You know, I wonder if our trolls know what panopticon means? Or rather, can they know what something means by living it but not having the educational foundation to perceive that state? Philosophy makes my head hurt, so instead, let’s make our ears bleed with a little testimony from our Torturer in Chief, or the Whipping Boy, or however he fits into the fatty butt pryamids we know are going on at night over at the White House when Jeffy comes by.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: April 7, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 6 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States.

“I’m not going to rule it out,” Mr. Gonzales said when asked about that possibility at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Well, he is a lawyer, so one must expect the slimy nonanswer. But I think we can all agree that isn’t “no.”

The attorney general made his comments, which critics said reflected a broadened view of the president’s authority, as President Bush offered another strong defense of his decision to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls and e-mail messages to or from the United States.

Mr. Bush, in an appearance in North Carolina, told a questioner who attacked the program that he would “absolutely not” apologize for authorizing it.

“You can come to whatever conclusion you want” about the merits of the program,” Mr. Bush said. “The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program.”

He won’t even apologize, let alone do anything as radical as stop, or admit wrong doing. Why? Very simply, because he knows no one is going to stop him. There are Dems who probably support this privilege for the executive, still foolishly dreaming that they too will be allowed to vie for the Brass Ring, instead of being permanently relegated to Captain of the Washington Generals.

At the House hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced tough questioning from Democrats and Republicans but declined to discuss many operational details.

My, that’s some “toughness,” alright! They asked him questions, you see, now that’s what I call oversight! Never mind he didn’t answer, it’s just aksing the question that matters. Following up those questions with threats of jailtime for obstruction would be so very uncongressional.

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the administration’s staunchest allies, accused the administration of “stonewalling.”

“Mr. Attorney General, how can we discharge our oversight responsibilities if every time we ask a pointed question, we’re told that the answer is classified?” Mr. Sensenbrenner asked. “Congress has an inherent constitutional responsibility to do oversight. We are attempting to discharge those responsibilities.”

No, Jim- you’re failing. As Yoda says, there is no try. There is only do, or do not. Have him locked up for failing to respect your authority or just make the knee implants permanent.

That said- it’s interesting that even Republicans are making chirping noises. “Oh, oh, but what will I tell my libertarian frat brothers at the country club when I see them next?” I guess they’ll just have to be grateful that some of us liberals have been defending the Constitution while they’ve been off enjoying the Halliburton gravy train. Won’t last forever, boys, I promise you that.

The House and Senate have conducted limited inquiries into the surveillance program, which many Democrats contend is illegal.

Oh, that’s right! This is why I don’t waste my time with the fucking New York Times. “Demonspawns, using homosexually potent intellectual abilities, yap like running dogs about the feet of Glorious Leader, doubting the pearls of wisdom he cast before them in a bout of beneficence to swine-like creatures everywhere.”

Listen, you fellating hacks, it’s simple. The law says “use the courts.” The law says, “skip the courts in an emergency, but get back to us after the weekend is over and get authorization.” The law even says, “you can keep all or most of what you do secret, just tell a panel of mostly conservative old white men first.” Bush can’t even be bothered to do that, and Republicans are hurrying to cover his tracks. Why do you defend your own demise? Do you really think, O Paragon of the SCLM, that in the New Order, you will be allowed to publish? You literally can’t suck hard enough for the Bushies, and will…no, I’m not the Rude Pundit, I can’t say that on a family blog.

Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel have agreed on measures to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has proposed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program.

What kind of sloppy-ass writing is this? Does it make sense to you? How am I better informed by this information, NYT? Ever heard of “clarity?”

What measures, specifically, and how are they different from existing oversight protocol? Which Republicans? Agreed among themselves alone? What about the Democrats? “Have a role?” What does that mean? Bleh, why do I bother?

In the past, Mr. Gonzales and the administration have avoided discussing what they consider hypothetical possibilities in the face of Democrats’ accusations that Mr. Bush has asserted unbridled authority to fight terrorism.

So some people at the NYT think that Bush hasn’t asserted unbridled authority? Did I miss the bridling? Gotta love how they can’t resist slipping “hypothetical” and “Democrats” in the same sentence. All our accusations on the left are no more than spidery dreamsmoke, to the Times.

At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales inched closer toward acknowledging that intercepting purely domestic calls could be considered legally permissible in his view if the communications involved Al Qaeda.

Once again, the Great Unstoppable Brown Menace. So great we must shred the Constitution and cower in fear, monitoring all in the name of Security. Historical fact, trolls: this never works. In the long run, totalitarian systems always break down, in the short run, they aren’t any fun and the enemy never goes away, even if he evolves from being “over there” to “on your hardrive.”

“You would look at precedent,” he said. “What have previous commander in chiefs done?”

Answering his question, he cited Woodrow Wilson’s authorizing the interception of all cables to and from Europe in World War I “based upon the Constitution and his inherent role as commander in chief.”

Yup, GWOT = The War to End All Wars. Nice blending of the New World Order in that, psyops folks! W all the time, when do we get the arm bands? Sorry…what does Wilson, the last century and its technology, and WWI have to do with domestic spying today? And where exactly is that “inherent” role spelled out in a legal document about executive power?

Mr. Gonzales said he would use that legal framework to decide whether intercepting purely domestic communications without a warrant was legally permissible. He would not say whether such wiretapping has been conducted.

Again: a lawyer for this administration who can’t flatly deny they’re not trampling on the Constitution. Just in case you we’re sure:

A department spokeswoman, Tasia Scolinos, said, “The attorney general’s comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the existence or nonexistence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis.”

At this point, I’m convinced the only reason they bother with “legal analysis” is to keep all the cronies on the payroll looking busy. Gotta give the good folks at the NYT some more goat entrails to examine.