Feingold rocks

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Feingold rocks

Postby lukpac » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:05 pm

Feingold calls out Gonzales. This is really, really insane.

http://feingold.senate.gov/Gonzales_NSA_13006.pdf

Russ Feingold wrote:I am writing to let you know in advance about some of the questions I intend to ask you about when you testify at the Senate Judiciary Committee's February 6 hearing on "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority." I ask that you be prepared to discuss these issues.

I am particularly interested in asking about your misleading testimony at your confirmation hearing on January 6, 2005, when I specifically asked you if the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions. As the attached transcript shows, you initially tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical."


CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator Feingold. Thank you.
Let me switch to a subject that has come up a lot here
today. In the August 2002 memorandum, the Justice Department
concludes that the President, as Commander in Chief, may
authorize interrogations that violate the criminal laws
prohibiting torture and that the Congress may not
constitutionally outlaw such activity when it is authorized by
the President. This is the claim, essentially, that the
President is above the law so long as he is acting in the
interest of national security.
A December 30 rewrite of the August memorandum does not
repudiate this view. It simply says the issue is irrelevant
because the President has prohibited torture.
Today, in response to questions on this subject, you have
been unwilling to repudiate this legal theory. You have danced
around the question a bit. But as I understand your answers so
far, you have said there may be a situation where the President
would believe a statute is unconstitutional and would therefore
refuse to comply with it, but would abide by a court's decision
on its constitutionality. You, also, I am told, said that many
Presidents have asserted the power not to enforce a statute
that they believe is unconstitutional. But there is a
difference between a President deciding not to enforce a
statute which he thinks is unconstitutional and a President
claiming to authorize individuals to break the law by torturing
individuals or taking other illegal actions.
So what I want to do is press you on that because I think
perhaps you have misunderstood the question, and it is an
important one. It goes to a very basic principle of the country
that no one, not even the President of the United States, is
above the law. Of course, the President is entitled to assert
that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.
This President did so, for example, with respect to some
portions of our McCain-Feingold bill when he signed it, but his
Justice Department defended the law in court, as it is bound to
do with every law duly enacted by the Congress. And his
campaign and his party complied with the law while a court
challenge was pending. No one asserted that the President had
the power to ignore a law that he thought was unconstitutional.
The question here is what is your view regarding the
President's constitutional authority to authorize violations of
the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on
the books for many years when acting as Commander in Chief?
Does he have such authority? The question you have been asked
is not about a hypothetical statute in the future that the
President might think is unconstitutional. It is about our laws
in international treaty obligations concerning torture. The
torture memo answered that question in the affirmative, and my
colleagues and I would like your answer on that today.
I, also, would like you to answer this: does the President,
in your opinion, have the authority, acting as Commander in
Chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes
and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the
criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this
country?

Judge Gonzales. Senator, the August 30th memo has been
withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section
regarding the Commander in Chief's authority to ignore the
criminal statutes. So it has been rejected by the executive
branch. I, categorically, reject it. And, in addition to that,
as I have said repeatedly today, this administration does not
engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so what we
are really discussing is a hypothetical situation that--

Senator Feingold. Judge Gonzales, I have asked a broader
question. I am asking whether, in general, the President has
the constitutional authority, at least in theory, to authorize
violations of criminal law when there are duly enacted statutes
simply because he is Commander in Chief? Does he have that
power?

Judge Gonzales. Senator, in my judgment, you have phrased
sort of a hypothetical situation.
I would have to know what is
the national interest that the President may have to consider.
What I am saying is it is impossible to me, based upon the
questions you have presented to me, to answer that question. I
can say that there is a presumption of constitutionality with
respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath
to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a
decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very
significant decision and one that I would personally be
involved with, I commit to you on that, and one I will take
with a great deal of care and seriousness.
Senator Feingold. Well, that sounds to me like the
President still remains above the law.
Judge Gonzales. No, sir.
Senator Feingold. If this is something where you take a
good look at it, you give a presumption that the President
ought to follow the law, you know, to me that is not good
enough under our system of Government.
Judge Gonzales. Senator, if I might respond to that, the
President is not above the law. Of course, he is not above the
law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well.
And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is
a practice and a tradition recognized by Presidents of both
parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law.
Now, I think that that would be--
Senator Feingold. I recognize that and I tried to make that
distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed
to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in
contravention of the law.
Judge Gonzales. Senator, this President is not--it's not
the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions
that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

Senator Feingold. Finally, will you commit to notify
Congress if the President makes this type of decision and not
wait 2 years until a memo is leaked about it?

Judge Gonzales. I will commit to advise the Congress as
soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

Senator Feingold. Well, I hope that would be a very brief
period of time, and I thank you again, Judge Gonzales.
Judge Gonzales. Thank you, Senator.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:17 am

Feingold, you magnificent bastard, you read his book!

(Yes, it's supposed to be "I read your book"...)
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:14 pm

Feingold on the Daily Show:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/22.html#a7627

I got a woody.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:17 pm

Rspaight wrote:Feingold on the Daily Show:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/22.html#a7627

I got a woody.

Ryan


http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?p=23879#23879

lukpac wrote:Feingold on the Daily Show:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/22.html#a7627


No woody here.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:11 am

RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:17 am

Jon Stewart does it much better than you, Ryan.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:45 am

Sigh. That's why he's hosting the Oscars and I'm hanging out on your message board.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:55 am

Maybe we can get him to join FLO...
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD