JOHN W. DEAN: Bush Has Made A Fool of Gonzales & He Ought To Resign

[kpete]

Gonzales claimed that "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution."

The Controversy over Curtailing Habeas Corpus Rights
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-01-27 01:41. Impeachment
Why It Is a Bad Day For The Constitution Whenever Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Testifies?
By JOHN W. DEAN

................................

Whatever the explanation, one thing is clear: Gonzales's latest testimony provided a micro-moment of how the Bush/Cheney Administration does business, and how it plays fast and loose with Americans' fundamental rights.

.........................

This kind of practice might be common on used car lots, but should not be common in our government. Gonzales missed the bottom line: The President had rendered Gonzales's word worthless, and since a person is only as good as his or her word, he had thus dishonored Gonzales. Therefore, Gonzales ought to have resigned - as I believe many Attorneys General before him would have done.

In sum, the President made a fool of his Attorney General. As a result, it is not likely Gonzales's word will soon be trusted by the Senate Judiciary Committee (even when it is given under oath). As a result, the President will not enjoy additional powers for, as Senator Specter pointed out, "He can't get the power unless Congress gives it to him."

....................

So, presumably, if Gonzales is correct, the President could do away with any or all of these rights; since they were not expressly granted by the Constitution, he is free to do so. After all, if Gonzales' view were correct, the right of habeas corpus has not been expressly granted, suggesting it does not really exist. Why would not the same result occur for other rights referred to, but not established in so many words, in the Constitution? Fortunately, the Attorney General's approach is wrong.


more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17803

[notadmblnd]

1. I swear it's their freaking egos that drive these creeps.

I've found myself stunned the past six years by their arrogance. It's just a game to them, they don't care that their policies tragically effect real peoples lives. Their attitudes are that; the only real people that exists are them. They'll avoid answering a direct question about our rights or imply that we have no rights because they're not written down in the constitution specifically. And if they were, then they'd just use the excuse that they were listed in importance of order to argue ways of eliminating them.

I really hate the effect these human sleeze balls have had my life these past six years. It's not just the change in my lifestyle and adjusting to living on 1/3 the income that bothers me.. What bothers me the most is how cynical and angry I've become.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Face it, the Bush administration IS the enemy and

we ARE fighting them over here!

[WiseButAngrySara]

3. LOL! Gonzales; the fool and the 'used car salesperson'!

:kick:
k(pete)nr!

[PATRICK]

4. In principle he should be asked

whether he serves the law and his oath of office or the president? Whether he sees no problem bending and interpreting or ignoring the former to serve the primary needs of the Pres. Whether his office is an insignificant rubber stamp for any occupant of the Oval Office. Whether even in a time of war his tole had any meaning or justification.

Would he like to elucidate the limits of his advocacy of the executive in ANY matter of conflicting law?
The president acting insane and waving a pistol in his face? Why should he not be impeached for a conflict of Constitutional interest or as still acting as the private counsel to his client instead of his public office.

Should be impeached immediately using the immediate grounds of international and national violations of law. if the president wants him he can have him. Mr.AG G. serves only a criminal purpose in relationship to the nation.

[peacetalksforall]

14. During his nomination hearing - he specifically said he was for the law.

He now says and practices the exact opposite.

[PATRICK]

17. Then he is screwed

If the Congress takes either seriously. Actions define the meaning of words and the room or restrictions created by words show he is in violation of his oath of office. Or plain nutty incompetent. Let him say which.

[peacetalksforall]

21. If a couple of writers were playing around with a script about this President

they could pick up at a univesity where the young future President is in a bragging session about the value of loyalty, but more so about the degree with which the student could take revenge (or has already taken revenge) when betwrayed - with tidbits about what could be done with the skill and also how to take and keep control so that loyalty is sustained.

Then, if they leapfrogged to this President - they could write about growing delusion, chest thumping, back slapping, being born into a certain circle of friends, and most importantly, rising to a position where he put his foot down and how it complicated everything.

He gets picked after many long sesseions at all kinds of one sided think tank sessions in which he and the VP are picked. The VP leads a group who has been given permission to be the honcho in a scheme that the shakers and the baron-movers have approved - which is military-corporate-media centered in addition to coming down on citizens and foreigners with every little trick from the history books and with nothing new except what technology, chemistry, and mind control might have come up with. It involves paying off the right people and finding the right people to partner with.

The star is given the role of fund raiser and vote keeper, but because of fragility of ego and the effects of chemistry, mind control fixers prop him up with all kinds of lies so that he ends up thinking that he really is the decision maker. When he picks up signals that he isn't he puts his foot down (and early scene is on a day they kept him up in the air. literally, until he said he wanted to go home and be President on camera).

