This is an insult to the intelligence.
Link: AlterNet: WireTap: Why We Stood
What you will find at that link is an “explanation” of why a class of Georgetown students stood and turned their backs on Alberto Gonzales when he spoke there recently. I think “rationalization” would be a better word than “explanation”, except that rationality has very little to do with it.
The author repeatedly informs us that Alberto Gonzales’ legal arguments were “unconvincing and wrong” — neglecting to give so much as an example of what those arguments were, why they were unconvincing, and why they were wrong.
This article exemplifies the double-mindedness we see coming from the left; if you say that it’s a good thing that we are monitoring possible terrorist communications, then they will agree, but say it was wrong because it was “not legal”. Then, if any explanation is made as to why it was not illegal, or shouldn’t be, then they’ll return to the argument that it infringes on “freedom.” This is circular, fallacious, and absurd.
I wish, instead, that they had just said, “We are against Bush and his administration no matter what they do, because that is what we have decided to be. No argument will convince us, because this is what we have decided to believe. We simply looked for an opportunity to be rebellious and disrespectful, and we took it.”
I still wouldn’t like the explanation, but at least I would respect the honesty.
Perhaps you should try to do the research that the Georgetown students surely did, in which case you would see that his reasoning about AUMF and FISA is fallacious. You see, Gonzales takes the Hamdi decision on AUMF to legalize any “fundamental incident of war.” His argument is that because surveillance is a fundamental incident of war, than it is legal and the president can do it without oversight. However, the Hamdi case is very specific, and applies only to the dentention of enemy combatants. It is not possible that it would be meant to cover domestic surveillance because of the extra fourth amendment issues involved, and indeed Bush’s legal staff feels that any explicit statutory defense of warrantless wiretapping wouldn’t pass legal muster. (See baker’s statements on the DeWine bill). Because the Hamdi decision doesn’t apply to wiretapping, AUMF doesn’t endorse warrantless surveillance, and thusly FISA is the relevant statue, and must be followed. The Georgetown students undoubtedly knew this. but probably didn’t feel that it is the type of argument that can be reduced to a sound bite. Apparently you are too lazy to figure this all out for yourself. From a legal, objective standpoint, Gonzales is making a fallacious argument. It is just plain fact. I am not even a far-lefty, but I just thought you should know how ignorant you sound to anyone who understands the issues at hand. For the full argument go to my site: http://www.infolung.com
You are quite correct; I was too lazy to look that information up. Thanks for the legal lesson.
I tend to leave the legal wranglings to those for whom that is their area of expertise. For instance, I found Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Univeristy of Chicago professor Cass Sunstein (self-described as a liberal) very interesting.
Professor Sunstein goes into more detail about the various questions that could be raised on the U. of Chicago Law School blog.
In my extremely inexpert opinion it seems that you are reaching quite far in calling Gonzales’ argument fallacious as “a plain fact.”
But I’m just a CompSci student, and I don’t figure you’ll even bother to check this reply, let alone be swayed by Professor Sunstein. (Or Hugh Hewitt himself, for that matter… but I suppose you’d just throw away any of his arguments as being too “partisan.”)
What I should have stated in the original post was that regardless of the case, I see the students standing and turning their backs on Gonzales as, well, rude — not only rude, but intentionally so. I don’t see it as an act of “protest” or as a political statement, just as an immature prank.
There are only so many hours in a day, and I have no intention of embarrassing myself by pretending to learn law, when there are many more qualified people commenting on the legal specifics.