Progressive Talking Points 2/6/06
(Not) Under Oath
When Alberto Gonzales testifies before Congress today, he will have a lot to answer for. A year ago, he appeared before the same Senate Judiciary Committee and misled it about the warrantless domestic surveillance program. He will no doubt toe the administration line – maintaining that President Bush has unchecked executive power – despite the fact that the Supreme Court has rejected similar claims by this President in the recent past. Senators today should have a lot of questions for Gonzales about the wiretapping program, including his previous misleading statements and the overall legality of the program.
- Gonzales needs to clarify his changing position on warrantless wiretapping.it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." However, according to President Bush, Gonzales personally approved of the warrantless domestic spying program while he was White House Counsel.
During his confirmation hearing for Attorney General in 2005, in response to a question about warrantless wiretapping Gonzalez stated that “ - Gonzales needs to clarify the scope of the program. President Bush and the administration have claimed that the warrantless wiretapping program is limited in scope – to terrorist "operatives inside of our country." According to the Washington Post, thousands of Americans on overseas calls have been listened to – hardly a small, limited number – and nearly all of them have been dismissed as potential suspects.
- Gonzales needs to explain why he won’t release Justice Department memos regarding warrantless wiretapping. Attorney General Gonzales and President Bush have both repeatedly argued that the Justice Department approved the legality of their warrantless domestic spying program. However, the administration is stonewalling bipartisan requests for its classified legal opinions on the program – opinions that would presumably prove their point that the Justice Department approved of the program.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home