Alberto Gonzales: No Respector of the 4th Amendment

Published on April 9, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

In testimony this past week, Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on domestic conversations, in direct defiance of the fourth amendment and multiple high court rulings.

When the wiretap story broke, we were assured that the only warrantless wiretaps that were allowed in America were international calls that included a terror suspect on one or both sides of the conversation, despite the fact that under FISA law warrants can be obtained AFTER the fact. Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has refused to rule out warrantless wiretaps of American citizens on domestic calls.

The problem with this whole issue is that most Republicans have been as quick to defend the Bush administration, even when his actions are indefensible, as others have been to criticize him even when his actions are correct. There is absolutely NO SCENARIO under which the erasure of the Bill of Rights is acceptable. We have checks and balances for a reason, and the President does NOT have unlimited powers, even in time of war. The courts and the legislature exist for the reason of preventing the President's ability to exercise dictatorial control, an ability that the lock-step Republicans are all too willing to give him.

If this administration does not watch out, the GOP support base could erode as quickly as the Democrat support base appears to be eroding. There are too many Americans who cherish our liberties to see them brushed off at the whim of one man with a God complex, and those Americans may well speak loud and clear in November. If this does not happen, the death of democracy is all but imminent, as Gonzales' decree has all but negated one of the ten Bill of Rights, and if we give him this authority, it is only a matter of time until the other 9 are removed.

Gonzales' testimony gave a clear basis for the legislature to explore the possibility of impeachment. If it can be proven that Bush HAS ordered warrantless wiretaps of American citizens on domestic calls, he has CLEARLY violated the United States Constitution he swore to uphold. An investigation needs to be initiated NOW for the GOP to maintain its power base, and the chips need to fall where they may. Otherwise, we owe the Nixon family an apology.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Apr 09, 2006

There is absolutely NO SCENARIO under which the erasure of the Bill of Rights is acceptable. We have checks and balances for a reason, and the President does NOT have unlimited powers, even in time of war.

Tell that to FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, et. al. After they concur, then we will attack Bush.

bakerstreet

on Apr 09, 2006

You have some reference to a case wherein a domestic wiretap was ordered? "Could" and "Has" are two different things.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 10, 2006

Baker,

My concluding statement contained an "if...then" statement. I have not stated that Bush is guilty, only that IF he has done this, he needs to be impeached.

Tell that to FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, et. al. After they concur, then we will attack Bush.

Actually, Dr, I consider Lincoln to be one of the WORST presidents as far as respecting the Constitution. Because they did it does NOT make it right.

bakerstreet

on Apr 10, 2006

Why even discuss punishment until a crime has at least been REPORTED? Smacks of Col Gene's tactics to associate a crime with the President before one has been found to have been committed.

bakerstreet

on Apr 10, 2006

"In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.

"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said.

In the past, Gonzales and other officials refused to say whether they had the legal authority to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls, and have stressed that the NSA eavesdropping program is focused only on international communications.

Note that the question here did not refer to US citizens, only domestic calls. How many Americans would have had a problem with intercepting domestic communications between the 9/11 hijackers at the zero hour? Imagine the outrage if something happened while you were waiting on a warrant?

To me, jumping to "explore the possibility of impeachment" is just self-serving political pablum when the question is this vague.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 11, 2006

Baker,

While I know you don't have much respect for third parties, you could at least be independent enough to scrutinize your own party. The fact that we are even DISCUSSING the possibility of wiretapping domestic calls is frightening; what protections do you feel we should have under the 4th amendment?

The presidency was NOT intended to be an arm of the government operating entirely without accountability, even in wartime. Will you continue to defend the president even if the unlikely scenario should play out that he disband Congress and suspend the Constitution entirely? Granted, that's more typical of third world democracies, but given the recent track record of the GOP, I would consider it not entirely beyond the realm of the possible.

Jewbu

on Apr 11, 2006

The price of a free and a democratic society is vulnerability. The outrage should be directed toward those who attack us, not those who defend our privacy under the constitution.

Be well.

bakerstreet

on Apr 11, 2006

"While I know you don't have much respect for third parties, you could at least be independent enough to scrutinize your own party. The fact that we are even DISCUSSING the possibility of wiretapping domestic calls is frightening; what protections do you feel we should have under the 4th amendment?"

People who aren't citizens and who are often here illegally don't enjoy 4th amendment rights. In terms of the 9/11 hijackers which of them deserved to be afforded such care? I'm not defending the abuse of American citizens, I'm insisting that American citizens be abused before people start using the word "impeachment"

...especially during an election year when the standard operating procedure is too see the boogie man in every shadow. Citizens wasting time, tax dollars and effort chasing shadows and undermining governmental authority isn't any different than the government wasting tax dollars chasing shadows and undermining ours.

"The price of a free and a democratic society is vulnerability. The outrage should be directed toward those who attack us, not those who defend our privacy under the constitution."

And yet after every tragedy there's the incessant, politically motivated outcry of "What could the government have done to prevent this!!!" It happened after 9//1, it happened after Katrina. Then, when they undertake measures to prevent such things the Libertarians toss a fit saying they have too much power.

If everyone was a Libertarian I might agree, but when the people of a democratic society ask for more to be done, they grant power to the government. I, and Gideon, and many other people don't like that, but we should accept that our standard isn't the reality for most people. Gideon also differs with 90% of the services that most people, especially you, sodaiho, would be outraged if we did away with them.

When the justice department arrests someone and tries to use such evidence in a court of law, we'll be able to scrutinize their efforts. When there is proof that the government is sifting our communications for hints of terrorism, we should definately address that proof. Hypothetical situations don't count unless you are writing propaganda.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 11, 2006

People who aren't citizens and who are often here illegally don't enjoy 4th amendment rights.

Wrong, Baker. The Constitutional protections were felt by our founding fathers to be given us by our Creator and INALIENABLE. You don't just assign them to citizens. The fourth amendment does not grant Constitutional rights to citizens; it, rather, defines and restricts the power of the US government.

All I ask for is oversight here, Baker. While I'm not crazy about the FISA law's language allowing the government to obtain a warrant 72 hours after the fact, it's not hard to envision a scenario where that could be a necessity. The problem here is that we are granting unlimited authority to a President that was never meant to have such authority.

Can you truthfully say you'd be comfortable if it were a Democratic president asserting the same authority?

negaither

on Apr 11, 2006

Unable to log in for some reason, but regardless -

***Wrong, Baker. The Constitutional protections were felt by our founding fathers to be given us by our Creator and INALIENABLE. You don't just assign them to citizens. The fourth amendment does not grant Constitutional rights to citizens; it, rather, defines and restricts the power of the US government.***

Not necessarily true. It restricts the power of the US government concerning it's citizens. Foreign nationals legally occupying the land are considered, almost without exception, the rights of citizens, although any found engaging in illegal activity can be detained for an indefinite amount of time before being deported or tried. Once a foreign national enters the US legal system, they are afforded full protection due a native or naturalized citizen. Before that time they are not specifically guaranteed any rights, constitutional or not.

negaither

on Apr 11, 2006

Blegh. Can't login, can't edit.

Accidently submitted before I finished. Consider this a continuation of the previous post.

The Supreme Court over the years has ruled on interpretations of "the people" as mentioned in the Constitution, and ruled consistently that application fits any person within the United States. As I mentioned, aliens can be held for indefinite amounts of time when entering or occupying the US. As for domestic protections of privacy, regarding government investigation and spying without warrant, the area is very gray. While it may be nice to say, "All protections equal, regardless of citizenship," it may not always be practical nor prudent. As has been asked countless times, where is the line drawn between protection of citizens and protection of rights? There is no easy answer.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 12, 2006

Not necessarily true. It restricts the power of the US government concerning it's citizens.

Wrong. It restricts the power of the US government concerning ANY person within the United States. The founding fathers felt that our rights were God given and inalienable, and expressed such in another founding document, the Declaration of Independence. When they wrote the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that future governments did not infringe on the rights we already held, in their estimation.

singrdave

on Apr 12, 2006

To clarify,

It restricts the power of the US government concerning ANY person within the United States.

Correct as usual, King Friday. A US citizen, as far as intelligence collection and the 4th Amendment is concerned, is defined as:

1. A citizen of the United States within the US or abroad, including in a war zone.
2. A non-US citizen physically inside the US.
3. An American company or business, multi-national corporation, or transnational corporation whose main offices or head office is within the US, or whose board of directors is predominantly US citizens. (This would actualy be defined as a US entity or US company, but the principle is the same.)

I am not quoting out of any book (hence the poorly worded definitions); I am just citing what the intel community ingrains into us from day one regarding the identity of US persons vis a vis the 4th Amendment.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 12, 2006

I'm gradually becoming a Constitutional scholar, and I am increasingly surprised at the number of ways our Constitution is mistaught in the schools. For anyone wishing to study more, I recommend "Good to be King" by Michael Badnarik; and "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" by the Heritage Foundation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!