Senate Oversight Committee Hearing on Warrantless Wiretaps

Hat-Cane

US Attourney General Alberto Gonzales

v.

leahy

Ranking Democrat – Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont

Here’s the entire opening speech, unedited, zero commentary:

2-7-2006 Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing (Warrantless Wiretaps) – Ranking Member Leahy Opening Speech – Historic

Also, debate began before the opening bell.  This is a video clip of Specter and Leahy scraping over whether the current US Attourney General should be sworn in:

2-7-2006 Senate Judiciary Committee – AG Alberto Gonzales Not Sworn In

I’m seeding both of these, neither of them are very large.  The first 15MB and the second 4MB.  Transcription on the way. 

This entry was posted in History, Words. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Senate Oversight Committee Hearing on Warrantless Wiretaps

  1. I think Mr. Gonzales made a great argument and, on this issue, the Bush Admin. is right on target. If a phone call originates from a known al-queda source to an American destination it is reasonable for authorities to suspect something is up and to scan the call.

    When I go to the airport, my luggage is searched without a warrant, without probably cause and without me ever being suspected of anything. But nowadays it is also reasonable to search luggage on airplanes. The same goes for terrorists calling terrorist cells here in America.

  2. steve says:

    tracker for above files down please repost to mininova.org

  3. Chris Austin says:

    steve – I updated the Gonzales tracker, but the Leahy one is messed up, creating a new torrent and reposting.

  4. Chris Austin says:

    Right – you’re missing the point. Of course they can wiretap, but they have to abide by FISA (which was ammended 5 times already).

    It’s not like they couldn’t have asked to change the law to suit their needs. Congress didn’t turn them down at all when they asked in the past.

    The President cannot break the law, you can’t break the law, I can’t break the law.

    Our system of government is based on this fact, not the emotions of whoever’s participating.

  5. Right Thinker says:

    but they have to abide by FISA (which was ammended 5 times already).

    They can’t, FISA requires probable cause, how do you get probably cause against a terrorist you don’t know. FISA is about prosecution, terrorist surveilance is about terror prevention.

    The President cannot break the law, you can’t break the law, I can’t break the law.

    Actually, the law isn’t broken until you try to prosecute someone with a warrantless wiretap. Since prosecution isn’t the goal, not law is broken.

  6. Michael says:

    But the kid who wants to smoke the wacky weed can, as long as it doesn’t enhance his ball playing ability. The problem with having a blog, is that what you have said before reverberates completely anytime you sing a different tune. In this case your new found respect for the rule of law, reminded me of your posts on teen drug testing, and how it shouldn’t be allowed because it might determine a kid is smoking weed, instead of using steroids. BTW what law was broken?

  7. Chris Austin says:

    The law – ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act’, FISA for short. It was enacted in the 70s, and during it’s entire existance since then, has only rejected about a half dozen requests for warrants to snoop on Americans. The law was ignored in many cases, yet Congress had already approved 5 seperate upgrades to the bill at the request of President Bush. Up until the story broke, the administration said that the FISA laws were adequate. Yet now that they’ve been caught doing something wrong, they suddenly lament the restrictions of FISA…

    Looking at this situation by creating a false choice in people’s minds is undoubtedly the strategy going forward, but Bush is an American, and he’s bound to follow the law just like all of us are.

    As for drug testing minors – I stand by my statements that recreational drugs should not be screened for. These wiretaps, are they installed for a specific purpose of suspicion, or are our leaders simply fishing for something?

    Same as the drug test. If you want to make sure some kids aren’t using steroids to cheat, you test for that once the community approves a law allowing you to do so. When the test is run for pot, that’s a trojan horse.

    If we want our kids tested for recreational drugs in school, then put it to the electorate and see where it goes. The answer isn’t to say the tests are for one thing, only to turn around and use them for another purpose altogether.

    I don’t see where my inconsistency is on this matter Michael.

Comments are closed.