Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech yesterday at Georgetown University law school in defense of domestic warrantless wiretaps. The Washington Post’s write up on the speech of course included quotes from only those who disagreed with Gonzales statements about the wiretaps, as you’ll note in the article.
The event was not without the usual drama queens/kings who love to make their presence known at such events, as the Post notes:
Confronting Gonzales during his nearly half-hour speech were more than a dozen young people in the audience who turned their backs to him and held up for a banner for television cameras. The banner, loosely based on a Benjamin Franklin quote, read: “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
Here’s the photo:
The semi-amusing thing about that photo and the Franklin quote is that the students at this “law forum” got the quote wrong. The original quote, as Michelle Malkin notes, can be found here:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Surprised? I’m not. Because there is no line that the haters will not cross - including distorting quotes from our founding fathers - in order to undermine the President and his policies. The truth is irrelevant. It’s all about “getting Bush.”
Read more on Gonzales speech at the following blogs: Powerline (must-read!), Kerfuffles, Protein Wisdom, Stop the ACLU, Keith D. Milby, Bryan Preston
Related Toldjah So posts:
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
| Email This Post | Print This |
Not to mention it’s likely not even Benjamin Franklin anyway.
Besides, as someone on Protein Wisdom pointed out, anyone who would seriously determine national policy from a proverb is bats**t insane anyway.
Comment by ArizonaTeach @ 1/25/2006 - 11:00 am
I am opposed to being spied on, on principle. Why does the Right want to sell down the river all of the Americans who gave their lives for our individal freedoms? Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/25/2006 - 11:17 am
steve, you aren’t listening to an answer anyway. You are as openminded as a baseball bat.
Liberals just don’t want to find out that people here do support terror, and many of them are siding with the liberals in their hate of Bush.
Comment by PCD @ 1/25/2006 - 11:26 am
The goober-mint already spies on me.
They know where I live, how much money I make, how much I pay in taxes.
They know I have a handgun permit, what kind of cars I drive, the size of the engines on my motorcycles and boat. They know when I hunt and when I fish. When they pull me over on the water they even count how many fish I have.
They know I donate money and volunteer my time to the republican party, my work history, the date and place of birth, the homes I have lived in and how much they were worth and what I sold them for.
They knew when I cashed in on a big IPO stock option deal and stole almost half of it.
They knew when I had children and when I got divorced.
And they keep everything about me on file.
But I don’t think Sandy Burglar stole them from the national archives.
For all I know Hillary Rodam Jemima Clinton had my FBI file on her desk when she served in the White House as second lady to Monica Lewinski.
Individual freedoms? My a**
Comment by CZ @ 1/25/2006 - 11:34 am
Really steve?
You’re being spied on?
Are you receiving phone calls internationally from known terrorists?
Comment by sanity @ 1/25/2006 - 11:46 am
“Surprised? I’m not. Because there is no line that the haters will not cross - including distorting quotes from our founding fathers - in order to undermine the President and his policies.”
Does the difference between the two quotes matter, besides being an error?
Comment by andrew @ 1/25/2006 - 12:17 pm
The TRUTH to liberals is like a wooden stake and a cross to Dracula.
Comment by Jim M @ 1/25/2006 - 12:29 pm
Does the difference between the two quotes matter, besides being an error?
Oh, just that the wee nitpick that the entire meaning of the phrase changed. No biggie.
Comment by Nanashi @ 1/25/2006 - 2:45 pm
The only lies killing people these days are all coming from the White House. Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/25/2006 - 3:28 pm
Hi, SiaterToldjah:
Hi, sanity:
Steve’s upset because he’s been hearing those dreaded “Black Helicopters” hovering across his domicile and neighborhood. That surprisingly, haven’t swooped down to take him or any of his neighbors away.
To the point that the “Black Helicopters” have been replaced with the silent, AWACS-like “Halliburton Hovering Dirigible Of Doom”!
Take down the Tinfoil from your windows and around your head, Steve. The HHDOD guys are miffed that their Paranoia Ray isn’t getting through.
It appears that you appear to have more than enough for everybody.
Jack.
Comment by Jack Deth @ 1/25/2006 - 3:29 pm
steve, no, the lies come from your keyboard. I don’t want to be you in the afterlife.
Comment by PCD @ 1/25/2006 - 3:30 pm
The ironic thing here is that this has nothing to do with Bush or anyone in his administration. It has everything to to with OUR rights guaranteed us by OUR constitution.
In a democracy, the people rule, not the government. We say what is allowed and what isn’t, not the government. For over two hundred years now, spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant has been unacceptable…for any reason. I understand that the President “is only trying to protect us,” but in doing so, he is also asking us to give up a very precious personal liberty, our right to privacy. And further, assuming we can “trust” W. with that liberty is rediculus. Do you honestly think his last executive order when leaving office will be to give it back? Further, what happens if Hillary wins in 2008? The precedent has been established. What new “threats to our security” will she use to justify the gathering up of our liberties? Perhaps it will be our right to defend ourselves, or as Shelia, indicated the “arrogance of the press” and thus the 1st amendment.
Either way, these things don’t happen overnight. James Madison so eloquently described this in saying, “…there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
In the end, is has never been the responsibility of the American Citizen to blindly follow their political leaders. On the contrary, doing so would truly be the single thing that could threaten and eventually, most certainly, would destroy the true American way of life which is individual liberty.
Those students have it exactly right, regardless of their individual motives. People, the 4th ammendment guarantees YOUR right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I just don’t get it. If someone tried to take just a single dollar from your wallets with out permission, most of you would be in total uproar. Not due the amount, but out of the principle. So I ask why are so many of you so willing to let something as precious as your freedom…even a tiny amount of it go so easily?
Comment by CB Howell @ 1/25/2006 - 5:26 pm
Sorry…forget about Sheila…that should have been edited out.
Comment by CB Howell @ 1/25/2006 - 5:29 pm
I was listening to NPR, and they reported this event, and then said “At the end of his speech, just as many people gave him a standing ovation.” I was impressed that NPR would admit that.
Comment by blogagog @ 1/25/2006 - 5:45 pm
Okay…first, this is not a democracy but a democratic republic. There is a difference. We do not hold plebicites on every question.
Thus far not one single citizen has been “spied on” one claimed it but later admitted he was lying. The only calls being monitored are international, not domestic, calls to and from known terrorists or their sympathizers. Unless you are calling known Hamas or al Queda operatives you nothing to worry about.
Where was your outrage over Clinton’s operation Eschelon which WAS domestic surveylance.
Comment by J Rob @ 1/25/2006 - 7:46 pm
Re: Those “black helicopters”?
I built ‘em…
Comment by camojack @ 1/26/2006 - 5:16 am
I would challenge any of you that keep saying this is a Democracy or a Democratic Republic to find anywhere in our Constitution the “D” word is mentioned. This is a Republic of Laws a Democracy is mob rule our fore fathers despised any form of Democracy.
Comment by Jim M @ 1/26/2006 - 6:38 am
Representative Republic (whether or not it’s in the constitution)
CB funnily wrote, “For over two hundred years now, spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant has been unacceptable…for any reason.
Tell that to all the preceeding presidents including FDR, Clinton, Kennedy. Just because you wrote it doesn’t make it true.
CB continued with, “he is also asking us to give up a very precious personal liberty, our right to privacy
You have a very precious personal liberty to have international communications with Al Qaida? Assert that all you want. I’d wnat to be used as a tool to identify terrorists. Put me on the phone and listen to me talk to these terrorists!!
CB wrote, “In the end, is has never been the responsibility of the American Citizen to blindly follow their political leaders.
I take that as an incorrect accusation. I’ve read both sides on this argument and probably over 100 articles on this subject alone from constitutional law experts and FISA experts, etc. I do not blindly follow Bush and for you to insinuate such raises the question “when will you apologize”? (Not that I think you will or need one - I’ve dealt with your kind far too many times - I used to be one also)
CB wrote, “ People, the 4th ammendment guarantees YOUR right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Notice drug dealers who are citizens of this country have reasonably not been able to expect privacy for some time.
