digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gonzales cautions judges against second-guessing the president in wartime

usatoday.com — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime. He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83So...adding to this list of those that shouldn't ever second-guess Bush our president: 1) the media. 2) elected officials from the opposing party. 3) former presidents. 4) our allies. 5) past members of the administration i.e. former Secretaries of State. 6) military officials. 7) voters with questions ....we can now include our Judges.
    • erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58All hail the great decider!!! (note the THICK sarcasm)

      "He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief "
      -Of the Armed forces, Not the people.

      "And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism."
      -That is why they are appointed for life, so that they will never have to worry about reelection, criticism, etc etc. The theory was that if they didn't have to bend over to appease any one, they would think with a clear mind

    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34How can such talk be tolerated? Just on NPR this morning, they were playing tape of Newt Gingrich recently saying that the judges shouldn't be second guess the president or the congress.

      Maybe the rest fo the US should declare independence from the District of Columbia!
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22it is part of the swift boating of the judiciary.
      They know they are going to start to get more ruling against them.
      they also know the detainee bill as it is, will probably be over turned by the supreme court.

      And newt said there should be an easier way to overturn the supreme court, rather than the hindersome 2/3 majority needed to add an amendment. His arguement was 5 people shouldnt be able to over turn the will of the people. Of courst that arguement was quickly countered with the 2000 election.. Since al gore got the majority vote but lost in the supreme court.
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I guess he should just lock the judges up that disagree with him as terrorist.

      Isn't it obvious they are threats to 'National Security?'
    • sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@erikerikerik: That is the post of the week. Absolutely brilliant. That is the exact policy reason for having lifetime appointments.

      @martalli: also excellent when you consider the fact that the "strict constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court have voted to overturn laws more than those who are "liberal." (I phrase that lightly because Souter, Breyer and Kennedy, three of the five "liberals", were appointed by conservative presidents).

    • GinsuGuy585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No 2nd guess can be as bad as the first.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This coconut (brown on the outside and white in the middle) must think that Bush Lite has become king or something. And he's now biting the hand that put Bush into power in the first place. If you recall, Bush Lite was declared president in 2000 by the (Republican majority) Supreme Court.

      And he must not forget that this is not a dictatorship (at least not yet). When the people wake up from this fear mongering trance, they will have the power to remove Bush Lite. So people wake up and let's get this "so called wanna be" king impeached (before it's too late).

      This is what Bush Lite is King of ...
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/thewhitehouse/416346
    • BigDamnHeroine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Clinton, on the other hand, receives criticism and second-guessing with the grace we have come to expect of him.
  • Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Unbelievable! Isn't one of the main functions of the judiciary branch to make sure the executive branch does not overstep their authority?
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bush doesn't believe his authority has limits.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And since when are we at war? I don't recall Congress issuing a declaration of war.
  • royall64, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2I just did a report on him for school...as if anyone cares
    • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Well, what did you conclude? After your research are you fer him or agin him?
  • Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Gonzales is the Generalissimo of Torture. All bow before him!
  • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I agree with most Gonzales-bashing and hate most of what comes out of his mouth (or pen), but Alberto is right in the last 3 paragraphs about electing judges in partisan elections. Having judges beholden to contributors is bad news.
    • Yinepuhotep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And in what state are judges elected in partisan elections? Every state I've ever lived in, any judge who's elected must be elected as a NON-partisan candidate.
  • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Cautions against..

    Warns against...

    This administration talks to us like we are children and most of us respond as such. It's a disgrace.
  • titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That might make sense, if we were at war.

    Wait, that would still be a bad idea.
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21To reiterate your point, Conrgess authorized the use of force, but there is no current declaration of war. A declaration of war is a constitutional duty of the Congress. Authorizing force is not a declaration of war. I realize we are in an armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq - it is essentially war...however....

      Any talk about 'we're at war' is really only talk, from a constitutional sense. Once Congress formally declares war, then the President would have a better claim for restricting our rights temporarily in the pursuit of war. If Congress is unwilling to delcare war, the President should not be able to usurp our rights.

  • titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28***** the administration.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Had to check my calendar... I thought it might be 1984.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Gotta love the Bush Administration's respect for the separation of powers. ;)
    • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6His idea of the separation of powers is separating the other two branches from it.

      Not to mention the rest of us.
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the idea of a democrat controlled congress, which would be a move towards a true seperation of powers, has him scared to death.

      I wonder what he is worried they will dig up on him if they have control. The things we know he has done, and taken almost no steps to hide are deplorable.....I shudder to think what this administration has actually taken proper steps to hide.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I agree with most Gonzales-bashing and hate most of what comes out of his mouth (or pen), but Alberto is right in the last 3 paragraphs about electing judges in partisan elections. Having judges beholden to contributors is bad news."

    Having judges not beholden to an electorate is also bad news. We don't need a legal aristocracy.

    And f*** Gonzalez in the ass.
  • voodoobru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12gonzales telling a judge not to judge? wow.
  • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17So can we fire that guy now?

    And why is it that the attorney general (the main guy who's responsible for defending the law) is usually one of the most gung-ho to do damage to our system of justice?
  • airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16All hail king Bush!

    We have always been at war with terror.

    Seriously how much will it take before people WAKE UP!?
  • smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I thought judges were not to take direction on anything from the other branches and only interpret the laws...
    but hey who cares about that this is a special circumstance so they'll have to take direction until the war on terror is won.. how long will that be? who knows.
  • DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Why do I have the feeling that in our reality the outcome of "V for Vendetta" might have a different outcome - the govt. destroys the other branches of govt and a dictatorship is established.


    • omababy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Next well heard bush announce he is changing the laws which state he can't run in the next presidential ellection. Hell we'll probably hear that he will now assume the role of Commander and Chief until terrorism is completely defeated, reasoning that no one is as qualified of protecting Americans the way he can.
    • kreneskyp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The scary thing is that you aren't the only person thinking that. The smaller challenge of bush NSA wiretapping breaking the 3rd and 4th amendments is setting up for a more flagrant violation of law. If it does go to the supreme court and they rule that he is allowed to ignore all constitutional laws due to being "commander in chief", he could just as easily ignore the part about him stepping down at the end of his term. If he was going to break a law to retain power, I'm pretty sure it would be the one where he never steps down at all.
  • cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm sometimes uncomfortable digging these stories.
    While I agree that Gonzales and Bush are both complete tools, I always think that people will interpret a large number of Diggs as meaning there is support for their positions, rather than a strong desire that as many people as possible be made aware of their idiocy.

    Just to make myself clear though: Yeah, they're tools.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2we digg the report but we disagree with the contents ... that's why we comment, right? And I agree, Gonzales is a tool, but I still can't but empathize with the man trapped by his decisions and compelled to sacrifice every last shred of his honor, dignity and credibility for such despicable skulduggery.
  • dzappone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Do I smell divine right of kings? That's odd because I thought the President owes his position to the will of the people. And since when is Bush infallible - I mean it's not like he's a burning bush or anything. Meh.
    • soarin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What a recipe for a totalitarian state:

      1) Start a stupid war by lying to the people (WMD!! We will be greeted as liberators! They will throw flowers at us when we come in! I doubt the war will last 6 weeks, let alone 6 months, Mushroom Clouds! We know where the WMD's are.... etc. etc.)

      2) Decide that this is a "generational war" against an ideology "until all global terror groups are gone". Declare further that it is a "struggle for civilization". (Never mind that it is just a blatant grab for oil -- life is easy when your buddies own Media)

      3) Declare that no one can "second-guess the President in Wartime". Gain power to torture people and throw them in secret jails with secret evidence against them.

      4) Profit!!!!
      With no one able to question the President's power, he is officially or unofficially a dictator. Anybody who helps him do this makes lots of money and is rewarded nicely. Anyone who doesn't like it gets thrown in secret jails.

      repeat as necessary
  • brbubba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wow, another one of Bush's puppets. Does this guy have anyone working for him who has a single independent and intelligent thing to say?

    I also like how he mentions presidential powers during wartime, what war would that be Gonzales. Its not Iraq, that war is over, its now a peacekeeping mission. And its impossible to have a war on terror, because it quite simply can never be won. Is this like the war on drugs now? When Mr. President is the war going to be over then, in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, never?
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Speedy Gonzales might be able to see things a little more clearly if he would pull his lips off Bush's ass once in a while.
  • jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Don't think we're in a dictatorship right now? Here's all you have to ask yourself: If the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush Administration and their incredible 'war powers', what would Bush do, submit to the will of the court? Not a chance. In fact, the Supreme Court has already considered Bush's magic war powers in Hamdan V Rumsfeld and declared them not just illegal, but unconstitutional. Did that stop them?

    They've already shown complete contempt for the Legislative branch, simply declaring they're not going to obey FISA. Now they're giving the finger to the Supreme Court and 'warning' judges not to rule on the magic war powers... what is left to check them? They have succeed through pure willpower. If this country is to survive, the executive branch must be redesigned so this can never happen again.
  • JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The US has been in a state of war with one country or another for all but 4 years of its history. When else should judges question?
  • elliam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Holy ***** lap dog.
  • MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Since the "War on Terror" will never end, I wonder whether the Republicans will support all their draconian tactics when a Liberal President gets into power.

    I can't wait to hear Sean Hannity and all the other right wingnuts support eavesdropping on citizens, spending like there's no tomorrow, torture, absolute power to the executive branch, etc.. if Hilary Clinton were in power. LOL....Guaranteed they'll all suddenly wake up and see how wrong it was.

    Makes me sick...
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Gonzales is a piece of *****. He deserves to be thrown in the ring with Mike Tyson and get the snot knocked out of him.

    Can anyone here make that happen? It would make an awesome TV show and would get you massive earnings! Think of 60% of Americans tuning in to your channel all at once!
  • Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just because he is the "commander in chief" does not mean he knows what the hell he is doing.
  • samcrut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So nobody can second-guess W while he's at war, but he's at war with a tactic. He'll never be at peace from here on out. He's seeing to that at every possible turn.
  • FreeDumbFighter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Es No Problemo me Fellow Gringos, this is just a beginning. As you can see, your Mexican experience is becoming fuller and deeper. We are even thinking about encouraging you to go to Canada and send money home, just the way Chicanos do it. You see in Mexico and all other dictatorships, people either love their leader or some how they show up missing! We don't want that to happen to you, do we?????????????????????
  • jasonok6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Terrorism is the new Communism
    Gonzales the new McCarthy
    Fear is still fear and its just as powerful as ever.
  • rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Attorney General (appointed by the executive) is cautioning the judiciary? During a war on an abstract idea which has no defined condition for victory? How the hell did we get here, and what comes next? :(
  • Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You guys have completely and totally lost all control of your country.
    • torifile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thankfully, not yet. And judges don't suffer being told what to do very well. I hope the next judge Gonzales goes before rips him a new one. Judges can be nasty when they're ***** off.
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0I wonder, is anyone in the Democratic Party the least bit worried that al Qaeda joining your party might have a negative impact on America's perception of where your party is heading? Just asking.

    Maybe when the terrorists blow up New York, Democrats will come to their senses, but I doubt it. The irresponsible nature of their rhetoric has even got the terrorists parroting them -- that's a clear sign Democrats may have gone too far.

    Sounds just like the right wing idiots who did the same with Clinton, only it was Clinton kills people, don't you know. Mena Arkasas, that's where the secret operations were -- here read this book.

    Transparent drivel, wipe your chins.
  • galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What worries me most is that all this talk about critizising the president is somehow helping the enemy is that the new law that just got passed, which does away with habeas corpus meaning that you can get locked up without access to a court, defines an enemy combatant also as somebody who gives aid to the enemy. And the decision who is an enemy combatant is with the government !?

    I don't think that this sudden "we must not critizise the president because it aids the enemy" talk from the government is coincidental.
  • dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Gonzales is right. And four of the supreme court justices agree with him. In the dissenting opinion of the Hamdan decision they agreed that the President has certain powers during war time and judges should not interfere. If one of the more liberal judges on the Supreme court, like Justice Stevens, were to die or retire, President Bush would be able to replace him with a more conservative judge, in the vein of Scalia and Thomas, that will most likely side with him.
    • tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The position that the courts should pick and choose the time to exercise their powers is problematic and quite frightening.

      In Scalia's dissent, for instance, he never agreed with Gonzales, never suggested that the Supreme Court should turn a blind eye in war time, nor that the courts should unconditionally support the decisions of the executive.

      Scalia suggested that the courts misinterpreted authority declared in the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

      In fact, though, the role of the courts is to make decisions, to interpret the conditions surrounding cases. If the courts don't clearly violate laws, they haven't overstepped bounds (given that the bounds ARE laws).

      If decisions aren't supposed to in any way be impacted by personal decisions, why are there dissents? Why are people appointed instead of software written?

      The above mention of the continuing 'Swift Boating' of the courts is quite valid. Creating hatred of a branch of government in the abstract is pathetic.
  • HickJew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So much for "We The People".....
  • nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3GO USA! Now they have started building a wall to keep people from getting out of the US too. Good luck to all of you when you are stripped of all your rights, freedom and liberty.
  • SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So when is the senate gonna be disolved and when are we gonna hear declaration of the first Galactic Empire? oh wait wrong post....maybe not! lol!
  • crapple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The posts here have been consistently some of the best I've ever read. I'm just surprised there isn't more "liberal bashing"....do all right wingers go to bed early and rise late?

    I'm just hoping that the SC will have the gall to toss out the bill allowing the torture/detaining w/o haebeus corpus.

    I know the means to email the pres and all my representatives, but how about the SC Justices?
  • Fastfwd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I had the opportunity to spend Constitution Day with one of the members of the Seventh District Court of Appeals a few weeks ago at Norte Dame law school. There was a panel discussion of ‘judicial independence’ that included two other distinguished judges from the Indiana area. It was really very interesting.

    Personally, I got the impression that the judges present for the discussion felt as though there has been an assault upon the judiciary. In fact, if you look at that Notre Dame law school calendar you’ll see an event on Sept. 15th sponsored by the ‘Federalist Society’ regarding the judiciary as being the ‘Most Dangerous Branch.’ I can’t be certain just what that denotes, but I believe it may well insinuate that conservatives have a very negative view of the judiciary. I might assume they likely view the judiciary as some impairment for an imperial presidency. Ya, know, that whole three branch government thing really is such a bore.

    Anyway, go go Gonzales with all that warning the judiciary to not second guess the all wise President Bush during war time. We know he has great concern for civil liberties that shouldn’t be ‘second guessed.’

    http://www.nd.edu/%7Elawcal/wc09182006.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit

    Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Francis_Ripple
    http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=notredame072ra2.jpg

    Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/sullivan.html
    http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=notredame078ru9.jpg

    Professor Smithburn
    http://law.nd.edu/faculty/facultypages/smithburn.html
    http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=notredame080cf0.jpg




  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK, this thread has gone 22 hours without any bizarre, off topic, troll posts.

    It has not (as of 8:14 am PST Sept 30) been marked inaccurate. Thre are currently 59 comments.

    Shortly after this article _is_ marked inaccurate, it will be hit by a _wave_ of troll posts which are off topic and insulting, and most subsequent posts will involve responses to the rude trolls.

    I sense an interesting pattern pattern . . .
  • Yinepuhotep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know, when Abraham Lincoln tried this crap, the Chief Justice personally ruled that he was out of line. And Lincoln tried to get his soldiers to throw him in prison because he didn't like the ruling. Luckily, his soldiers understood the Constitution better than Lincoln did.

    Question is, how long before Bush tries to emulate Lincoln and start throwing judges in prison for questioning him?
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Those judges are bought and paid for, there's no reason to do that.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Last time I said Lincoln got what he deserved I was dugg down. Maybe this time we learn from history.
  • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh look, the lefties are jacking each other off again. You ***** losers.

    Gonzales is spot on.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, that "spot" you are talking about is Diktator G. W. Bush's cum dribbling down Gonzales's chin.
  • WildBil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, Sounds like a Mexican does he not?
    and we all know how that countrys political systems is run.
    1 party rule
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.