quote: GONZALES: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.
Well...that explains how we won the revolution...George Washington was performing illegal wiretaps of peoples...phones?
Heh. That's amusing.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I heard that he checked E-mails of ennemies...
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
He did say that, then. When I heard that, I thought it was a joke.
Oh, and don't you think that the beginning of that transcript, where they were arguing over whether or not to swear Gonzales, reads a lot like a Saturday Night Live opening sketch?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Sometimes the truth is so much funnier than anything you could make up...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Aide: General Washington, we just intercepted an email between the English and our commander at West Point. Sir, Arnold Benedict is selling us out.
Washington: Darn, and his eggs are so yummy too.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I have digital photos of Washington's people tapping into British fiber optics communications channels using phase-conjugate micro-flenor arrays and sub-conjugate bi-splatter filtering networks! I do!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
But in all seriousness, Gonzales did say this:
quote:Nor is this just the view of the courts. Presidents throughout our history has authorized the warrantless surveillance of the enemy during wartime, and they have done so in ways far more sweeping than the narrowly targeted terrorist surveillance program authorized by President Bush.
General Washington, for example, instructed his army to intercept letters between British operatives, copy them and allow those communications to go on their way.
President Lincoln used the warrantless wiretapping of telegraph messages during the Civil War to discern the movements and intentions of opposing troops.
GONZALES: President Wilson, in World War I, authorized the military to intercept each and every cable, telephone and telegraph communication going into or out of the United States.
During World War II, President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States. He also gave the military the authority to review, without warrant, all telecommunications, quote, "passing between the United States and any foreign country."
and then, unfortunately, followed it up with this hooter:
quote:GONZALES: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.
Overall, an interesting read.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Well, husbands have been cheating on their wives for centuries. That still won't save you if your wife catches you being naughty with your secretary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The difference, too, is that the wars that Mr. Gonzales cited were wars against specific countries that would have a beginning and an end. This "war on terror" has no such boundaries. If we grant these powers to the executive, we are granting them in perpetuity.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:wars against specific countries that would have a beginning and an end.
Well, they EVENTUALLY had an end. No one at the time knew when that would be.
Any more than we do.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If President Roosevelt's attorney general jumped off a bridge, would Gonzales also decide to jump off?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
If that was even close to the same argument, it might be persuasive. For some reason, people like using it though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Scott, they had considerably more idea about end-dates than we do. There has never been a period in recorded history when there has been no terrorism, so any effort with the objective of eliminating terrorism, such as our own, has no prospect of ending any time soon.
Whereas wars end all the time, usually in days, months, or years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, husbands have been cheating on their wives for centuries. That still won't save you if your wife catches you being naughty with your secretary.
quote:If President Roosevelt's attorney general jumped off a bridge, would Gonzales also decide to jump off?
Both these statements and others like them miss the point in a major way. The argument here is not whether this is a good idea. The argument is whether such interception is a valid part of the commander-in-chief power.
SCOTUS has held several times that such historical analysis is pertinent (not dispositive, but pertinent) to deterimining whether an act is within the President's scope of power.
So make all the little jokes about it you want - yes, the use of "electronic" was quite humerous - but at least acknowledge the point being made. Interception of communications, including those crossing the border, has long been viewed as a part of CINC powers. These examples are useful both on the legal and rhetorical front.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and neither the Washington nor Lincoln examples is particularly good, being used for the express purpose of spying on (respectively) communications between known agents and communications of foreign military forces. The Wilson and Roosevelt examples have some weight, though.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya forgot the War on Poverty. And the Republicans have made it quite clear that anyone who attempts to aid the poor is the enemy.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: If President Roosevelt's attorney general jumped off a bridge, would Gonzales also decide to jump off?
It would probably depend on a number of variables. Among these the height of the bridge, the equipment used in jumping of the bridge, what is beneath the bridge, is he being chased by reavers, etc.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yes yes, Republicans are evil and hate the poor. Move on.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, Republican policy-makers love the poor. Which is why they dedicate themselves to making more poor folks... ...outta the middle class.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yes. Of course. I am completely dedicated to making myself poor, and hosing all people poorer than I. Speaking of which, I should really get back to it....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes yes, Republicans are evil and hate the poor. Move on.