Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - is there a gov translator in the house?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - is there a gov translator in the house? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/101727-there-gov-translator-house.html)

is there a gov translator in the house?

legal, classified, not as clear cut, and I can't talk about it any further

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared to suggest Tuesday that the administration’s warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that President Bush acknowledged in mid-December.
In a letter Tuesday in which he asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also seemed to imply that the administration’s original legal justification was not as clear-cut as he had indicated.
At that appearance, Gonzales confined his comments to the wiretapping program, saying that Bush had authorized it “and that is all that he has authorized.”
But in Tuesday’s letter, Gonzales, citing that quote, wrote that he “could not address ... any other classified intelligence activities” and was confining his remarks to the program as described by Bush, “the legality of which was the subject” of the Feb. 6 hearing.
A Justice Department official said Gonzales’ letter “should not be taken or construed to be talking about anything other than” the program described by Bush.

So, what I see is the AG saying that the wiretap program may go beyond what everyone has been told about but the white houses legal justification is more vague than was discussed but it was 'authorized' and nothing more was authorized but the AG can't discuss further issues because anything further than what was discussed is classified whether its legal or not so everything that the pres discussed was legal, however, the DoJ spokesman said that the AG's comments should not be considered to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him god.

I guess thats his story and he's sticking to it? :confused: :crazy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

however, the DoJ spokesman said that the AG's comments should not be considered to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him god.

I guess thats his story and he's sticking to it? :confused: :crazy:

One of the most important things to take into account here , is the simple fact he was not sworn in. Because of this, he can say whatever he wants, and not be legally accountable for any misleading comments. Yes, it is very likely there is far more to the program than we know, and yes it is important that classified information remain secret where national security comes into play.
The risk I see here, is the overuse of cassified status to protect the American People from knowing too much. While it is a fine line to walk, it seems this administration is damaging the collective trust of the people it works for, and may be trampling on the very freedoms it tries to protect.

The government has a rich tradition of overstepping it's authority concerning domestic surveillence. Ask anyone in the civil rights movement. What is always dissapointing to me is how many people will accept the goverment's justification for anything provided that justification involves some sort of mention of the war on terror.