of Wiretapping Program
Earlier this year, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is charged with investigating attorney misconduct, announced that it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the NSA warrantless wiretapping program because it was denied security clearance.
Previously, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not explain why the security clearances had been denied, saying he did not want to “get into internal discussions.” But in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, Gonzales said President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an investigation of the warrantless eavesdropping program. Watch it.
Transcipt:
SPECTER: Now when you had the first line of review, Mr. Attorney General, by OPR, why wasn’t OPR given clearance as so many other lawyers in the Department of Justice were given clearance?
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, you and I had lunch several weeks ago, and we had a discussion about this. And during this lunch, I did inform you that the terrorist surveillance program is a highly-classified program. It’s a very important program for the national security of this country –
SPECTER: Highly-classified, very important, many other lawyers in the Justice Department had clearance. Why not OPR?
GONZALES: And the President of the United States ultimately makes decisions about who ultimately is given access –
SPECTER: Did the President make the decision not to clear OPR?
GONZALES: As with all decisions that are non-operational in terms of who has access to the program, the President of the United States makes the decision because this is such an important program –
SPECTER: I want to move on to another subject. The President makes the decision and that’s that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
103 Responses to “VIDEO: Bush Personally Blocked DOJ Investigation Of Wiretapping Program”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey, Bush is the decider. He can decide whatever he wants and nobody can question him. Consticution and separtion of powers have no meaning for him.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:03 pmAnd of course the enabling handlers of the dry drunk in the White House couldn't disagree with him...more violations of the constitution he calls "just a g**damned piece of paper"
Vote Democrat and let us put an end to this insanity.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pmDid you knew about the latest Bush blunder ???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060718/ts_nm/britain_usa_dc_1
Breaking with diplomatic formalities, Bush hailed Blair, his closest European ally, with the words "Yo, Blair." His solution to the Middle East crisis was that
July 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pmSyria should press Hizbollah to "stop doing this shit."
:-S
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pmVery sad but unfortunatly unsurprising. I don't like stupid "King Bush" rhetoric because it can dimish the validity of or an argument, but dammit this so fits. Is there really anything that Bush and Co. won't do to stregthen the unitary executive?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSo the man that concocted a crime has the power to block its investigation. Wow that's almost communist or fascist. Take your pick but it sure isn't democratic. I would like to hear what the trolls think of this new American principle held by their dear leader.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pmI can answer that for the trolls. They love it. They want Bush to by corinated as the king of America.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#6
July 18th, 2006 at 12:16 pmIronic isn't it? All that War of Independance stuff and growing as a nation all to be ruled over by another King George. Unfortunately this one is loopier than the last one.
impeachment of Richard Nixon
Count 4 of Article 1: Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States...
July 18th, 2006 at 12:16 pmAnother day, another outrage. No one cares; this partisan, sycophantic Congress doesn't care, a broad swath of the American public either approves of this or doesn't care, what the hell are we all to do? I'd love to think that, come November, this nation would sweep a Democratic majority into one of the houses of Congress and restore some balance and oversight to this tyrant, but the public is a bunch of anesthetized sheep that will succumb yet again to fearmongering and election fraud. I'll do my part, but DAMMIT!!!
July 18th, 2006 at 12:17 pmSo Bush is the Decider but Specter is the Enabler. Why else would Specter suddenly abandon the line of questioning?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:18 pmIf the NSA terrorist survaillence program passes the scrutiny of the federal court system, how many here would accept that result? Very few.
No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:21 pmWe have to put an end to this shit while we still can.
Please, vote in November. Encourage all your friends and associates to vote in November. This upcoming election must be so decisive that it cannot be gerrymandered via the shenanigans we've witnessed in 2000 and 2004, as well as 2006 in Mexico.
We would do well to try to live up to the ideal of a free democratic society that Mexico is currently showing the world. The election was blatantly stolen, using the same tactics that marred the 2000 and 2004 U.S. elections...the only difference is that the mMexican people won't stand for it.
We have to turn out in record numbers to vote in November, refuse to be turned away from the polls when our names are magically erased from the rolls, refuse to be cowed by their Gestapoesque intimidation tactics, and above all, we must be prepared to take it to the streets when the neocons try to steal the election anyway, despite our best efforts.
This far, no farther. It's time to take a stand.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:22 pmChase,
July 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIf Dumbya would at least give the courts a CHANCE, then we could discuss your point, but until then, it's Gestapo or bust!
Is Gonzales under oath?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIf the NSA terrorist survaillence program passes the scrutiny of the federal court system, how many here would accept that result? Very few.
No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009.
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
I would Chase, but Bush won't even allow it, if it's on the up and up why doesn't he allow it to go forward? Wouldn't that trump any D's trying to use it as an issue for November?
There's only one conclusion that I can draw from that.......
July 18th, 2006 at 12:25 pmThat is assuming we live that long.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pm[...] Think Progress VIDEO: Bush Personally Blocked DOJ Investigation Of Wiretapping Program [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pmNot a surprise really, GW Bush thinks he's above any law.
Hey, Sen. Specter seems to be quite whipped; He's not even barking like he normally does. The abdication os ANY oversight is not what the Founding fathers had in mind. For a Party that barked for Years against Big Gov't they sure seem to support it.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:29 pm#11 Chase
It will come a lot sooner than that. The Bushco will be history within hours of the appointment of a Democratic Speaker of the House in 2007.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:30 pmI would like to hear what the trolls think of this new American principle held by their dear leader.
Comment by dlet
If the NSA terrorist survaillence program passes the scrutiny of the federal court system, how many here would accept that result? Very few.
No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009.
Comment by Chase
Nice argument with the "What if" scenario. Too bad it won't happen out in the open like a real democracy works. Man it must suck to idolize a fascist. No wonder you won't let your brain use logical reasoning. It would scare the hell out of you what you have become.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#14, I don't believe he was under oath. I didn't see it administered.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pmGestapo? Get a grip.
This program, even if it violated FISA, involved the surveillance of international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists.
There is absolutely no reason to think, guess, suggest or hope that this program was used to listen in on "political opponents" or for anything other than terrorist surveillance.
The truth is, the legality is not cut and dried. Period. It may be a violation of FISA. It may be that the AUMF overrode FISA in this matter. There are convincing arguments on both sides of the issue (I know everytime I read one condemning it, I come away thinking "damn, that shit's against the law" and that feeling sticks until I read one defending it and I say "wow, that program was authorized").
Try looking at both sides.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIt bothers me that this testimony seems to have been agreed upon over lunch. What else was said at that lunch? Was the witness coached? "Just keep saying it's such an important program...highly-classified, very important...national security "
SPECTER: I want to move on to another subject. The Decider makes the decision so it's decided.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:36 pm[...] of warrantless wiretapping testified Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Said Gonzalez, “The president of the United States makes the decision.” Video at Think Progress [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 12:36 pmhe stopped it because he knows that we know that this is ILLEGAL and the ramifications in the 'real world' would put him in deepwater. but when you stack the supreme court and the rest of the top positions to your cronies, no matter if they have any clue to how to run their position, you can do any damn thing you want.
it's the nazi/zionist way. fascist america!!
July 18th, 2006 at 12:36 pmSince you are here, that means you must be unhappy with this sack of sh!t too eh?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:37 pm[...] From Think Progress: Earlier this year, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is charged with investigating attorney misconduct, announced that it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the NSA warrantless wiretapping program because it was denied security clearance. [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 12:37 pmIf it violated FISA, it is a crime. Thank you for admitting Bush comitted a crime.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:38 pmhey chase look at those war photo's yet ?Atleast then you could see first hand the effects of your hero worship .
July 18th, 2006 at 12:39 pmThere is absolutely no reason to think, guess, suggest or hope that this program was used to listen in on “political opponents†or for anything other than terrorist surveillance.
Try looking at both sides.
Damn dude, do you EVER take your own advice?
I'm sure Nixon thought he had a good argumet too...
Want to prove Shrubbies innocence, then LET THE COURTS REVIEW THE PROGAM.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pmA Mental Exercise (Off-Topic)
Imagine that you were a progressive American, and hated the Bush/Cheney administration for all the usual reasons: their cronyism with Big Oil, their tax cuts for the rich, the continuous erosion of civil liberties, and their lies, lies, lies....
But what if, in spite of this, it was common belief, for liberals and conservatives alike, that Sadaam Hussein actually HAD developed Weapons of Mass Destruction, was connected to Al Qaeda, and was an imminent threat to us; therefore, our invasion/occupation of Iraq was completely justified?
Imagine that it was such a "given" that the administration and the media were telling us all we needed to know that we steadfastly went along with their masquerade? And if we ran across bits of information that contradicted the official story, we would ignore it, much as a conservative will ignore the facts that a liberal gives them because they conflict with their established world view.
In such a scenario, the pressure to believe the conventional wisdom would be so intense that few would have the courage to express their doubts publicly ... to their friends, family, and fellow liberals. And those occasional musings from people who've stumbled on news stories or websites or books that doubted the official Bush story would be denounced as lies and crackpot theories.
Thankfully, we know that the war was unjustified and was based on lies. But think for a minute.... are there any other assumptions that we as Americans from all over the political spectrum hold? Beliefs about the world that we live in that might actually have been manipulated by the Bush/Cheney administration and the media? Are there any tidbits of information that we have run across in the last few years that just don't quite stack up, but we ignore because they contradict our established beliefs? Is there anything that a few daring souls are starting to espouse, only to be shot down, by the likes of both Kos AND Hannity?
Perhaps it's time to start questioning some of the beliefs that we hold about our world since Bush entered office and the reason he has been able to remain President in spite of our efforts. If enough of us start to question our assumptions, as I recently did, we might start noticing, and even welcoming, new perspectives about the current administration. Maybe we can start talking to our friends and fellow progressives about it rather than worrying about what they will think of us if we discuss such matters.
Our leaders are far worse than most of us can admit to ourselves, and everything we need to know is out there, just slightly hidden, if we look hard enough. That's all I'm saying for now.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHave Congress tell the Decider to stop all this sh** and it'll it'll be over.
Yo, Dick, wanna shoot some peasants?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWell the President is always right.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:43 pmspread your msg past the virtual.
build your common voice at your local level.
The US govt has pulled off much BS on it's people.
Those lucky few that see through the smoke and mirrors have an obligation to inform the ignorant.
Each internet user that disagrees with current US govt policy needs to voice their opinion outside the virtual net.
A call to Action:
Print up one page flyers, signs, banners. post your opinion everywhere possible in realworld common eyesight.
just spend one hour a day participating in this action. reach out beyond the virtual. take the msg to the average joe.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:45 pm[...] Previously, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not explain why the security clearances had been denied, saying he did not want to “get into internal discussions.†But in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, Gonzales said President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an investigation of the warrantless eavesdropping program. Watch it. …” - Think Progress [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 12:47 pmReply to #22 (chase):
Chase, we've had this conversation before.
It may be a violation of FISA.
The administration bypassed FISA, citing that obtaining warrants would have been ‘too slow’ (despite the inconvenient fact that FISA will issue retroactive warrants if the need for speed makes it necessary).
It may be that the AUMF overrode FISA in this matter.
Quote from Tom Daschle:
The truth is, the legality is not cut and dried. Period.
The truth is that the administration asked for precisely this power during the drafting of the AUMF, and was explicitly refused.
Period.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pmLet's apply the logic of the supporters of the wiretapping program to Bush's steadfast refusal to subject it to court scrutiny. Proponents of the program tell opponents, "If you have nothing to hide, you have no cause for concern." Why shouldn't that same claim apply to the program itself? If there's nothing illicit or unconstitutional about it, Bush should boldly, publicly agree to a legal review. The fact that he won't speaks volumes about his own views of the program's legality. If he's got nothing to hide, he has no cause for concern.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThis thread is about the fact that the War-Time President will not allow looking at both sides.
You seem willfully blind to any evidence which counters the argument that the wiretapping is legal. If all the wiretaps were legal, then the FISA court would have issued warrants. However, we're told that an untold number of wiretaps were done without warrants, BUT, we're told that the warrantless wiretaps were legal. AND we're told to just take the Administration's word for it. AND the Administration is blocking any investigation into whether or not the unwarranted wiretaps were legal.
And we already know that if the judicial system rules that the wiretaping program as implemented is illegal, the Reich-Wing will complain about "activist judges" trying to re-write the law (as they complained following the Guantanamo ruling by the Supreme Court).
July 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmBush must answer for his crimes.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmWondering... Was Abu Gonzales sworn in for his testimony?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWhen we go to full blown dictatorship I can't wait to start meeting these people on the streets.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#23 chase There is absolutely no reason to think, guess, suggest or hope that this program was used to listen in on “political opponents†or for anything other than terrorist surveillance? .....Where you been buddy Sneak and peak ,nat'n security letters ,Only google refusing to hand over all it's records on the visited web sites of ALL its users ,only Q west refusing to turn over records of ALL its customers ,ABC news saying the NSA has acquired the phone records of its reporters who worry their phones are tapped ,Surveillance of anti war activists ,enviormentalists ,and quaker meatings in Vermont and florida ....ECT...
July 18th, 2006 at 1:01 pmthats the story buddy ,are you that trusting or is there a little room for doubt ? If the framers of the constitution were so trusting they would never have written the document in the first place
Surprised?
No.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:06 pmAm I being naive or did Specter kinda throw Bush to the wolves? I mean, he's pretty much a p*ssy, but in his own little p*ssy way, did he have to bring up who blocked the investigation (my political undertones speak ain't too good)?
July 18th, 2006 at 1:07 pm- synonym
Excellent suggestion...here's a couple links to some quality downloadable posters:
Serious downloadable anti-Bush regime posters at worldcantwait.net.
Slightly lighter-hearted downloadable anti-Bush regime posters at toppun.com.
Please download, print, and distribute thee posters (especially the worldcantwait.net posters) and help to raise public awareness. Only 112 days left!
July 18th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThanks TripMaster - I will have lots of these posted in my classroom.
If the AP can have bush posters prominently displayed in his office, I can have an anti-repugnut poster in mine!!!
July 18th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#45: That's my take on it too, actually. I don't necessarily see this as Specter providing cover to the administration by changing the subject so much as him throwing them under the bus.
'So the PRESIDENT did this?'
July 18th, 2006 at 1:24 pm'Well, he's the one who makes these decisions and'
'Right, the PRESIDENT BLOCKED THE INVESTIGATION.'
'Yes, but you see'
'No, sorry, no explanations, changing the subject now that we have that confirmation on the public record. Smeg off, CabanaBoy General.'
"This program, even if it violated FISA, involved the surveillance of international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists. "
How can you say that? You were not briefed; Congress was not briefed, the leak did not have all the details. NO ONE knows except the president and his cronies WHAT they were doing.
I THNK they were sucking up all international and 50% of domestic phone calls and then filtering them and reviewing them for connections they were interested in. Connections of ANY kind.
If you think that they ONLY intercepted phone calls from KNOWN terrorists, you are fooling yourself. And if you think it was only for calls that had one end outside the US then you are really naive.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pmIf the NSA terrorist survaillence program passes the scrutiny of the federal court system, how many here would accept that result? Very few. No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009. - Comment by Chase
Here we go again! So, let us progressives say it again: its OK to spy on suspects, with legal oversight, but its not OK for Bush to "legislate from the Oval Office" as he has done. Bush and Co. have given us plenty of reason to be suspicious of what else they might be doing. Getting Bush out of office is not the goal, maintaining rule of law and Constitutional protections are the progressive goals.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pmHey CHASE.
Get your head out of your ass. Your stinkin up the joint.
Bush's wiretapping was illegal and is illegal as it avoided going to the FISA court which is the only court that can legally allow wiretapping. CUT AND DRIED.
The FISA court was made for use during both peace and war and specificly has provisions for use during WAR.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#48
‘No, sorry, no explanations, changing the subject now that we have that confirmation on the public record. Smeg off, CabanaBoy General.’
If only that had REALLY been said! LOL
July 18th, 2006 at 1:36 pmPLC, as you stated above :
"maintaining rule of law and Constitutional protections are the progressive goals".
As George Bush is in total opposition to the rule of law and Constitutional protections
removing him from office must absolutely be the goal of progressives, and rightfully so. Bush should have been impeached years ago for any number of reasons. Real reasons, not consensual sex.
He's is a disaster for our country.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pmHe's a war criminal
He's bankrupted the United States financially, strategically, and morally.
The look on the woman's face behind Herr Gonzales says it all about what a disgusting, scary administration we have.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#48 - "Smeg off, CabanaBoy General."
The "CabanaBoy" above wouldn't be a reference to Alberto Gonzalez's hispanic ethnicity, would it?
#51 - In which jusidictions are you admitted to practice?
I've read more white papers and rebuttals from both sides of this argument, from lawyers and legal experts much experienced with this kind of law than me or you and I can tell you, it's not cut and dried.
But whatever, carry on with your pompous bullshit as if you know better.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pmBut whatever, carry on with your pompous bullshit as if you know better.
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
But no one could possibly know better than you....on any subject.
You never had a date in high school did you?
July 18th, 2006 at 1:47 pm#12
No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009.
How can you be sure they will be happy then. Liberals are never happy. They hate this country and everything it stands for. Haven't you figured that out by now?
July 18th, 2006 at 1:51 pmIn which jusidictions are you admitted to practice? I’ve read more white papers and rebuttals from both sides of this argument, from lawyers and legal experts much experienced with this kind of law than me or you and I can tell you, it’s not cut and dried. But whatever, carry on with your pompous bullshit as if you know better. Comment by Chase
So, Chase, you are "admitted to practice"? Oh, you've read but assume none of us have and so we are "pompous". Keep practicing, there, Pompous Boy. You might actually get it right after a few years.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:52 pmIf the NSA terrorist survaillence program passes the scrutiny of the federal court system, how many here would accept that result? Very few.
No one around here is going to be happy until January 20, 2009.
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
If Bush has nothing to hide, then what is he so g-damned afraid of that he personally has to block access to the OPR?
July 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pmChase, you still haven't replied to me. As I recall, when we has this conversation before, I went unanswered.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pmIt may be that the AUMF overrode FISA in this matter.
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
But it's not, that was NOT the intent of that bill, it in no way authorizes Bush to circumvent the FISA courts. That line of reasoning was debunked months ago.
There aren't two sides to this issue, it's very cut and dry, no need to be "Fair and Balanced" because this isn't matter of opinion, there is such a thing as legality and illegality, black and white, the lines are very clear on this issue.
Those who still believe there is some gray area in between aren't interested in truth or the rule of law.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:58 pmYes, trying to stop the president from partaking in illegal acts means we hate America. Good arguement. Idiot.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pmAre you starting to get a clearer picture of it now, Arlen? Are you getting a sense that Bush really doesn't care what laws you change or pass to make things easier for him, he's going to pull this crap anyway? Is there any chance that all the harumphing and indignation you express in the hearing is going to carry over into a meaningful action of some sort once you leave the room?
Yeah, I know. Silly question. Carry on, Senator Doormat. Nobody will remember this hearing a week or two from now and you'll be off the hook again for whatever it was you vainly threatened to do about this intolerable outrage... blah-blah-blah. Thanks for nothing.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pmIt is amazing that anyone, even the kook fringe 30 - 35% would just believe whatever this ass says. Why the hell should we trust Bush that he has not been wiretapping his political opponents?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:13 pm[...] UPDATE: ThinkProgress has the video. [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#66
Didn't Clinton already do that with project Echelon?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:23 pm[...] The problem with the NSA being “un-investigatable” has been a source of my ire since it was first mentioned. At the time, though, Berty didn’t want to say how or why this occurred. Well Arlen Specter pinned him down and admit that Bush personally blocked lawyers from getting the necessary clearance. ThinkProgress has the video. SPECTER: Did the President make the decision not to clear [Office of Professional Responsibility lawyers]? [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 2:25 pmDidn’t Clinton already do that with project Echelon?
Comment by . — July 18, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
No, but Bush Jr. sure has used it a lot!!!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#23 Chase
There is absolutely no reason to think, guess, suggest or hope that this program was used to listen in on “political opponents†or for anything other than terrorist surveillance.
Where have you been? Ever hear of a guy named Karl Rove? How about Dick Cheney? Ring a bell? Ever hear about that CIA operative whose identity was leaked for purely political purposes? With this administration, everything is political. There are no boundaries. The warrantless NSA surveillance began prior to 9/11. Remember? 9/11 was used as an excuse, but it wasn't the reason for it the surveillance. And the few people in the administration who really were interested in detecting and stopping terrorist plots back then were ignored or shoved aside.
If you've been paying attention, there is every reason to think that this program was used to listen in on “political opponentsâ€. This administration never passes up an opportunity to gain political advantage. Never.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:34 pmDo nothing congress and do less senate want a dictator president.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:38 pmOur do nothing congress and do less Senate are moving out the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a military state and marshall law. Congratulations to the worst governing body the former USA, now the Secret State of America, ever had. It's only going to accelerate in a downward spiral from now on. Perpetual war will should make a good military state for our elite secret government of, by and for special interests. The military loves it as it gives them ever greater power. The DoD could care less about the protection of Americans, just as the President, Legislature and Court system could care less about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Chase, answer this:
Regarding a similar issue, that of the NSA requesting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans, if national security was the top concern of this program and the tracking of known or suspected terrorists would have received a big boost by getting these records, then why did the government just walk away from Qwest when they asked to see a warrant for the information?
Why just drop the inquiry if the information could have stopped terrorist activities in this country??? Isn't that what the NSA is supposedly trying to do by getting these records and also performing wiretaps?
Despite what you and the other trolls on here might say, I have no problem with the government tracking down terrorists. But they don't need the phone records of tens of millions of Americans to do it. Compile a list of known or suspected terrorists, get a damned warrant, and then go to the phone companies and get their records. You won't find anyone on here arguing against that. And if the request for the warrant is legitimate, given the low rate of rejections over the years I highly doubt that the FISA court would deny it.
And yes, Chase, I do try to look at both sides of an issue. Here are the two sides I see with warrantless wiretapping:
We had members of Congress -- Republican and Democrats, many of them laywers --saying that the NSA wiretapping program was not legal. We have members of Congress saying that they did not authorize warrantless wiretapping when they approved the AUMF.
And then from the other side we have Bush saying the program is legal, I knowingly and willingly bypassed FISA, and then, simply, "just trust me."
I want an answer. As a taxpaying citizen of this country I demand it. But there's just this one pesky little problem, and that is George Bush refusing, and as we learned today, personally blocking, any and all efforts to investigate these programs. No oversight. None. Zero. Zip.
As to your comment...
...I would imagine that the OPR's investigation would have gone a long way (perhaps all the way) into solving the question.
Bush doesn't want it investigated. Period. By anyone. Again I ask, what is he afraid of?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:39 pmlook at he smug expression on Gonzales face. Wonder where he got that from?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pmCHASE
What was the Bush excuse, and that is all he ever has, BEFORE 9/11? Or didnt you know that this program was started up against the Amurkan people before that tragedy?
If you didnt know, you dont read the papers nor the testimony of of the neo-cons.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI voted twice against this ignorant troll who resides in the White House, and campaigned hard for democratic contenders through the primaries and beyond.
