Search Results for “Alberto Gonzales”
Mon Aug 27, 2007 15:01
 

Search Results for “Alberto Gonzales”
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alberto+Gonzales&search=Search

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

Total Recall - “Alberto Gonzales”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBvZlRqOTw

Alberto Gonzales Violates Common Sense
Alberto Gonzalez dangerously declares to the Senate Judiciary Committe that not all individuals in the United States are Constitutionally guaranteed the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Arlen Specter is dumbfounded Alberto Gonzalez dangerously declares to the Senate Judiciary Committe that not all individuals in the United States are Constitutionally guaranteed the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Arlen Specter is dumbfounded.

See or hear Senator Leahy testify before the Armed Services Committee on the restoration of Habeas Corpus.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/ 200704/042607.html

===========================


Gonzales Announces Resignation
Woodlands Online, LLC, TX - 4 hours ago
Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation Monday, August 27, during a press conference at the Justice Department. His resignation singals the end to a ...

GOOGLE NEWS UPDATES: ALBERTO GONZALES



January 2005: Gonzales Said Bush Did Not “Authorize Actions…In Contravention of Our Criminal Statutes”

According to President Bush’s radio address today, as White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales personally approved Bush’s program for warrantless domestic wiretaps. By circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, those wiretaps violated federal law.

In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda.

During his confirmation hearings for Attorney General in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold asked Gonzales about this precise issue:

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial:

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — 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, that was precisely the policy of the President.

Extended transcript of the Feingold/Gonzales exchange:

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I’m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you’ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is 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 we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where — where it — you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that — you know, that’s — to me, that’s not good enough under our system of government.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he’s 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 –

SEN. 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.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

Filed under: Intelligence, Ethics, Congress

Posted by Judd December 18, 2005 7:30 am

Permalink | Comment (83)

83 Comments

1.

as much as i don’t like to think about it, i know in my heart of hearts that arthur’s right… we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg…

—————

I find it close to impossible to believe that any adult in America didn’t think things like this have been going on for some time. Second, given all the other assaults on individual rights and the rule of law engaged in by the Bush administration — does anyone think for one second that this is even close to the worst of the abuses now taking place? If you do, I suggest you get back in touch with reality as quickly as possible.

—————
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/

 

Main Page - Monday, 08/27/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)