Today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is defending the legality of Dubya’s domestic spying program, and he’s doing so without being sworn in under oath. That means he’s free to say anything he pleases without fear of legal repercussions… in other words, he can lie to Congress and America and we’re expected to accept his testimony as truthful and factual.
Let me ask you all this, what is the point of Senate hearings that do not guarantee a shred of truth? Why wouldn’t you want Congress and America to have confidence in the truth of your words? If there’s nothing to hide, if the program is legal as the Bushies insist, if they want to demonstrate to America that they are NOT corrupt, then put our minds at ease by saying so under oath. Make your words mean something!
This hearing is a joke, but it’s business as usual for the Bush administration. They pulled the same crap when Exxon and Chevron executives testified during the 2005 Senate hearing on big oil price gouging that led to the largest corporate profits in world history. The execs too were liberated from the burden of truth by not being placed under oath. Why? Wouldn’t you like to know?
These hearings are a dog and pony show, and nothing more. Their sole purpose is to enable the Bushies to say, “You got your hearing. We investigated OURSELVES and found nothing wrong or improper (surprise, surprise). Now sit down and shut up.” It’s ridiculous and disgusting. How does anyone believe or trust this administration? They need to answer the questions, and they need to do so under oath.
5 comments:
If they swear him in, he will be liable if he takes the 5th won't he, and he may be required to take it to protect on going investigations .... just a thought
For a data person like me, I want to see the list of all people who have testified without being under oath. then I can tell if this is a common occurence, or if it only occurs under situations like you just mentioned. How many people did previous administrations allow to testify without beign under oath? Where can I find that data?!
But yes--I totally understand your frustration. Anyone (and I pretty much mean anyone) should be under oath when testifying to congress. If there are questions that will cause threats to national security or hurt current investigations, then there should be some sort of exception (except that the exception should require at least two other people to vouch for the exception).
Boy this is getting complicated!
I realize that questions may be asked that could potentially compromise national security, and there should be a moderator to deflect such questions should they arise. However, that doesn't mean that all questions will fall under this category. There are too many questions that the current admistration needs to address that will not compromise national security, and their deflecting tactics are an insult and disservice to the American people.
The bottom line with this domestic spying program is the FISA court allows warrants to be retroactively granted by a judge within 3 days after the spying occurs in peacetime and up to 14 days after the incident during times of war. The Bush administration's justification that they had to act fast is bunk. FISA allows you to act fast and authorize later. Bush had 2 weeks after the fact to tie legal loose ends, but he chose not to. He thinks he's above the law. He actually bragged about his warrantless spying and proudly stated he'll do it again.
Furthermore, the FISA court has a record of granting warrant requests by a President nearly 100% of the time. So, why not go back and make the spying legal, follow the appropriate protocol? That's all the Dems want to understand. History shows that Bush is virtually guaranteed the warrants, so why circumvent the law? Unless, your spying is unlawful... such as spying on political opponents. This could be Watergate for the new millennium, but we may never get the truth because the "family values" president and his administration is all about cover ups.
Will, I'd call your comments more absent-minded than open-minded. Bush has been conducting his unwarranted domestic spying program since before his reelection in 2004, so he most definitely had the incentive to spy on his political opponents. That's the whole point. We don't know WHO he's been spying on. All we know is that he's doing it, and promises to continue even without authorization from FISA. Where is the balance of power?
Why do you think it's irrational to suggest the possiblity that Bush could have spied on his political opponents during the run up to the 2004 election? The Republicans set a precedence for this with Richard Nixon, and Bush's administration is definitely not without corruption (i.e. Tom Delay, "Scooter" Libby, Bill Frist, and all the Republicans linked to Jack Abramoff...If you want to attempt to connect the Dems to Abramoff, then I'll kindly refer you to Howard Dean). I'd like to give the President the benefit of the doubt, as you so willingly do. But he's eroded my trust in him and his administration over the years with all his hypocrisy and lies. I would NOT be surprised if he is found to have spied on the Kerry/Edwards campaign, and it is not irrational to consider this.
Furthermore, of course it matters if you're under oath or not. It ensures the credibility of the court. If it didn't matter, then why bother at all? It's a safeguard for the truth. If you're caught in a lie while under oath, you've committed perjury, which is a felony that bears a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. Without this threat, what guarantee is there for the truth?
I don't appreciate your insuation that I am a conspiracy theorist. All I'm trying to do is raise an awareness of current events and issues amongst my family and friends, and possibly start a dialogue. If you don't agree with what I say, post your disagreement and back it up with facts and sources, rather than comparing me to fanatics and stating that I am close-minded. I most certainly have an open mind... that's why I changed my party affiliation from Republican to Democrat! Dems make a hell of a lot more sense!
David,
You really did your research and raised some important issues... I can't believe how much of this I ignore on a daily basis, feeling helpless and frustrated by it. I guess I'm just so dang jaded by politics right now. I'm glad you're still pissed about all this! Keep bringing this stuff up!
Post a Comment