CB asked the question “So I ask why are so many of you so willing to let something as precious as your freedom…even a tiny amount of it go so easily?
You mean the freedom to talk on an international call with a terrorist without being listened to? Because I want the terrorists taken in or killed. Do you?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/26/2006 - 9:40 am
Excellent….I am so happy! The intent here is for Intelligent Dialog. All of these subsequent
comments are great and very necessary. The over-all point to my tirade was not to single out any
political figure, but more to comment on the complacency of the American people. For the
person that noted that they had studied the issues from both sides, good for you! You are rare. I
would bet that you would be hard pressed to find any of your personal friends that are as well
versed as you.
Additionally, the issue is not conversations with terrorists, (and we can argue the semantics of
republic-democracy all you want…the idea remains the same) it’s about precedent. NOW it’s
terrorists, what will it be tomorrow? Now the terrorists associated with al Qaida, who will the be
tomorrow?
Look I am sorry if some of you were offended about what I said. Unfortunately decided to argue
semantics to try to discredit me rather than the overall point which was the reason our system
works or has worked (most would argue better than any other in the history of mankind) is
because the power to govern ultimately resides in the people and today it is blatantly obvious that
the VAST majority ( not you of course ) could give a rat’s ass about anything except their own
nose. I am sick and tired of hearing words like “trust me” and “I know what’s best” and so on,
meanwhile most of these guys are sipping champagne with fact cat lobbyists really deciding
“what’s best”.
Now, once again. This issue is not with the wire tapping specifically. I agree, if you are involved
IN ANY WAY with people or groups that are IN ANY WAY planning to harm innocent people
FOR ANY REASON…you not only deserve to have your tits kicked, but should count on having
your tits kicked because the American people will not stand for it. That said, my issue is that the
way it is being done now is not right. There HAS to be some sort of oversight! Some sort of
check. Some sort of protection from abuse. Which as far as I can tell…does not exist. That’s all.
And overall, for those of you that are that willing to give up your liberties for security….I have
and idea, stop driving your cars. The odds of you being killed or injured driving your car in a
single day are far greater than the odds of you ever being personally effected by a terrorist!
Sorry…didn’t mean to attack anyone personally. I just ask that people pull their heads out of the
sand and GET INVOLVED. VOTE….LEARN THE CONSTITUTION….LEARN THE BILL
OF RIGHTS….demand accountability from your representatives, because at the end of the day, if
you aren’t willing to stand up for your rights…well you fill in the rest.
And those of you that do know and do these things, without political bias, motivate others to
learn about and participate in these things. There are far better people among us, far more capable of leading than
what we currently have in office…all areas..not just the executive, perhaps even some of you
reading this thread would qualify, but because of complacency and outright ignorance we are in
danger of becoming a nation of sheep led by wolves.
As I said before, my intent is not to tell anyone WHAT TO THINK, but indeed just simply…to think….wonder…
educate yourselves.
Knowledge is power. Use it!
Comment by CB Howell @ 1/26/2006 - 12:15 pm
CB wrote, “comment on the complacency of the American people.
You mean your complacency in not finding ou the truth? There is no complacency here on my end.
CB wrote, “I
would bet that you would be hard pressed to find any of your personal friends that are as well versed as you
Yep. I have liberal coworkers, neighbors and friends who aren’t as well versed as me. In fact they continue to get the facts wrong with almost every sentence. It’s part of a lifetime of being misinformed by CNN, CBS, ABS, NBC. I once was a liberal until 1991 when I went to the library 3 times a week for a full year. I had a complete core change. While I do admit that there are some kneejerk conservatives who haven’t studied the issue, at least they fall down on the right side of the issue.
CB wrote, “) it’s about precedent. NOW it’s terrorists, what will it be tomorrow?
Yep. I’m brushing my teeth today. What’ll it be tomorrow. I brush it all the time wearing the enamel off and doing damage…. The fact is that the precedent was set as the president having the authority way before Bush and in Supreme Court Decision including one in 2002 that dealth with Presidentail authority. What are you scared of? Are you paranoid? These are legitimate questions. Don’t grab that toothbrush out of my hand!!
CB wrote, “Which as far as I can tell…does not exist.
It does. Sorry you didn’t read about that in your news stories.
CB wrote, “for those of you that are that willing to give up your liberties for security….
Liberty to what? Have international calls with terrorists during a time of war? Not only am I willing to give up that “liberty”, I want the government to use me as a tool to catch the terrorist or hear the coming terrorist action. Aren’t you?
CB wrote, “LEARN THE CONSTITUTION
I have. I have my own copy in my master bedrroom wear I’m typing this right now. No need to attack anyone here as needing to learn it generally.
CB wrote, “demand accountability from your representative
I am. I’m demanding that my representatives do not unconstitutionally try to limit the power of the president in a time of war to wage war against the enemy. I’m demanding that the representative stop lying about the international calls calling them domestic calls. On phone bills it’s called “international” for a reason. I’m demanding that the representatives and ex-vice presidents like Al Gore stop saying that Bush broke laws when he hasn’t. I’m demanding that the debate get back to civility which I’m afraid with liberals may be impossible. CB do you think it is impossible or will you call for Al Gore and representatives to stop their incorrect accusational rhetoric?
CB wrote, “Knowledge is power. Use it!
Yes. Use it!
Comment by Baklava @ 1/26/2006 - 12:57 pm
I meant “where” I’m typing this.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/26/2006 - 12:58 pm
While not as eloquent as Baklava, he is always a joy to read in his discussions, I will do my best to reiterate a few things that should be known.
CB you mention that there should be some sort of oversight, but the Senate is given a report I believe every 90 days.
I hear alot of yammering from people who don’t seem to read more into what FISA entails. President Bush has narrowed what they can essentially tap as International calls, calls coming or going out of the US. This domestic spying mis-information is what is spread by the media because they see essentially one of the persons monitored is in the US while the other is a suspected terrorist out of the US borders. They are wrong. These are INTERNATIONAL calls being monitored, not Domestic Calls. The President has said this many times, the Senate knows about it and gets regular reports on it (though they act like they don’t).
The difference between what our previous president Clinton did and what this President Bush is doing now is that Clinton WAS doing Domestic Spying (calls made in the US to others in the US) while President Bush narrowed that to International ONLY.
Comment by sanity @ 1/26/2006 - 2:03 pm
Well Kos Kiddies - Looks like the game is up. As I wrote in another thread, the truculent leaders of your al Qaeda-bats party have blinked. Now the latest version coming out of the “Get Bush” brigade is: “Well if we don’t have a law we should.”
- The President is obviously enjoying this latest transparent phoney “protecting liberties” screed. As he said today; “Why pass a law that, if it tries to prevent me from doing my duties, will just be shown to be unconstitutional”.
- Zero and 16 Liberalcrats, and Congressional elections are just around the corner. So by all means, stay in the BDS mode, and keep on truckin’.
- What I want to know is when is Usama going to sign on as keynote speaker at the DNC or the Press Club, now that he’s a registered Democrat. *snicker*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/26/2006 - 3:29 pm
- Actually this whole pile of partisan is howling at the moon. All aspects of the activities of the Pesident and DoJ and NSA, CIA et all, are continueously reviewed ad nausea by appropriate Congress people on a number of oversight committees. The Democrats know this, and they also know they can’t get access to much of the info without proper clearence, which is the reason its handled in committees just for the purpose. As usual they’re hoping to dupe the american people into painting the Bush admin as some sort of rogue operation, when in fact its the same way iys been done for years and years. What does that say about the re6al reason behind this latest tempest in a teapot and the Sems themselves.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/26/2006 - 4:24 pm
- Sorry for the typo’s I was typing under duress…. *chuckle*
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/26/2006 - 4:31 pm
Sanity said: “This domestic spying mis-information is what is spread by the media because they see essentially one of the persons monitored is in the US while the other is a suspected terrorist out of the US borders. They are wrong. These are INTERNATIONAL calls being monitored, not Domestic Calls. The President has said this many times, the Senate knows about it and gets regular reports on it (though they act like they don’t).
Where do I find this information…I mean relative to the senate being briefed on this? Is there a record of it somewhere?
Additionally, Baklava, what are you scared of? Rather than commenting on snippits of my commentary that you disagree with or aren’t technically 100% correct, why not promote the things you do agree with? Don’t argue just to be arguementative. And relative to,
“No need to attack anyone here as needing to learn it generally.”
How do I make it any clearer than by saying ” For the person that noted that they had studied the issues from both sides, good for you! You are rare.” How is that an attack? It was meant as a complement. If you have in fact spent 3 days a week in the library for the last year, why not use that knowledge to inform others of their rights and duties as US citizens? Are you afraid that they might not think exactly as you? I hope not…you seem to be an intelligent individual. It just seems that you are more bent on argueing than rolling your sleeves up and doing something. (And for the record…if you are going to quote me please try to use the entire thought rather than just the few words that suit your purpose.)
BTW: Hydroxyapetite is the hardest substance in the human body, if you are brushing so hard that you are “destroying it” ease up…it’s overkill.
Comment by CB Howell @ 1/26/2006 - 5:19 pm
Also…I’ll say it again. I’m no bush basher. If I wanted to bash bush this stuff wouldn’t be where I’d start. Bashing a president…well, regardless of who he is, isn’t hard. It’s a tough job in and of itself and when you pile on the scrutiny…point being you don’t have to look very hard to find gripes as would be the case for any of us if we were in the same position. My only, I repeat only agenda here is defending the constitution and attempting to motivate others to do likewise.
Comment by CB Howell @ 1/26/2006 - 5:28 pm
Sanity wrote, “While not as eloquent as Baklava, he is always a joy to read in his discussions
I’m truly flattered. But I think you are usually more on point than myself.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/27/2006 - 7:24 am
Bang wrote, “are continueously reviewed ad nausea by appropriate Congress people on a number of oversight committees.
Over 12 times. Yet folks say, “no oversight”.
CB wrote, “Where do I find this information…I mean relative to the senate being briefed on this? Is there a record of it somewhere?
Go to WhiteHouse.gov. It’s in his speech a few days after the New York Times leaked it (a speech that I listened to). He said 12 times in his speech. In days following there were Democrats who admitted they were briefed but acted like they had problems with the information.
CB asked, “Additionally, Baklava, what are you scared of?
Scared of people misinforming others. I write here to correct folks like you. Propoganda gets 1/2 way around the world before truth gets its boots on.
CB wrote, “Don’t argue just to be arguementative
That’d be a waste of my time. I’m trying to help you and others understand because knowldege is power.
CB wrote, “If you have in fact spent 3 days a week in the library for the last year
That was in 1991 during my conversion. Since then the Internet became available. Between 1991 and 1995 (when I got my Internet connection) I had a few magazine subscriptions like the Atlantic Monthly, National Review and the American Spectator.
CB wrote, “why not use that knowledge to inform others of their rights and duties as US citizens
I am. You seem to disagree with my message. But I am.
CB wrote in it’s entirety so not to be accused of taking a snippet, “Also…I’ll say it again. I’m no bush basher. If I wanted to bash bush this stuff wouldn’t be where I’d start. Bashing a president…well, regardless of who he is, isn’t hard. It’s a tough job in and of itself and when you pile on the scrutiny…point being you don’t have to look very hard to find gripes as would be the case for any of us if we were in the same position. My only, I repeat only agenda here is defending the constitution and attempting to motivate others to do likewise.
My agenda here is defending the constitution and attempting to motivate others to do likewise also. Your interpretation of what the president has the authority to do is disagreed with by quite a few constitutional experts (not to be aired by CNN) and my reading of their work lends me to agree with their intrepretation and understand that what you write is incorrect.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/27/2006 - 7:40 am