Gonzales warns judges not to meddle

[NoCalMike 0]

Gonzales warns judges not to meddle

 

(01-18) 04:00 PST Washington -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday warned federal judges not to meddle in cases involving national security, following a string of judicial rebukes of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism initiatives.

 

In a speech to the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said federal judges are not "equipped to make decisions about" actions the president takes in the name of preserving national security.

 

"A judge will never be in the position to know what is in the national security interest of the country," Gonzales said.

 

Gonzales added that the judiciary should show deference to the executive branch when national security is involved, because, unlike the Bush administration, judges "don't have embassies around the world gathering up information."

 

"I try to imagine myself being a judge," Gonzales said. "What do I know about what is going on in Afghanistan or Guantanamo?"

 

"How are judges supposed to gather up the information, the collective wisdom of the entire executive branch ... and make a determination as to what is in the national security interest of our country?" Gonzales asked. "They're not capable of doing that."

 

Gonzales' speech came as the White House reversed course on a controversial, five-year-old warrantless surveillance program and agreed to allow a secret foreign intelligence court to review the initiative. The Justice Department announcement came on the eve of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Democratic leadership of the panel was expected to quiz Gonzales about the program.

 

Since October 2001, President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls that originate or end overseas without first getting warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by a 1978 law that made the panel the "exclusive means" for approving foreign surveillance.

 

--------------------

Sounds like another attempt at Unilateral Power.

[SuperJerk 0]

"I try to imagine myself being a judge," Gonzales said. "What do I know about what is going on in Afghanistan or Guantanamo?"

 

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

"I try to imagine myself being a judge," Gonzales said. "What do I know about what is going on in Afghanistan or Guantanamo?"

 

Not strong enough. There needs to be one with a smiley blowing his fucking brains out with a shotgun.

 

Second verse same as the first as far as the Bush clowns are concerned. Shut up and do what we say because we do what we want.

[SuperJerk 0]

I just cannot find the word to describe how stupid that comment was, though. A judge is only in charge of deciding if a law was followed. If Gonzales doesn't like the law, he needs to get it changed instead of bitching about it being enforced. Also, these illegal wire-taps aren't happening in Cuba or Afganistan, they are happening in the United States. A judge shouldn't have to know what's going on in another country to be able to apply a U.S. law within the borders of the U.S.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Just empty hot air from a deflating Bush administration.

[NoCalMike 0]

Some more brilliance from Mr. Gonzalez....

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/ (C-SPAN transcript)

 

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

 

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

 

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

 

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

 

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

 

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

 

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

 

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

 

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

 

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

 

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

 

GONZALES: Um.

[SuperJerk 0]

The last person to get owned like that by Arlen Specter was Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Arlen Specter owns. Remember when Ted Kennedy was the victim of his wrath a year ago? Appointment television.

[SuperJerk 0]

 

This really scares me.

[Special K 0]

God does everyone in the Bush administration have to speak with a barely contained smirk on their face?

 

That's really quite scary, though. Hey! Maybe if the Bush administration wasn't so fucking sneaky, and didn't withhold all its information, the judges would be better equipped to decide on the Bush admin's policy. Why doesn't the Bush administration disclose more information to the rest of the country? Probably because what they're doing VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.

[Gary Floyd 0]

 

This really scares me.

Well, somebody finally noticed that. Thanks Jerk.

 

Anyways, it amazes me how insanely arrogant he is in the video. You can tell he knows what he's saying is insane and is in defense of something illegal (denying Hapeas Corpus), but that it doesn't matter, because the Bush administration will still get away with this shit. It makes me want to vomit that an administration like this exists.