According to Scoop from New Zealand,The Massachusetts School of Law issued a press release in which Constitutional scholar David Adler contends that George Bush has claimed more powers for himself than King George III was able to do.
“No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power,” said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. “George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England.”
"Adler said, Bush has “claimed the authority to suspend the Geneva Convention, to terminate treaties, to seize American citizens from the streets to detain them indefinitely without benefit of legal counseling, without benefit of judicial review. He has ordered a domestic surveillance program which violates the statutory law of the United States as well as the Fourth Amendment.”"
I am so glad a reporter finally asked the question! If it has been considered torture for centuries and we convicted people for it after WWII, why is it not considered torture now? Finally!
The response is typical: Evasion, redirection and refusal to state an opinion. Our representatives are acting like criminals and attorneys at the same time. Is this what we are supposed to teach our children to aspire to? Should we teach them to operate in self-serving ways, be evasive in public and never take responsibility for their actions?
Ted Kennedy: Would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?
Michael Mukasey: ... I would feel that it was.
Mike McConnell: Being a water safety instructor and teaching people to swim, he said. “Well, what about if water goes up your nose?” And I said that would be torture. That would be very painful to me.
Unidentified Reporter: American prosecutors actually obtained convictions against Japanese after WWII because of what they did to American captives. What about it—makes it not torture now? Is it just the circumstances?
Tony Fratto: I don’t think that’s a question I can answer… I'd refer you to DOJ on that.
Apparently, I was not the only person to be offended by Alberto Gonzales being named "Attorney of the Year" by the ABA and Mukasey being predicted to win the title in 2008. The initial clarification regarding the title came from editor and publisher Edward A. Adams when he told an AP reporter:
"Think about Time magazine's Person of the Year," Adams said in an interview. "In years past they've named people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin. So we're not suggesting by these awards that these are the best lawyers in any sense of the word. We are saying they are the most newsworthy _ and perhaps also the best."
According to a recent editor's note on the ABA website, Alberto Gonzales has been stripped of the title "Attorney of the year" and more appropriately named "Newsmaker of the Year".
You can see my original article withthe picture that originally appeared on the website here.
Here is a clip from the most recent editor's note I could locate on the topic:
When this article was posted online on December 12, 2007, it was titled “Lawyers of the Year 2007 and 2008.” The article defined that term as the year’s biggest legal newsmaker, identifying former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as the major newsmaker of 2007. The Journal regrets that we did not make this theme clear.
We appreciate the feedback we’ve received, and we’re acting on it. So that there can be no confusion, the term “Lawyers of the Year” has been changed in the headline and story to “Newsmakers of the Year.” The story is otherwise unchanged from its original version.
Thank you for speaking up for our civil rights. Thank you for representing the people. Watch her in the video below as she speaks regarding SB (Senate Bill) 1927. This isn't likely to replayed on Fox like a Paris Hilton clip.
Anyone want to know which of our "representatives" felt it important to give away our civil rights? Peak at the roll call here. They called this the Protect America Act (S 1927). Yes, this is truly beginning to upset me. Please say it upsets you and contact your representatives. Please start doing something. 20 minutes a day to a better country!
There were 227 votes in favor of making it totally legal for Big Brother to spy on you. 183 of our representatives voted to maintain some semblance of civil rights.
For some humorous insight on Vice President Cheney's most recent scandal of exempting himself from Executive Order 12958 (designed to safeguard classified national security information), I present Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
David Shuster talks about a preliminary House Oversight Committee report on possible violations of the Presidential Records Act by White House officials during an interview with Keith Olberman on MSNBC's "Countdown". The report shows hundreds of thousands of these e-mails have likely been illegally destroyed.
The House Oversight Committee report shows that Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Ken Mehlman, and Alberto Gonzales were all involved. The report also indicates that there are at least 88 other White House officials involved! Susan Ralston was also involved and gave testimony you can read here. It's worth a read. I put it there for a reason...READ IT!!!
The following video is the testimony of James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States on May 15th regarding his version of the events regarding the Whitehouse pressuring the Department of Justice to say a secret program was legal when they could not and would not.
Senator Chuck Schumer is the voice you hear posing the questions to former Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
According to Wikipedia:
In early January 2006, the New York Times, as part of their investigation into alleged domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, reported that Comey, who was Acting Attorney General during the March 2004 surgical hospitalization of John Ashcroft, refused to “certify” central aspects of the NSA program at that time. The certification was required under existing White House procedures to continue the program. After Comey’s refusal, the newspaper reported, Andrew H. Card Jr., White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now Attorney General, made an emergency visit to the George Washington University Hospital, to attempt to win approval directly from Ashcroft for the program.
Wow. Someone actually gave some information while testifying. He also named a few more names and gave his version that can be checked with those named. Things are not looking good for Alberto Gonzales.
Keith Olbermann gets an update from David Schuster in Washington regarding Alberto Gonzales and the Congressional request for information from the administration and the Justice Department. The Justice Department has been refusing to turn over documents and Congress has now subpoenaed the documents. The request includes the full text of the 3000 documents (large portions had been redacted, blacked out or just missing) already received and the Justice Department electronic data and metadata. Bush officials said the information had been censored for privacy issues (protecting the names of prosecutors considered for firing, but are still employed). Critics of the administration say that the documents have been held back because they support allegations that firings were done for purely political reasons. The document, signed by John Conyers has an April 16th 2pm deadline.
Alberto Gonzales is apparently having difficulty maintaining consistency in mock hearings and was advised not to make the morning news circuit. I saw a couple of very brief interviews of him this last week and our slow-pitch reporters had him stumbling, stuttering, and changing his story. Click on the picture below to see the MSN video report.
This short video will give you an amazing look into the mind of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and how the administration views the electorate. In the clip, Senator Patrick Leahy referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that discards habeas corpus. Remember this act was passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate.
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: "I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended."
A speech given on the floor today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said the White House has told her it is going to replace between 5 and 10 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys with its own interim appointees. There are seven that I know of that have resigned in just the past couple of months: Kevin Ryan (San Francisco), Daniel Bogden (Nevada), Carole Lam (San Diego), David Iglesias (New Mexico), Paul Charlton (Arizona), John McKay (Seattle), and Bud Cummins (Little Rock).
All of the attorneys listed above resigned between 12/15/06 and 1/16/07.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says, "...federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy". Read the entire article here.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases."
"In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who "apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.""
