Defense of Eavesdropping Is Met With Skepticism in Senate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 6, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i heard there was some dispute on whether mr gonzales was giving sworn testimony, but this article doesn't mention it. anyone know?

    also:
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #2
    I heard part of the kabuki dance over whether Gonzales would be sworn in. The Republicans on the committee were arguing that it would be some sort of public humiliation for Gonzales to be called upon to raise his right hand before testifying. In the end it was an 8-8 tie vote, which apparently based on the motion they were considering, allowed Gonzeles to testify without being sworn.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    Why did Congress pass law on this if the president can just do as he please by playing the Bin Laden card constantly, under his Bin Laden card he can do anything according to him & fellow goosesteppers,anything at all.

    A govt who answers to no one is what we seem to have these days.

    Those who value security over liberty deserve neither. Benjamen Franklin said that but this president hasnt paid attention to important things in history like Ben nor Vietnam, you know that war that he dodged along with Cheney,Libby,Frist,Hastert,Delay and other scumpublicans i mean republicans.:cool: So here we are another !@#$%^! Vietnam because of the very idiots who didnt go and were hiding under a desk somewhere. And they want to spy on americans without answering to anyone?
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    If you claim you have the former, why do you need the latter?

    You know, maybe we should be allowed to shoot anybody we want because nothing in the Second Amendment forbids it.

    (I'm just trying to draw a smartass parallel, Porter. Just in case you're intercepting this. Which I'm sure you are.)

    You have got to be freaking kidding me. :mad:
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    public humiliation, my ass. i'm sick of this "above the law" crap.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    BTW, here's some confirmation of that:

    Link
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Your system is in serious trouble, it seems to me.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    This is what happens when one party is allowed to run the entire show. But to be sure, I don't know if government officials testifying under oath in committee hearings is SOP. I believe it is, but I'm not certain.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #9
    Didn't everybody who appeared before the 9/11 Commission have to be sworn in...except for a certain faux Texan and his oily puppetmaster?
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    It is perfectly legal... with a warrant. No warrant means no reason, which is against the Constitution. Unless they secretly made an amendment that's counter to everything this country stands for, they broke the law. Even worse, they tried to cover it up and lied about it. They admit to trying to find "the source" who "leaked" the info to the press, which means it was a secret program. They claimed they were using warrants when spying, which they weren't, even though they are easy to get. And this doesn't hurt our intel gathering or national security at all, because the only new info is that they didn't use warrants. In a sane world, this would be pretty open and shut.

    But I guess it's ok if you're a Republican and the terrorists are out to get us. Odd that people are so willing to let our military people die for "freedom", while calling it supporting the troops, but will give up their own freedoms for the perception of safety. Wonder how they'd feel if a Democrat was doing it.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Funny that when the subject was steroids all the ball players were sworn in, yet Gonzales isn't...

    My it's nice to hold all the cards now, isn't it? I wonder if Janet Reno ever had to give sworn testimony before the GOP-led Congress?

    Public humiliation my ass.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Just makes him look more guilty. I mean, isn't their line of defense that if you're innocent you have nothing to hide? So why are they hiding? What are they hiding?

    (ironically yes, cuz they're guilty, and all sorts of things we don't even know about... yet)
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    You said it, its a show party , look at me we are looking into it . Its a joke just as the attorney general is joke who hasnt a clue what liberty is nor what the constitution means and who it protects. This clown was saying the president can do whatever without a congress intervention if you read between his words. Goose stepping republicans pretending to look into the president breaking law but its all for pure show. Swear his stinking republican goostepping butt in!
     

Share This Page