From today's issue of The New York Times:
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of
“I’d like to know”, Mr. Schumer said, “if there is an intention to do this on an individual basis or on a case by case basis where 5, 6, 10, 20, 100 individuals are involved or is it a broader brush then that ? Because if it is very broad brush approval, again because it’s secret, we have no way of knowing, it does not do much good."
So we are supposed to trust a secret court. All under the guise of "national security," under an Attorney General that thinks that judges should never make such decisions. Just a day ago at the American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said:
"A judge will never be in the position to know what is in the national security interest of the country…"
"I try to imagine myself being a judge," Gonzales said. "What do I know about what is going on in
Afghanistanor ?" Guantanamo
"How are judges supposed to gather up the information, the collective wisdom of the entire executive branch ... and make a determination as to what is in the national security interest of our country?" Gonzales asked. "They're not capable of doing that."
Note how Gonzales gives examples of foreign countries presumably alien to him to support his claim that judges should never be a position. Never means never. It does not mean never just for those places presumably alien to a judge.
Its sort of like the word trick where Gonzales and others use the term "terrorist" when they really mean "people".
Or when they say that the laws are to allow the government to go after the terrorist organization that flew plans into buildings on September 11, 2001- that is those groups that they have identified as such.