Lyco and I were on the national evening news today. What were we doing? Not much, really: holding a banner, giving out flyers, registering our opinion of Gonzales and the Bush Administration. The occasion was Attorney General Gonzales attempting to justify spying on Americans during a speech he gave at Georgetown Law.
(Wonder how that would have gone over as a campaign platform for Bush in 2004 – We’d like to roll back the scope of Constitutional protections by doing things like Spying on Americans and Harassing and Torturing people we think are enemies.)
Here is a link to the C-Span coverage of the event (1/24/2006: Washington, DC:1 hr. 40 min.) Look about 7min and 30 seconds in. Please note Gonzales's blatant appeals to fear, not reason. 9/11 was awful, but it does not justify Bush trying to revamp the fundamental structure of our country. I'm sure spying on Americans is a useful tool. But it's not the right one to use, any more than torture is; these activities demean us as people. One does not do "everything (anything) one can" to achieve illusory security.
For a crystal clear response to the Administration's false position, go about 40 minutes into the video and listen to what David Cole has to say. It's a nice point by point rebuttal of the nonsense.
Al Gore also repudiated these ideas in his recent speech. While Sen. Leahy more expressly addressed
them in his speech (at Georgetown) where he pointed out that Congress
has spoken already (FISA), clearly against the argument that Gonzales
is making, which places Bush's power at its "lowest ebb," (law-speak
for "on super-shaky ground"). For a quick recap of the wiretapping
scandal, please look here.
**
We have the privledge of being a small part of a very active bunch of Georgetown Law students (not all of whom were in the room during the speech) who have just had it with this Administration and its mouthpieces. There's a point at which you have to say, You know, I listened to your arguments and I understand them, and ultimately, they're crap - in fact, it's demeaning that you're even trying to present them. In one sense I'm glad that the mainstream media is actually showing images of the protest, yet in another, it's quite sad demonstrations like the one pulled off today are largely structurally forbidden.
To attend to a few matters regarding the form of the protest, it was in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience - no one attempted to shout down Gonzales. (He wasn't there to air his thoughful presentation of the issues then stick around and listen to the other side; he was part of a full court Republican press to repeatedly say "legal, legal, it was legal" as many times as they can.)
The hoods were worn as a nod to Gonzales's advocated pro-torture policy arguments which has led to such shocking and disgusting abuses as we've witnessed at Abu-Ghraib - not, as some conservative pundits suggest, in an attempt to remain anonymous.
The Ben Franklin quote, which is receiving so much attention is properly: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. You'll notice it does not fit well on a banner - thus the more common paraphrase, Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
**
This just in - one of our law school fellows didn't even know (last minute speech) that Gonzales was in the building. Our fellow left his classroom to see Gonzales, clearly outraged, surrounded by Secret Service, storm out of the building, screaming to no one in particular, "WE'RE PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS!!"
From whom, 'Berto, from whom?
Here's a list of links covering the event, courtesy Lyco:
News Sources covering the protest:
CNN (front page!)
A couple very interesting responses from the blogosphere:
Rhonda Ross – running for Congress in
A Random Smattering of Blog responses:
Donkey O.D., also here
People at Live Journal are responding as well:
http://insomnia.livejournal.com/652389.html
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/5837825.html
http://fingerback.livejournal.com/20321.html
http://cwintraining.livejournal.com/11044.html
http://queso.livejournal.com/990571.html
http://laikaseefeel.livejournal.com/202245.html
http://blimpcaptain.livejournal.com/119311.html
Is now available at 
On behalf of my husband and me, thanks for protesting. We appreciate it.
Posted by: Julie Carter | January 25, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Came here via Ambivalent Imbroglio. Thank you and your cohort for your actions. It is heartening in this dark time to see that principle and conviction still move some to refuse the abuse of law. Your actions remind us once again that the ethical demand embodied in the law must forever refuse to concede expediency if it is to approach the just and the equitable. Again, this citizen says thank you.