I truly hope with an open heart that the Ds take back Congress come November, but as most of you, have my doubts.
All of that being said, I am sick and tired of the bigots who hate jewish people like myself, or the State of Israel, and look for their opportunity every time to blame jews or Israel for the sickness that has been wrought upon our nation. Please do not allow their hatred to divide our solidarity on social, legal and political positions.
If you read through the posts, you will see the references in post 26 by "bs", as follows:
it’s the nazi/zionist way. fascist america!!
This hatred makes me sick, almost as much as the evildoers in the White House and Congress.
just 1 American's comments.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pmWhat! You didn't know Bush was above the law?
July 18th, 2006 at 3:04 pmLaws don't apply to kings - they only make laws for everyone else. They also determine who is a lawbreaker, and they determine who they will "protect" from the law.
The boy-King rules.
His minions must just trip over themselves in their efforts to rush to his beck and call, desiring to please their liege.
Oh, and here's another issue I like to throw out. Have done so on many occasions, but still can't get a bite.
Bush says his warrantless wiretapping program monitors calls that have one party in another country. If al Quaeda is calling someone in America, we want to know, says Bush. He says because of today's technology, we don't have time to go to FISA to get a warrant. Too slow. Gotta catch them now. Every second counts.
But...
For domestic-to-domestic calls, Bush says he still goes to FISA. What? No urgency for these calls too? Hmmm.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pm1st rule of bushco, you do not question the internal deciderations of bush, baker,
botts, & bin laden, llc
2nd rule of bushco, YOU DO NOT QUESTION THE INTERNAL DECIDERATIONS OF BUSH, BAKER, BOTTS, & BIN LADEN, LLC
July 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmWC,
As FISA allows for warrants to be obtained retroactively up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, the 'speed' argument is invalid.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmBush has contradicted himself several times in this matter, WC.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pmHe is also on record as saying "we need a warrant to eavesdrop." At the same time, it has become known that as he said that, he was already eavesdropping sans warrant.
When one lies, deceives and otherwise acts the weasel, it's hard to keep all one's comments congruent.
Bush proves himself to be an uncouth, illegitimate, ignorant, embarrassing jerk every day.
The only time the media exposes him is when he says "shit" on an open mike. But the lies, deceit, contradictions, etc., well, those aren't worthy of news reporting.
WC,
As FISA allows for warrants to be obtained retroactively up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, the ’speed’ argument is invalid.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 18, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
Indeed! And not long ago I found text of a reporter specifically asking Bush about the contradiction found in the two situations I posted. Bush sidestepped the question. No surprise there.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pm# 77 Flori duh
July 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmWhile I sympathize with Israel , I and most people, for reasons of compassion tend to take the side of the underdog ,which is without doubt the Palestinian .The present reaction of Israel to a kidnapped soldier of killing civilians ,destroying the civilian infrastructrure in a country 40 % christian which is just recovering from a civil war and a Syrian (invited ) occupation ,is going to fuel immense anger at the( admittedly )racial state of Israel ,because of once again OBVIOUS unjust actions by the state of Israel ! The entire world community has endlessly ,through the UN condemned Israeli injustices with the US as the sole veto on the security council for 60 years ! Israels un official possession of WMD's , an open secret ,must seem unbelievable to the arabs becaused it isn't even an issue.The double standard must end !Israeli's are not more important than any other peoples unless racial bias keeps one from recognizing our shared humanity with ALL people.Israel is doing more to create anti semitism than the neo nazi's ever could have hoped to ! Because I oppose Israels actions doesn't make me anti semitic but viewing Israeli actions as beyond reproach because of our own ethnicity is racism . ALL ONE HUMAN FAMILY !!!
Three and a half hours without a response.
The last time I blasted Chase's vapid prevarications regarding the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program, he ran from the thread with his tail between his legs.
Looks like this time will be no different...at least he's consistent.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:25 pmTREASON!
A Bushite tradition since the stealection of 2000...
...kill the beast (politically)...
...before it grows...
