Gonzales just refused to answer if domestic to domestic communications...

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:50 AM
Original message

Gonzales just refused to answer if domestic to domestic communications...

Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 10:52 AM by NNN0LHI

...were spied on by the NSA. This guy is a criminal and he is the attorney general. Michael "Ming The Merciless" Chertoff is watching Alberto's back.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

POAS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:51 AM
Response to Original message

1. where did this occur???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Just now live on CNN n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

POAS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #3

7. Thanks I'll watch for a replay, have the Senate on now

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kralizec

(982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #1

9. cspan2 had a stream as well (nt)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

POAS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #9

15. I had Csapn2 on and they

are covering the Senate live. Do you mean Cspan or cspan3?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kralizec

(982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #15

18. Probably. Sorry 'bout that. (nt)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SpiralHawk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message

2. May I have a clue, please, Sir?

Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 10:53 AM by SpiralHawk

What? When? Where? Why? WTF?

Any of the above will serve to apease me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:53 AM
Response to Original message

4. You know what that means -

the answer is yes. Of course they're listening in on domestic to domestic communications.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrModerate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:54 AM
Response to Original message

5. Right. And remember that torture-apologist Gonzalez . . .

Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 10:55 AM by MrModerate

Was regarded as "too moderate" to be considered for the SCOTUS.

How wacked-out are these people?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:54 AM
Response to Original message

6. The guy is a friggin' lap dog, just sayin' what his boss wants to hear.

He's a politico HO, nothing more. He certainly does NOT deserve the title of attorney, let alone attorney general, when he willingly re-writes/violates U.S. laws and advocates a form of dictatorship and human rights abuses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hart

(24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:56 AM
Response to Original message

8. We need to be logical

If he said Yes; that would be an indicator that he knew they were crossing the line; if he said NO and then found out a computer with an ISP server in the US had been spied on; he would b accused of lying.

It is logical he would not answer the question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #8

10. Otherwise, he'd be admitting a crime had been committed.

Sure, it's logical for a criminal to do that. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #8

11. Except for Michael Moore, Scott Ritter, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean &

...and a few dozen more, they barely crossed the line, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mattclearing

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #8

13. Yes, it is also logical that he would not answer the question if the

answer was yes. And in fact, we already know it is yes, because of reports that environmental groups and PETA were spied on.

Nice try, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tactical Progressive

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #13

16. They just busted a bunch of people from that environmental terrorism group

Earth Liberation Front maybe?

I wonder if they got them via information from this illegal NSA domestic spying program?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

King Coal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #8

14. What else is logical, Hart?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yellowcanine

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message

12. Well there goes their main argument straight into the toilet. And their

Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 11:00 AM by yellowcanine

main argument was pretty shaky to start with. Put a fork in Bush on this issue. Look for him to "work out something" with the Senate Republicans to weasel out of the corner he is in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bobthedrummer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 11:32 AM
Response to Original message

17. Here is a factual (and long) paper prepared for the Electronic Privacy

Information Center (EPIC) by Duncan Campbell in June of 2000. At that time EPIC disregarded the possibility of domestic surveillance. This was published by Cryptome on 12-19=2005.

The title of the paper is "Signals intelligence and human rights: the ECHELON report" and it is valuable to anyone that wants to understand some of the background to the current domestic spying scandal of the administration of George W. Bush.

http://cryptome.org/sigint-hr-dc.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

donsu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message

19. Rice said Gonzales was "the highest legal authority in the country"

saw this at buzzflash but the link wouldn't work for me. so all I had was the above heading.

so, Gonzales is above the Supremes?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bobthedrummer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-22-05 11:51 AM
Response to Original message

20. kick

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WI_DEM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-22-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message

21. Well at least Gonzales will never be on the supreme court

after this--he couldn't get confirmed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:08 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.