The script would have to include how the barons approved his selction and tidbits into who they might be and how they communicate with their operatives - think tankers, front foundations, associations who arrange for plants - from the Larry Franklin types to those they groom for mere civic jobs to or those they groom and sign up to use as future federal judges.

The script would explore the question of what your would do if you had unlimited money and were as determined to see how far you could go to rule people and take the earth resources right out from under their feet (oil, water, minerals, real estate-Katrina forests, private and public military and taxpayers who are willing to pay till it hurts) combined with the arrogance to do it - wouldn't you?

The script would have to contain ongoing sessions of insightful punches of analyitical narration in coffee-cocktail type settings that would explain the arrogance and intentions.

For action - a Congress that grows guts?

Yeah, I think blackmail, ultra sinister secret deals, and a mind set that we could never have imagined. It needs to be the focus of more attention than it gets. I think we are all truly gullible and stupid for letting everyone think that it's just a little bit skewed to evil.

[MasonJar]

5. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Put this op ed in every paper that will run it.

[Zodiak]

6. The pukes use this argument a lot

"There is no right to privacy in the Constitution" is one of their favorites.

They forget the 9th Amendment. Behold the beauty of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That's right....amendment 9 says "hey, we know we put some rights in the Constitution, but this list is not all-inclusive, so don't think of it that way."

[Swamp Rat]

7. Gonzales is not smart enough to understand that Bushler has made him into a fool.

Maybe he will realize after he is disbarred in Texas.

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. I don't think B* is 'smart enough' to understand! ....n/t

[Parisle]

9. The Judiciary Committee missed a great opportunity

--- Somebody,.... Specter,.. Leahy,... whomever,.... should have at some point blurted out, "Alberto, you goddamned snivelling little wetback fascist thug,... get out of these chambers!" and then called upon their Sgt-at-Arms to escort Gonzales out of the room.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

12. The term "wetback" is offensive.

Otherwise, I agree.

[rman]

10. Both Bush and Gonzalez are mocking the constitution,

Bush hasn't made Gonzalez into anything - except that he made him Attorney General.

[nannah]

11. They have methodically altered the legal landscape,

they are defending their position, they have put in place via signing statements and subtle and not so subtle policy changes: opening all mail, warrantless wire tapping, now with a blanket warrant so it's no longer warrantless, they have fired federal prosecutors and replaced them with cronies...the list goes on. and the changes they are making don't seem to be the kind they would want to hand off to an unknown successor. it is very worrisome.

cheer me up. help me see i am wrong. i am very encouraged by the libby trial, but we are really turning up the pressure on the cabal.

[nannah]

16. remember the language Lieberman used in the hearings with petreaus?

he used the term "comfort to the enemy" to describe efforts to limit president's choices. later he tried to back peddle, but the language will be in the record. they tend to respond to pressure very aggressively; are they able to push back legally against the congress as a whole or those that oppose them?????

remember the change to the whistle blower law a few years ago? people who, in the course of their job duties, make revealing or opposing statements are not protected by whistle blower law. at the time i thought it was an odd twist as it seems to me that those whose work is in oversight should be protected in their ability to be objective, so the law caught my attention at the time. now it is just another piece of dis empowering legislation added to the mix.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. K/R

I couldn't believe my ears when Gonzo presented that absurd theory about Habeas Corpus.

When I was a schoolboy, I and others at Daniel Webster Junior High School in Stockton, California studied world history. In the unit on World War II, we were given the state-approved facts about the difference between fascism and democracy. Under democracy, we were told, the rights of the citizen were considered natural and inalienable; under fascism, no citizen had any right that was not grated to him by the state.

There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution.

In which spirit is that remark?

[texpatriot2004]

15. Thank you Mr. Dean nm

[quiet.american]

18. The only wrong assumption in Dean's article is that Bush and Gonzales are not in cahoots.

Gonzales was not made a fool of by Bush, because they are two diabolical peas in a pod. However, as we all know, the two of them in tandem have made a fool of this country while wearing identical arrogant smirks.

[wiggs]

19. Gonzales is still acting like Bshs personal attorney, not US Attorney General nt

[gratuitous]

20. If Gonzales had a shred of self-respect, he would resign

But he eats big steaming heaps of shit with a smile on his face, because he has no self-respect. He's proved it over and over again, confounding people who expect high government officials to have some integrity. This is no surprise to anyone who's watched Gonzales with even a modicum of discernment over the years. Dean's column, while right and true, will not make one iota of difference to a shameless administration.

[indepat]

22. Gonzales' word is as worthless as his service is dangerous

[scarletwoman]

23. k & r -- although I think Dean gives Gonzales too much benefit of the doubt.

Gonzales is a willing co-conspirator in the Bushite Constitution-destroying project, he's not some hapless dupe.

sw

[Kurovski]

24. K&R.(nt)