Leahy: Can you show us in the authorization for use of military force what is the specific language you say that’s authorizing wiretapping of Americans without a warrant?
Gonzales: Sir, there is no specific language, but neither is there specific language to detain American citizens. And the Supreme Court said that the words “all necessary and appropriate force” means all activities fundamentally incident to waging war.
Leahy: Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens? That you can answer yes or no.
Gonzales: There is all kinds of wild speculation about…
Leahy: Mr. Attorney General, you’re not answering my question. I’m not asking you what the president authorized. Does this law — you’re the chief law enforcement officer of the country — does this law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens, yes or no, under your interpretation?
2007-02-27 02:06:56 · 6 answers · asked by Timothy B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The answer was a simple "yes" or "no." Gozales tried to spin. he DID have time to answer.
2007-02-27 02:14:11 · update #1
How on earth is that a "non sequitor question?" He is the top law enforcement officer in the country. The question is does he believe the president has the power. Why is that a "non sequitor question?"
2007-02-27 02:15:29 · update #2
The problem seems to be that even under oath government officials will lie.
We've seen it time and time again from members of both parties.
Whether you like Leahy's politics---you can't help but thank him and the others of the committee to try to keep habeus corpus in play.
We cannot afford to suspend our constitutionally protected rights in the supposed fear of terrorism!
Can any American really not see that through these practices the administration has the power to pull any political selfish spying they want with no fear of opposition!?!?
How much power do we really want the government to have over their citizens?
2007-02-27 02:40:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since Leahy was asking "under your interpretation," Gonzales should have answered - YES. That's the answer I would have given.
Presidents have had the authority to intercept enemy communications, even to or from US citizens, in wartime. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit it.
If FDR could get his hands on communications of US citizens collaborating with the Nazis, you can bet he would, and not depend on a court to run the war for him.
2007-02-27 10:45:08 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please reread and think about the response to Leahys' question;
can you show us in the authorization for use of military force and
wiretapping of Americans without warrant -- believe his reference
to the highest court in the land and their decision on the legally
should suffice as "question answered".
In that he was interrupted before finishing his response to the
question about 1st class mail, Check out the Domestic Mail
Manual if you truly want the answer --- Postal inspectors open 1st
class mail ANYTIME they determine probable cause. -- Inspectors
are nothing more than Postal policemen/women.
Personally, feel a lot of neutrality towards most hearings conducted
by any government group, -- it's a bunch of political posturing.
2007-02-27 10:24:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why should the Attorney General have to answer a non sequitor question from a proven idiot Senator that has leaked classified information to the public more than once in his career?
2007-02-27 10:13:12 · answer #4 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is typical politician talk. Have you ever seen a politician answer a question that might show him/her as they really are? They are all in it for the money and don't get in their way. Also don't you ever question their patriotism.
2007-02-27 10:13:01 · answer #5 · answered by Arthur 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Leahy did not let the AG answer cause he did not want an answer. Leahy just wants to help the terrorists.
2007-02-27 10:11:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