Reining In Gonzales

The New Republic: Democratic Congress Must Rebuff Bush's Attorney General

(The New Republic)  This column was written by the editors of The New Republic.

---

Ever since he became attorney general, Alberto Gonzales's appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee have followed a grimly familiar script: Gonzales blandly announces that the president can do whatever he likes in the war on terrorism. Republicans fulsomely praise him for defending the homeland. Democrats sputter that he is asserting the right to break the law and ask whether he will acknowledge any limits on executive power. Gonzales promises to get back to them after talking to his "principal" — that is, Bush. And he concedes nothing.

Last week, all that seemed to change. First, the administration appeared to reverse itself dramatically on its warrantless wiretap program, announcing that it would now submit to judicial review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court. A day later, when Gonzales made an appearance before the Senate — his first since the Democrats took control — he found himself assailed by members of both parties. Republican Senator Arlen Specter suggested that the "heavy criticism" the administration had invited by refusing to subject its terrorist surveillance program to judicial review may have contributed to the Republicans' loss of a "close election" and harmed the nation's reputation. Democrats showed a newfound aggression in refusing to accept Gonzales's obfuscations and promising to follow up with congressional investigations.

But actual circumstances might not have changed very much. First, the administration's wiretap reversal may be less than meets the eye. Senators from both parties expressed relief that the administration had finally abandoned its unsupervised surveillance program and agreed to apply for warrants from the secret FISA court. But few were satisfied with Gonzales' refusal to provide basic details about the new program, such as whether the government would be required to seek warrants for specific cases or could be broadly warranted to wiretap large categories of individuals. (President Bush himself suggested the latter in an interview, claiming that "nothing has changed in the program, except the court has said we've analyzed it [and] it is a legitimate way to protect the country.") When pressed on this point, Gonzales again resorted to stonewalling. Though Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy noted that the head of the secret surveillance court had agreed to release the decision endorsing the new program as long as the administration agreed, Gonzales said he would need to consult his "principal" before responding.

But Gonzales did not merely refuse to give an inch about the revisions to the surveillance program. He also refused to say whether the administration had the authority to open the mail of American citizens without a warrant — a clearly illegal act. And he refused to explain a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute, in which he declared that "a judge will never be in the best position to know what's in the national security interest of the country" — an assertion of unilateral prerogative that almost dares judges to review cases arising from the war on terrorism.

The time for congressional patience with Gonzales' evasions has long past. The highest priority for the new congressional oversight that we can expect from Democrats should be to hold the Bush administration accountable for its lawless claims of executive unilateralism. This means, as Leahy recognized, that the Democrats should hold hearings on whether the Bush administration broke the law in the past.

But investigations into past abuses are not enough. The new Democratic Congress will also have to pass laws that restrict the executive branch's unilateralism in the future. To begin with, it should pass regulations making clear that the FISA court can only issue warrants for surveillance when an individual (or an identified group of individuals) is suspected of being a foreign spy or a terrorist, as the law requires, rather than authorizing the surveillance of broad categories of unidentified individuals. The Democrats will also have to pass new laws regarding military trials of detainees at Guantánamo, since those adopted by the administration last week are painfully inadequate. The administration and its allies will, no doubt, argue publicly that such laws will tie its hands in the war on terrorism and imply that anyone voting for them is abetting America's enemies. But holding the unilateralists in the administration accountable will require commitment and a willingness to defy the polls.

It's all very well that Democrats and Republicans have lost patience with Gonzales' sorry evasions. But now it's time for them to do more.

[walt1944-2009]

It's nice to think that the Democratic Congress will create legislation to try and restrict the power Bush has hoarded in the Executive branch, but everyone knows that if any kind of legislation makes it to the Oval Office, either Bush will veto it, or attach a "signing statement" to it exempting himself and anyone in his cabinet from it. "Dictator-types" like Bush are power hungry and find ways to protect their power base from attack

The only way for Congress is to really flex its muscle and show Bush who really is "the decision-maker" here by starting impeachment proceedings on not just Bush, but Cheney too, and censuring Rice, Rove, Gonzales and any other Bush crony for obstructing justice, perjury, and any other crime everyone knows they have committed.

[observantx]

Gonzalez has been the mouthpiece for Darth Cheney who keeps whittling away at the powers of Congress and the Judiciary and assuming those powers to the president under the premise that the president is or somehow has a "unitary executive power" (aka "king")

Gonzalez is a craven stooge who has stated contrary to what is written in our Constitution, that no citizen of this country is guaranteed or assured of the right of habeus corpus, which is the right to challenge imprisonment.

Gonzalez has been stonwalling Congress on almost every single abuse of power that Darth Cheney has put into motion. Warrantless wiretaps? Oh, too inconvenient to ask FISA for the warrant! Extraordinary rendition? Oh, don't wory about that. Torture? Oh, no. It's just intensive Interrogation methods.

Gonzalez needs to end up in the cell next to Cheney and Deluded Leader when the time comes. His behavior has been treasonous.

[feelfree1]

Gonzoles is what is known as a "domestic enemy" of our Constitution, & he will be remembered as a skidmark on the underpants of history.

[knyghtwolf]

Wonder if WE, THE PEOPLE, should appeal to the United Nations in support to remove these idiots from office? The bush Administration is guilty of nothing less than WAR CRIMES and according to law, it(bush), ***(less)Cheney, herr Rumsfeld, & federale illegal Gonzales & his side dish Condi Rice should be tried by a jury of their peers. Hmmm, anyone else smell the brewings of a civil war?

[bluestardad]

disbar this chimp and put him in Jail with cheney and bush! it is sure he is full of Bushitt!

[egresor]

yes----again and again gonzales has shown what he and bush/cheney think nothing of our constitution.

it's something to be ignored or evaded and stonewalled when questioned for clearly violating it, but the congress doesn't have the guts to hold their feet to the fire. the statement that wiretaps will be submitted to FISA is merely another ploy. when in fact they have a strategy to evade actually following it.

it is an impeachable offense under our constitution. congress makes the laws and the president (as we all are) is required to obey them. he has no special exemption because of the war on terror.
(that's why FISA was created)
by failing to obey constitutionally established laws he is in contempt of the law and the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors is applicable.

misdemeanor in the constitution isn't the same (obviously) as that we see in the police reports. in our constitution the seriousness is shown in that it's an acceptable cause for removal from office. at it's framing elected officials were held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens.

here is the definition of it:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

so is bush guilty of high crimes and mis-demeanors?