Posted by: FamousP | January 25, 2006 at 11:15 AM
This citizen thinks that you are a boob. "Spying on Americans" sounds sinister. "Monitoring Al Quada calls no matter who is on the other end" doesn't sound sinister, and MOST AMERICANS ARE FOR THAT.
Posted by: Jack Chaffin | January 25, 2006 at 05:33 PM
Julie and Famous - Thanks.
Jack - You're obviously missing something here. In this case, Americans have a perfectly legitimate right to and expectation of privacy (in our Fourth Amendment guarantee to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures). We're concerned that right is being (or was) systematically violated.
FISA was enacted to make sure that if the government thought they needed to monitor communications (wiretapping) and the government had probable cause to get a warrant then they could, after demonstrating that to a court of law. For a quick breakdown of the nuts and bolts of the issue, read this.
As many people have pointed out, if the administration had wanted to monitor communications and had met the very easy standard of "probable cause" then they could have gotten a warrant. That's monitoring.
But they didn't (or so the wind seems to blow).
They tried to amend the law (FISA) and some members of Congress suggested that an amendment wouldn't be possible.
They tried to get wiretapping into the Patriot Act and a very compliant Congress didn't let them.
So they ignored the law. They ignored the courts. They just decided to start monitoring phonecalls and fishing about in people's business. That's what makes it Spying. That's what makes it wrong and illegal.
The President needs to obey the law. It's written into the Constitution and is one of the things that makes the Presidency unlike a dictatorship. This wasn't a slip or a gaffe or some obscure technical matter. The Adminstration knew about the law, and they ignored it anyway and advanced some very shaky theories about "a unitary executive." That's where things potentially get very scary, very Orwellian, very "I will assume these special powers only for the duration of the crisis" (which the Administration has shown, via their relative lack of interest in capturing Bin Laden, they have no interest in ending.) It's why we have some "bright lines" - like "The President must obey the law."
Now, **OF COURSE** the government should be able to monitor phone calls of legitimately suspeced Al Qaeda operatives. And they can - all they have to do is get a warrant. That makes it a "reasonable" search as opposed to an "unreasonable" search per the Fourth.
Posted by: Scoplaw | January 25, 2006 at 07:13 PM
BTW, if you think I'm being alarmist and that we ought to let the rule slide just a little bit in these "dangerous times" consider this- http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8434
Posted by: Scoplaw | January 25, 2006 at 07:18 PM
You guys so totally rock. You remind me of my youth, when we protested the Vietnam War. You make me proud to be a law student.
Posted by: Denise | January 25, 2006 at 09:15 PM
You were part of that, [scoplaw]? Right on!
*edited by Scoplaw to change my name
(Sorry, Glenn, I'm trying to keep my actual name "googlenonymous" at this point - not that it's a big secret or anything. But yes, I helped out- there were a greater number of us that couldn't be in the room itself due to seating restrictions.)
Posted by: Glenn Ingersoll | January 25, 2006 at 09:22 PM
You rock Scoplaw! I'm glad I looked you up (googled your name--followed some links--there is a trail, tho I won't use your real name). Look at you, taking a stand against the Dark Side. Thank you thank you thank you!!! Wow, it's been a long time. Good for you, going to law school.
Posted by: Aimee Houser | January 26, 2006 at 05:14 PM
It is amazing, these students from Georgetown, and yourself, cannot recognize your own folly.
These students did not present themseleves in a mature manner. This was juvenile, sophomoric, and only pushes people away. Not understanding the Constitution is a tragedy for law students, but to fail to provide the Attorney General a chance to present his position is pathetic. This was an invited guest of the University, and you tried to censor his expression. Far from progressive or liberal, simply more in tune with fascism. The students looked as if they were afraid to listen to the first Hispanic Attorney General in US History. And you insulted him...
The reality of 9-11, only makes your offensive behavior, even more banal.
Do the students wearing hoods recognize the context of the liberation of the 27 Million formerly Oppressed by a madman?
It appears, sadly, they do not.
Posted by: William | February 06, 2006 at 10:28 AM
It is amazing, these students from Georgetown, and yourself, cannot recognize your own folly.
