Gonzales "pleasures the prez"...

[TailgateNut]

who would ever had thunk it?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17607199/

[Dudeskey]

lol, no twenty-something intern? But hey, it wouldn't be the first time in Bush's presidency (see Jeff Gannon)...

[TailgateNut]

He can only live in his make believe world when surrounded by yes-men/ yes-women.

[Rohirrim]

Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush’s secretary of state in Texas. Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general, spokesman Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush in Mexico. said Wednesday during the president’s visit to Mexico. “He’s a standup guy,” Bartlett said of Gonzales.

Gonzales has always been in over his head, like the majority of the Bush cabal. He thinks his job is to make Bush happy first, and protect, preserve and defend the Constitution, second. Gonzales has always viewed the Constitution as an irritating document that gets in the way of what HIS president wants to do. That's why, time after time, he interprets it to mean whatever he wants it to mean. Like so many in the Bush cabal, he lost focus long ago.

[Dudeskey]

I just hope this dude never gets a sniff of the supreme court bench... Viewing the Legislative & Judicial branches as inferior to the executive is a dangerous way of thinking... Not to mention what he said about Habeas Corpus, torture, etc

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Urinal_Cake

I just hope this dude never gets a sniff of the supreme court bench... Viewing the Legislative & Judicial branches as inferior to the executive is a dangerous way of thinking... Not to mention what he said about Habeas Corpus, torture, etc

....as Roh pointed out...Bush thinks he's doing "a heck of a job"...just like to "horse trainer"!

You are correct about how dangerous it is for him to view the justicial branch as being subserviant to the prez. WTF are we allowing to happen to the "system"?
Carte Blanche for George!

[Play2win]

Afterall "Advice" and "consent" are only just WORDS...

[bendog]

Anyone else find bushii's words a bit ironic?

"Any time anybody goes up to Capitol Hill, they've got to make sure they fully understand the facts and how they characterize the issue to members of Congress," Bush said. "And the fact that both Republicans and Democrats feel like that there was not straightforward communication troubles me and it troubles the attorney general. So he took action, and he needs to continue to take action."

[Stormontheplains]

Guys, no matter what GW or Clinton did, my life never changed, is that becuase I don't to break the law?? So when posters talk about losing freedoms I just dont understand.

One other thing, you talk about GW ruining the justice system, but activist judges ruin the judicial system, it is just as bad for a right wing nut to be on the bench as a left wing nut. The right winger will put you in jail for life, the left winger will give the criminal more rights than the victem. I believe both styles suck.

[Crushaholic]

This is Bush giving his friend the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing to see here...

[bendog]

Well, if Bushii passed complaint to Alberto about the attorneys who got fired, then yeah it's a big deal.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

Guys, no matter what GW or Clinton did, my life never changed, is that becuase I don't to break the law??

No, denying habeas corpus to citizens and non-citizens alike is unamerican in itself and a violation of the 6th amendment... If the FBI has been abusing the patriot act, whats stopping the government from abusing the Military commissions act? That law does apply to both citizens and non-citizens alike. If they catch a terrorist, citizen or not, thats fine but let him have his ****in' day in a real court, none of this secrecy BS. Personally I'm w/ what Alexander Hamilton wrote in one of the federalist papers:

To bereave a
man of life, Usays he, or by violence to confiscate his estate,
without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act
of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout
the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly
hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten,
is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS
ENGINE of arbitrary government.

[Stormontheplains]

If terrorist were tried in a "real court" he most likely would get off, and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. What do the military trials cost?? Also on the secrecy, what the hell do we need to know about the trials? The founding fathers werent aware that we would fight enemies without uniform or country. Government needs to be limited, but I take terrorism as you take global warming, all the evidence shows that bush has limited attacks, but you dont believe it.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

If terrorist were tried in a "real court" he most likely would get off, and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Then that is the prosecutions fault for not presenting a strong case & proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If a kangaroo court is needed to prosecute terrorists then that tells me these cases are extermely weak at best by normal criminal court standards. And like I said, whats stopping the govenrment from abusing this power they have on any US citizen?

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

Also on the secrecy, what the hell do we need to know about the trials? The founding fathers werent aware that we would fight enemies without uniform or country. Government needs to be limited, but I take terrorism as you take global warming, all the evidence shows that bush has limited attacks, but you dont believe it.

Because courts are a public domain, and should be treated like such. What does the government have to hide?

I don't think our founding fathers envisioned such a scenario either, but I would believe that their core beleifs in regard to due process would prevail if they were with us today. After what they went through under the thumb of King George, I doubt their opinions would change much, JMO.

I'd love to discuss this w/ you further, but I've gotta go to bed. I run the graveyard shift, have a good one.

[TailgateNut]

It's as if our citizens (or at least a good portion of them) completely lost their sight, hearing and common sense after 9-11.
We (they) have allowed an across the board blank check attitude for anyone in the administration. It's a "do not question" policy, because according to the perpetrators it's all in the name of "national security", "freedom",blah, blah,blah.....
In addition, the administration is not placing personell based on qualifications, they place them based on favors owed. The manipulative nature of the Bush administration is beyond criminal, bordering on treason.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

If terrorist were tried in a "real court" he most likely would get off, and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. What do the military trials cost?? Also on the secrecy, what the hell do we need to know about the trials? The founding fathers werent aware that we would fight enemies without uniform or country. Government needs to be limited, but I take terrorism as you take global warming, all the evidence shows that bush has limited attacks, but you dont believe it.

And I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton is elected in a couple of years and begins holding secret trials, you'll back her up straight down the line.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton is elected in a couple of years and begins holding secret trials, you'll back her up straight down the line.

There's that.

However, I recall that one reason we didn't get Saddam at Bora Bora (JOKE intended) was that during the blind sheik's trial for WTCI, al queda learned about how the NSA can track cell phones. So, at Tora Bora, Saddam (JOKE) left cell phones turned on when he LEFT caves. So we were bombing empty caves while he jackrabbited into Pak. I think that's one reason the feds came down so heavy handed on the poor woman attorney who defended him.

There's a balance that needs to drawn. I don't think Bushii has even tried. In fact, he and Gonzo seem to have gone out of their ways to try and offend the const as much as possible. Increasing the power of the potus has been their goal from day one, and 9-11 just gives them opportunity.

There are people who have reputations for fairness and honesty who could have been called upon. George Mitchell for one, and a former federal judge to boot. ( I guess he's still alive) At Nuremburg, Justice Jackson from the supreme court took leave to be the prosecutor, just so that people wouldn't be able to realistically say we tramped on the nazi's human rights. (We did do some morally bad stuff with the Japanese war crime trials though)

[Bronco_Beerslug]