Saturday, March 18, 2006

Will the Dems Show a Spine Over Warrantless Searches?

Bush's approval rating has fallen to 33% and the number one word people use to describe Bush was "incompetent", with "idiot" and "liar" not far behind. At the same time Feingold's favorability jumped to 52% following his call for censure, but the Dems haven't been jumping on board like they should. Even Bill Schneider awarded Feingold the "Political Play of the Week" and ridiculed the Dems over it.

Feingold Kicks Ass!Video via Veredictum

Well now Keith Olbermann has given us a heads up for an article in (Atrios) "US News and World Report will tell us tomorrow that Bush administration lawyers (Torture Yoo and Abu Gonzales presumably) after 9/11 made the case that Bush had the power to engage in warrantless physical searches of terrorism suspects on domestic soil."

Warrantless searches! WTF?!? Video Via C&L

[Update] Here's the Article: The Letter of the Law

The White House says spying on terror suspects without court approval is ok. What about physical searches?

Do you think now maybe the Dems, and at least a few Republicans can see their way to making a stand for at least censuring Bush over this? They need to frame the vote as either a vote for or against Bush, and so help anyone who does vote for Bush who thinks it won't be made into a campaign issue.

[Update] Lest anyone think this issue over warrantless searches was just an idea this administration mulled over, check out Gonzales' dodging of the question whether there had ever been warrantless searches during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee...

Washington Post: CQ Transcripts Wire Monday, February 6, 2006

SCHUMER:(...) Has the government done this? Has the government searched someone's home, an American citizen, or office, without a warrant since 9/11, let's say?

GONZALES: To my knowledge, that has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and I'm not going to go beyond that.

SCHUMER: I don't know what that -- what does that mean, under the terrorist surveillance program? The terrorist surveillance program is about wiretaps. This is about searching someone's home. It's different.

So it wouldn't be done under the surveillance program. I'm asking you if it has been done, period.

GONZALES: But now you're asking me questions about operations or possible operations, and I'm not going to get into that, Senator.

SCHUMER: I'm not asking you about any operation. I'm not asking you how many times. I'm not asking you where...

GONZALES: You asked me has that been done.


GONZALES: Have we done something?


GONZALES: That is an operational question, in terms of how we're using capabilities.

SCHUMER: So you won't answer whether it is allowed and you won't answer whether it's been done.

I mean, isn't part of your -- in all due respect, as somebody who genuinely likes you, but isn't this part of your job, to answer a question like this?

GONZALES: Of course it is, Senator.

SCHUMER: But you're not answering it.

GONZALES: Well, I'm not saying that I will not answer the question.


GONZALES: I'm just not prepared to give you an answer at this time....(more)

I'd say we can take that as a yes. These sorry ass motherfuckers don't give a shit about the Constitution. These are absolutely the high crimes and misdemeanors that are supposed to warrant impeachment, and our Congress doesn't even appear willing to censure Bush over it?



Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home