2006/05/21

Gonzales Ignores His Constitutional Duty Once Again

In observing that reporters can be questioned, prosecuted, and jailed under the guise of his "...commitment to national security," Alberto Gonzales has demonstrated once again his lack of fitness for the job of Attorney General.

Lest anyone forget, the oath sworn by all cabinet members is to the Constitution not the President, and unfortunately for the prostrate receptacle of feces that currently occupies the AG's office, that includes the 4th Amendment. But of course this doesn't trouble Gonzales, a man more interested in keeping the administration's secrets than actually investigating wrongdoing, and why should it? Bu$hCo has taken great pains to classify any information that might implicate them in wrongdoing.

Case in point, the exposure of NSA's warrantless surveillance program, about which Gonzales noted:
...the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the law.
...keeping in mind that, for Gonzales, criminal activity doesn't include the illegal program itself.

17 Comments:

While it is true that cabinet members (and almost all government employees) take an oath to protect the Constitution, it is a little-known fact that upon taking this oath many chose to issue a signing statement (or, I suppose, more accurately an "oathing statement.") In any event, those in the current (and best ever) administration elected to quote American hero (and future New Jersey governor) Sly Stallone from his otherworldly performance in Judge Dredd when taking the oath...

..."I AM the law!"
Unlike the embittered conservativism that Vigurie embodies, Gonzales is a thug, a schoolyard bully who got lucky. He'll go the way of Ashcroft, a dismal excuse for an Attorney General, remembered by history as a dangerous man.
Rex! The "oathing statement,"...OY! I wish I'd thought of that, but of course it won't stop me from ripping it off.

Stephen, agreed Ashcroft and Gonzales seem to be in a race to the bottom.
The First Lawyer protecting the Client-in-Chief.
Has Alberto figured out if his relatives got here legally or illegally yet? He has no allegiance to anyone except the Decider-in-chief...was Alberto a skull and bones member too? It would be so fitting if he was.
It appears that guys doesn't know how to give a straight answer
Politics...thy name is corruption.
John Mitchell reincarnated. I wonder what plots get cooked up in Abu's office?
What exactly are the national security secrets he's protecting? Exposing the phone-call database on millions of Americans? Exposing secret prisons where God-knows-what goes on? Whose security is actually being threatened - America's, or this administration's?

This reminds me of Nixon's "secret" bombing of Cambodia and North Vietnam. The bombing sure wasn't a secret to the Cambodians and Vietnamese - just to us, to prevent an uproar over what the reckless Nixon administration was up to. Same with this reckless administration.

We are far from being a police state. But using national security to justify the suppression of free speech is what the beginning of the road to a police state looks like.
Well, didn't you know that the "free press" provision was inserted right before the deadline so that no one could debate it and it'd pass anyway? It was obviously a pet project of one of the signers (probably that Ben Franklin guy..such a weasel) which wasn't meant to be included. Good thing we have Bush cronies pointing that out to us. Now we know "free press" only means "free" when they're giving away subscriptions to local newspapers (or you have a coupon for the dry cleaner).
When I watched him being interviewed yesterday and saw his expression when he was talking about this it scared the hell out of me. He's dead serious.
Abi, well, it's certainly not America's security. There's an argument to be made the the exposure of such a program actually might have a deterrant effect (though it's just as likely that those being spied upon may resort to encryption, I know I will).

Gratis, perhaps Bush will attach a signing statement to his interpretation of the circumstances under which the Constitution was adopted?

PoP, Gonzales is a snake isn't he? Just the sort we need leading DoJ. In many ways he's worse than Ashcroft who was just a zealot, but not particularly skilled at his job.
He won't be happy until all who oppose them are in jail.
"Politics...thy name is corruption."

I agree. You can catch all the neat stories on South Park.
"...the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the law."

How about starting with J. Miller and the guys who made Plame leak possible? Sounds like the right start, but I'm not sure GOP heart can take another stroke like that.
This floored me. So, basically, the guy is saying that reporters will be arrested if they report anything about this administration with which the administration doesn't approve. As if they aren't secretive enough already! This would really put the capper on leaks -- most journalists are already too scared to lose their jobs by reporting the truth -- and then where will we be?

Start goosestepping now, folks.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link