Senator Leahy: Alito a Threat to Our Fundamental Rights

[IndyOp]

Senator Leahy: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

This nomination raises the fundamental question whether the Senate will serve its constitutional role as a check on the President by preserving the Supreme Court as a constitutional check on the expansion of presidential power. Today I urge Senators and, in particular, Republican Senators, to approach this discussion with open ears and open minds.

This is a nomination that I fear threatens the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans now and for generations to come. This President is in the midst of a radical realignment of the powers of the government and its intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans. This nomination is part of that plan. I am concerned that if confirmed this nominee will further erode the checks and balances that have protected our constitutional rights for more than 200 years. This is a critical nomination, one that can tip the balance on the Supreme Court radically away from constitutional checks and balances and the protection of Americans' fundamental rights.

<snip>

As Justice O'Connor underscored recently, even war "is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Now that the illegal spying of Americans has become public and the President has acknowledged the four-year-old program, the Bush Administration's lawyers are contending that Congress authorized it. The September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force did no such thing. Republican Senators know it, and a few have said so publicly. We all know it. The liberties and rights that define us as Americans and the system of checks and balances that serve to preserve them should not be sacrificed to threats of terrorism or to the expanding power of the Government.

<snip>

The Bush Administration's after-the-fact claims about the breadth of the Authorization to Use Military Force are the latest in a long line of manipulations and another affront to the rule of law, American values and traditions. We have also seen this type of overreaching in that same Justice Department office's twisted interpretation of the torture statute; with the detention of suspects without charges and denial of access to counsel; and with the misapplication of the material witness statute as a sort of general preventive detention law. Such abuses serve to harm our national security as well as our civil liberties. By way of illustration, sources at the FBI reportedly say that much of what was forwarded to them to investigate from the NSA spying program was worthless and led to dead ends. That is a dangerous diversion of our investigative resources away from those who pose real threats, while precious time and effort is devoted to looking into the lives of law-abiding Americans.

Throughout the Alito hearing, from my opening statement on Monday afternoon, to my first questions on Tuesday morning, to my last written question, which received a response last Friday, I asked Judge Alito about these matters. I am not reassured.

Lots more: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012406Y.shtml

[Swamp Rat]

1. This one?

:D

[IndyOp]

2. Yes - This one!

Whew! :)

[Swamp Rat]

3. (echo) "... AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!" - poor little dupe.

:cry: :hi:

:D

[Swamp Rat]

4. "Alito would have excused the strip search of a 10-year-old girl..."

The Need for an Effective Check on Unfettered Presidential Power

A central question during the hearings on this nomination was whether Judge Alito would serve as an effective constitutional check on the presidency. We have a President prone to unilateralism and assertions of Executive power that extend all the way to illegal spying on Americans.

Preventing government intrusion into the personal privacy and freedoms of Americans is one of the hallmarks of the Supreme Court. There is no assurance that Judge Alito will serve as an effective check and balance on government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Indeed, his record suggests otherwise.

We know that Samuel Alito sought to justify absolute immunity for President Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell from lawsuits for wiretapping Americans, among other violations of their privacy. That is immunity even if the Attorney General acted willfully to violate their rights.

We know that as a judge, Samuel Alito was willing to go further than even Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Ashcroft Justice Department's Criminal Division, a former U.S. Attorney, and the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in excusing government agents for searches not authorized by judicial warrants. We know Judge Alito would have excused the strip search of a 10-year-old girl that was not expressly authorized by the search warrant.

edit: continued here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012406Y.shtml

:kick: