Gonzales is in the hot seat all day today, so I figured we should have a thread to discuss this. Should be interesting!
Nina Totenberg did her usual excellent job of summarising the issues and the law on NPR this morning. This link will take you to a page where you can click to listen to it.
I should note I posted the link above not as an “answer” to the OP but rather as something to help flesh out the issues surrounding all this and perhaps aid in the debate.
So why did Specter refuse to swear him in? This isn’t an afternoon get together for tea and biscuits; or maybe it is.
Seemed like was just a power play by the Pubs-- don’t do what the Dems want. Gonzales said he was OK with being sworn in.
This is what pisses me off about the debate…
Right now on CSPAN, Debra Burlingame (wife of AA pilot killed on 9/11) is talking about how this program is “vital to the national security”. That is not the issue. The issue is the legality of the program. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it ain’t legal we need to either make it legal or scuttle it.
I wonder why Gonzales won’t testify under oath. Makes me think he’s got his fingers crossed behind his back.
Well, since Bill Clinton got away with lying under oath, there’s just no point in administering oaths anymore.
We have no officially had 100% of our daily requirement of The Clinton Excuse. We now return you to the merits of this debate, already in progress…
Maybe because he’s already in trouble with Feingold for intimating that the NSA program was only a “hypothetical” when he was questioned at his confirmation hearings. Cite
It’s been a traditional courtesy to high Administration officials not to swear them in, since that has overtones of accusing them of untrustworthiness. It’s been done in the past, though, on issues that became contentious based on those official’s performance or character rather than policy disagreements. I remember George Schulz resigning as SecState shortly after being sworn in at a hearing, claiming he couldn’t do the job if he wasn’t trusted.
Then, too, a witness under oath (and risking legal penalties) is naturally going to be extremely careful about saying anything, and may just dummy up. If the purpose of the hearing is to draw him out, the oath is entirely counterproductive.
Besides, despite SteveMB’s disclaimer, “the Democrats do it too. Or, well, they would if they could, anyway”. 
Sometimes, I feel that Feingold is the only one in DC who isn’t a completely worthless sac of shit.
I wish we had more of him.
-Joe
Exactly what qualifies Debra Burlingame to tell us how vital this is? She lost a husband and of course she has our deepest sympathies. But that doesn’t make her an expert on intelligence nor does it give her opinion any more weight than mine.
But, as XaMcQ pointed out in this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355583 – it is a crime for a witness to lie to Congress whether placed under oath or not.
More frustrating for me is that “it’s vital to the national security” is a clear lie. Monitoring al Qaeda is vital; doing it without a warrant is not. They could do everything they claim to need to do with warrants.
And that difficult concept is subtle enough to fool the masses, I fear.
Yeah, I’m sure he’s shaking in his boots…
I gotta say I’m very disappointed so far. Of course, I probably had pretty unrealistic expectations going in. This committee really can’t determine if this program is legal or not. Only the Courts can do that. It’s just a bunch of partisan lawyers bickering about the program, and I think the administration has already determines that the more this get played out in the court of public opinion the better it is for them. I wonder what the next step in this process is…?
True. He may care even less than you what a bunch of Congresspersons think about the program.
True again. I doubt we’ll get the details we need to make a truly informed judgment about the legality/constitutionality of the program. I do think, however, that the hearings are a good thing, for the simple reason that Congress is not just being a rubber stamp to the President’s determination that he is not violating any law. From the very little I’ve seen, Gonzalez hasn’t added anything beyond their already released statements, so it’s kinda a wash. Although Congress can’t determine the finality of the illegal/unconstitutional issue, they can at least define the issue a little better.
Of course, because the Republican machine will simply continue to portray the President’s actions as protecting the country against terrorism, and that the Democrats don’t have the fortitude/ability to protect the country. Little things like the truth and the Constitution don’t carry as much weight with public opinion as fear mongering and maverick sensibilities.
2 weeks of the usual talking heads saying the President is doing his damndest to protect the nation while the Democrats want to make it easier for the terrorists to attack America. Beyond that, I’m not sure how the issue would get to SCOTUS for a determination or how long it would take to get the issue resolved. We had to wait a couple years for Padilla and Hamdi, so, whatever happens, it won’t matter for a long time. Well past when it will matter at all.
I love the Republican questions. They don’t even need Gonzales there, they just need a dummy that says “yes, I agree”.
Man, Biden just had a good row of questions. (I think it was Biden, I’m listening on the radio and it’s hard to ID voices sometimes.) Gonzales didn’t have any good answers, but they were still good questions.
Well, you must not be listening very well, or you’re jumping to conclusions without listening to the whole thing. Lindsey Graham right now is throwing some hardball questions at Gonzales.
You’re right. I should have restricted my complaint to the ones who are toeing the party line.