Russ Feingold points out the obvious ridiculous statement that Gonzales "knows for a fact" that nothing improper occurred, but at the same time has no real understanding why those people ended up on the list. Feingold hit him hard with the fact that Gonzales made no effort, requested no progress reports, and took no inititiative to find out why he was firing 7 US Attorneys! Yet Gonzales assures the American people that nothing improper occurred.
In over his head. Just like his boss.
7 comments:
You know, for a minute this afternoon (before I reminded myself of some of Mr. Gonzales' more fanciful opinions, like the Geneva conventions being obsolete, his pro-torture memo, his impression that the Constitution doesn't grant the right of habeas corpus...), I actually felt sorry for him. I think that some of the fury being directed at him, although richly deserved, is displaced from its real target. For whatever reasons, the "i" words (impeachment or indictment, I like them both) are unpronounceable within the DC city limits, but now that energy is bubbling up and has to be directed somewhere. Oh lucky man!
Mr. Gonzoles has to go, but he is correct in regards to habeas corpus not being a right. When I first heard that, I was dumbfounded, but the Constitution clearly refers to it as the "privilege of habeus corpus." I had to dig out a few of my Con Law books to see what has been said over the years, but I do believe that Gonzo is correct on this one thing.
I have to say that I don't really care. Habeas review is what separates us from despotism. Call it what you want. As Mary notes, for the guy who gave us torture, how many swings does he get?
Steve (not singling you out as Gonzo's defender, but recognizing your expertise on legal matters), at what point does common law or precedent or some such make habeus corpus akin to a right?
Or, is it because it is only a privilege that Lincoln was able to suspend it during the Civil War?
I can't claim any great amount of Habeas expertise and I'll readily admit that it is very complicated. I took a Federal Jurisdisction course in law school and we spend a great deal of time on Habeas. Before I comment, please read this entry from Daily Kos:
Habeas
ubub, you make a good point, and the blog author also mentions it. I agree that it is unlikely that the Sup. Ct. will allow the gov't to forbid access to the courts. Habeas power is statutory, so any hanges must cme from Congress. I don't share the belief that the president can suspend habeas without the consent of Congress.
Streak, I agree that Habeas is one of many things that is supposed to protect us from despotism. It would be nice if Congress stepped up in the area of Habeas and did something about the unlawful combatants.
I should also note that I disagree with Gonzo on almost everything else. He is a fascist and we should be thankful that he is not on the Supreme Court.
steve, i agree. even more than his troubling ideology is his seeming lack of competence. It seems clear that Bush wanted him on the court but was scared to send him to the hill after the torture memo. Now, of course, he will just be a high paid lawyer for conservatives who don't care if he is incompetent.
That hearing, as I noted in another post, was an embarassment. Some of the clips are truly shocking. Turning on the news this morning, I saw Dana Perino praising Gonzales' performance. These people know their spin.
I was going to comment on Gonzales but I do not recall what that comment was to be. Please be assured that it would have been insightful, cogent, and properly spelled. However, I do not recall the exact nature of the comment that I would have made so well. Perhaps mistakes were made, but they were not made by me. That I do recall.
Post a Comment