Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Attorney General Asks Congress to Defy Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU
 
davidbikman Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 08:45 PM
Original message
Attorney General Asks Congress to Defy Supreme Court
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 08:50 PM by davidbikman
To begin understanding what happened today during the Attorney General's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you need to read both the Times' and WaPo's accounts. Neither of them, however, fully communicate the horror of BushCo's relationship with the rule of law.

David Stout of the Times leads with Gonzales' suggestion that Congress should simply ignore the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Hamdan and approve the Bush administration's rules on military tribunals. As Patrick Leahy asked Gonzales during the hearing:

"The question is very specific. Is it the administrations position, as one of your assistants suggested, that we should simply ratify the military-commission procedures that the president designed and the Supreme Court struck down in Hamdan?"

"That would certainly be one alternative that Congress could consider, Senator Leahy," the attorney general replied.

The nation's chief law enforcement officer has just suggested that the U.S. Congress legislate in clear defiance of the Supreme Court. Am I the only one who's neck hairs are standing on end?

David Stout's story rightly notes that it was Bush who prevented the Justice Department's internal watchdogs from vetting the legality of the domestic wiretap program, but lets Gonzales' justification (that too many clearances would have jeopardized the security of the program) skate without challenge. It's Dan Eggen's story in the Post that points out that many attorneys at Justice were given clearance in order to carry out a criminal investigation of how the program was leaked; it was only those lawyers whose responsibility it was to advise on the program's legality who were blocked from looking at it. A clearer display of this administration's priorities can't be found.


* * Always Read More at Times/WaPo Watch * *
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to DU, davidbikman, and thanks for this valuable
compilation. In the heat of the current news and busy lives, I'm afraid many might have missed what happened today. Thanks for rectifying that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R, and another welcome to you.
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 09:22 PM by Kurovski
Thank you.

Edit: glad to see you've returned.:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Our RW USSC only wanted Congress to OK system - Gonzales is correct
The 3 choices are

1. simply ratify the military-commission procedures that the president designed (near no rights fpr the accused)

2. use Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ - and Court Martial (most rights given accused), or

3. a blend of the above two.

Gonzales indicated Bush was OK with either 1, or 3 above, implying Court Martial rules gave the accused too many rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. this is really useful, did you find any reports on the other news that
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 09:30 PM by notadmblnd
came out of gonzos testimony today? I'm talking about the fact that the president doesn't have any authority under the War Powers Act because there was no declaration of war, only authorization to use military force?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Excellent point.
I hope people are paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 07th 2022, 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC