Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush personally stopped eavesdropping probe

Posted by Rachel Neumann at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2006.


Gonzales points the finger at the President.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rachel Neumann in your
mailbox!

 

There really is something in the Justice Department called the Office of Professional Responsibility, unfortunately, it seems to be on an extended margarita vacation. After all, it announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the blatantly illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Why couldn't it? According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it's because the President wouldn't grant investigators "security clearance" to investigate.

It was pretty clear from the beginning that Bush had personally authorized the National Security Agency to monitor — without court warrants — the international communications of people on U.S. soil. But why no one from the Justice Department challenged that authorization, on the grounds of is blatant illegality, can only be explained by blatant cowardice.

But hey, it's all water under the bridge, right? Bush has realized that with this Congress, he can just get them to pass a new law that says he doesn't need any authorization to spy on U.S. citizens. So let me get this straight. If the President says so, then he can do whatever he wants. If Congress says so, the President can do whatever he wants. Funny thing is, if you look at the Office of Perfessional Responsibility's Website, it's clear they are a few attorneys short. They's got the job posting right here. Any takers?

Digg!

Rachel Neumann is Rights & Liberties Editor at AlterNet.


No "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Turns out men don't have a "right to procreate," although they do have a right to prevent procreation.
July 24, 2006.
Just two questions
Does testing high schoolers for drugs make them do more drugs? Does being on the list of potential terrorist targets insure you'll be visited by terrorists?
July 12, 2006.
Belated anti-hybrid hype
What's the deal with marriage and isn't there a cheaper way for us to use less gas?
July 6, 2006.
Death=innocence
When is a criminal conviction not a criminal conviction?
July 5, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush Interfering in An Investigation?
Posted by: aussidawg on Jul 18, 2006 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, is this surprizing? Nawww, not in the least.

This is just one more example of Bush's blatent "in your face" attitude towards the laws of this country. Every single time anyone tries to investigate wrong doing by the Bush gang, they pull the security claim. It should be more than obvious that the only security at stake is Bush's personal security. The republican congress then tries to pass retroactive laws allowing Bush to continue to evade the law.

Folks, it may not do any good, but we at least need to try to restore the balance of power in the House and Senate. This one party rule just isn't cutting the cake. Bush needs to be held accountable for breaking the law, and for now, the only way to possibly make this happen is to return to a bi-partisan congress. This may not work either, especially considering the recent display of impotence by the democrats in both the House and Senate. It is however, our first option, and if successful, our best option. If, and, when balance is restored, the status quo remains, then, we must seriously come up with and implement a "Plan B" option.

Regardless of what the November elections bring, we must regain control of our government before it is too late...that is if it isn't already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush Interfering in An Investigation?sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
It's not "eavesdropping" but "domestic spying."
Posted by: wli on Jul 19, 2006 2:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using the word "eavesdropping" is accepting the right-wing frame that trivializes the offense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Than an Office Needed...
Posted by: kenadrian on Jul 19, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that if Bush can do this sort of thing with his existing powers as President and NOT be impeached then your beautiful country's governance is at risk. There appears to be several systemic problems with the powers of the President that make it difficult to test the legality of some of his behaviour.

There needs to be some sort of oversight on the powers of any American president... perhaps some form of committee that does not respond to his Office in any way but reports only to Congress. In any event, I don't believe that the Office of Professional Responsibility will be able to do the job because that agency appears to lie within the dominion of his existing powers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]