These students did not present themseleves in a mature manner. This was juvenile, sophomoric, and only pushes people away. Not understanding the Constitution is a tragedy for law students, but to fail to provide the Attorney General a chance to present his position is pathetic. This was an invited guest of the University, and you tried to censor his expression. Far from progressive or liberal, simply more in tune with fascism. The students looked as if they were afraid to listen to the first Hispanic Attorney General in US History. And you insulted him...
The reality of 9-11, only makes your offensive behavior, even more banal.
Do the students wearing hoods recognize the context of the liberation of the 27 Million formerly Oppressed by a madman?
It appears, sadly, they do not.
Posted by: Brooklyn | February 06, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Sigh.
William/Brooklyn - you ought to read a bit before posting. These issues have all been addressed here and via the links I've posted.
But for form’s sake:
These students did not present themseleves in a mature manner. This was juvenile, sophomoric, and only pushes people away. Not understanding the Constitution is a tragedy for law students, but to fail to provide the Attorney General a chance to present his position is pathetic.
The AG wasn’t prevented from presenting his position. The protest didn’t censor his speech in any way, not a single syllable’s worth. It merely recontextualized it. Gonzales gave his political stump speech, word for word, exactly as he planned to.
I think it’s far more tragic that the AG is relying on a grossly distorted vision of what the constitution is to justify illegal spying on Americans. Just this week, Senators Specter and Laehy (a Republican and a Democrat, respectively) have said publicly that they have grave issues with the Spying program and that they find the AG’s justifications (the one’s he presented at Georgetown) for the program shaky and inadequate.
This was an invited guest of the University, and you tried to censor his expression.
I didn’t invite him – and, as I pointed out, he wasn’t censored in any way.
Far from progressive or liberal, simply more in tune with fascism.
Fascism? Uh, dude. We weren’t advocating an authoritarian state under a single unquestionable leader exercising control over political, social, cultural and economic expression. Gonzales might have been, via the “unitary executive,” but we weren’t.
The students looked as if they were afraid to listen to the first Hispanic Attorney General in US History. And you insulted him...
We heard, as I said, every syllable of his speech. We rejected its premise though. Further, I simply don’t care what “firsts” Gonzales might accrue – his ethnicity does not give him a free political pass.
The reality of 9-11, only makes your offensive behavior, even more banal. Do the students wearing hoods recognize the context of the liberation of the 27 Million formerly Oppressed by a madman? It appears, sadly, they do not.
Ah, the 9-11/Iraqi Freedom “argument ender.” I don’t think anyone is saying that democracy in Iraq is a bad thing. Nor that 9-11 wasn’t tragic.
However, I personally remain opposed to torture. I remain opposed to spying on Americans (illegal, warrantless, monitoring). I remain opposed to the idea that the Executive ought to be given unprecedented powers for the duration of a conflict that *he* sets the outside limits on.
*That’s* what the protest was about.
Let me ask you a question; Let’s say Bush decided, for some reason, that your mom and dad (or your kids, or your spouse) was a danger to the war effort, and had your mom and dad shanghaied to a torture facility where they were routinely psychologically abused, without any real hope of release (or simple review of their case), even though they provided *no* useful information, do you think he could justify that by “liberating 27 million Iraqis?”
Posted by: Scoplaw | February 06, 2006 at 11:35 AM
You should be ashamed of yourself. You should trust more in the new American future. Why don't you just rebel against the law then, and lets have chaos and disorder, would you like that?
Posted by: Michael P. | March 08, 2006 at 11:36 AM
It's sort of hard to figure out how to respond to stuff like this. I hope that you're in the 4th grade Michael, because that's the only way I could find to credit your response.
No one here is suggesting rebelling against the rule of law - in fact, it's our respect for the Constitution and the enacted laws of Congress (FISA) that caused us to have such a negative reaction to the Attorney General's political speech, which is most easily understood as advocating *flouting* the rule of law and just having El Jeffe Bush call the shots.
And what's "the new American future"? Facism?
Posted by: Scoplaw | March 08, 2006 at 11:54 AM