July 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pm[...] and he decided that we didn’t need a DOJ investigation into the illegal wiretapping issue Previously, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not explain why the security clearances had been denied, saying he did not want to “get into internal discussions.†But in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, Gonzales said President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an investigation of the warrantless eavesdropping program. [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 5:51 pmUnitary president = divine right of kings = the king can do NO wrong. "the Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper"---George W. Bush
July 18th, 2006 at 6:23 pmwe can't blame UU's personal defence attorney, it WAS only expected, we can only blame the Senators that allowed that piece of shit to become A.G.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:29 pmI am the Decider and I can do anything I want to do. I am the King of America. I got a blank check on 9-11 and I am cashing it. Who needs courts or judges I don't agree with. I will appoint judges who say I can do what ever I want. I swore to protect the Constitution and I intend to protect it by violating any law I see fit. The liberal democrat party is just jealous because the aint President. I will veto the constitution if I have to to protect the American people from terror. I have the authority under article 2 to ignore any law I see fit.
Alberto Gonzalez says I can do anything I want, because I don't was judges legistlating from the bench. I appreciate the Congress for letting me do what I want. I appreciate Condi, I appreciate being a decider, I appreciate ah, ah, we will win the war on terror.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:55 pmNixon blocked an investigation and it didn't end well for him...if the GOP wasn't so limp dicked they would stand up for the constitution they swore to uphold and decide the decider is out of line.
Vote Democrat to get some responisbility back in Washington...the GOP has proven to be failures at leadership and governing again...no wonder they couldn't get a majority for forty years...they just don't get it in those home schools...they don't teach them to play or work with others...only self-centered greed.
End the profiteering of the military industrial complex and oil companies...
Vote Democrat and bring the bastards to justice!
July 19th, 2006 at 12:55 amIf any illegal immigrants get sent back to Mexico, then Alberto Gonzales should be in the first group > lol.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:06 amHey, Bush is the decider. He can decide whatever he wants and nobody can question him. Consticution and separtion of powers have no meaning for him.
you are right!
July 19th, 2006 at 3:32 am[...] There was something very familiar about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Judicary Committee yesterday. As Think Progress summarizes yesterday morning’s highlight: [...]
July 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pmI despise Presidente Jorge Bush because of his mission to Latinize America.His generals did not know the lessons in "The Prince"
,by Michavelli.We would have no problems in Iraq if the people had been treated as their eighth century mentality deserved.
Senator Arlen Specter is the terroist front man on the Judiciary Committee.A lot os saps are unaware we are in WWIII and the old rules will not protect us. Specter would be tried for treason if this was a rational society.
[...] But that all changed this week, when Gonzales, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales admitted to let slip that the president himself shut down the investigation. (video here). The Department of Justice had ordered its over 30-year-old Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to investigate NSA eavesdropping program but as Gonzales explained, The White House denied the OPR access to the materials needed for their investigation — a move that OPR director H. Marshall Jarrett descibed as unprecedented. [...]
July 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pm[...] Why couldn’t the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility complete an investigation of the NSA wiretapping program? Because they couldn’t get security clearances. Why couldn’t they get security clearances? Alberto Gonzales tells us: the Decider decided (via Think Progress). [...]
July 21st, 2006 at 10:32 pm[...] There was something very familiar about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Judicary Committee yesterday. As Think Progress summarizes yesterday morning’s highlight: [...]
July 27th, 2006 at 2:46 pmDecember 4th, 2006 at 11:56 am
December 4th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
[...] year, Gonzales testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the denied security clearances to the Office of Professional [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 1:54 pmpet gates
Thank you for your great post, I am doing a study on this subject and I am glad that there are sites like this to find informations very easy ?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:43 amlatino web sites for lawyers
Other lawyers advise insurance companies about the legality of insurance transactions, guiding the company in writing insurance policies to conform to the law and to protect the companies from unwarranted claims.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:17 amcheck cashing
Didn't realise there was this type of information out there
April 5th, 2008 at 5:23 amIndustrial Video
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm