Tim Grieve at Salon has a good report on Alberto Gonzales’ attempts to avoid telling the truth.

When Gonzales was confirmed, he was asked if the president has the right to wiretap Americans with warrants. Gonzales said it was a “hypothetical” question, even though he knew that that was exactly what Bush was doing. Gonzales replied by saying it was hypothetical that the wiretaps are illegal, thus avoiding the plain sense of the question.

But, says Grieve, Republican Lindsey Graham continued to press the issue:

Graham went after both prongs of the administration’s defense of the warrantless spying program. First, he dismissed out of hand the notion that Congress somehow implicitly authorized warrantless spying when it adopted its use-of-force authorization after 9/11, and he cautioned Gonzales about making such a “dangerous” argument: If the White House reads the use-of-force authorization too broadly, Graham said, future Congresses will be wary when future presidents come looking for authority to use force against enemies.

Graham then set his sights on the argument that the president has inherent authority as commander in chief to do what it takes to keep America safe. It’s a fine theory, Graham said, but it’s one that knows “no boundaries.” If the Constitution allows the president to engage in wiretap in seeming contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, doesn’t the Constitution also allow the president to ignore the new law that prohibits the United States from engaging in torture? Graham put the question to Gonzales, but the attorney general wouldn’t answer it, exactly, saying that the torture statute isn’t the subject of today’s hearings. Which is another way of saying, we suppose, that questions about it are “hypothetical.”

It turns out usurping Congress’ power is a bipartisan slap in the face.

Plus: Why is the chief law enforcement official in the US squirming, hairsplitting and dissembling? [Tags: george_bush alberto_gonzales politics]

Categories: Uncategorized dw