Monday, August 3, 2009

I wonder if ethics is in the syllabus

Forty-five professors at Texas Tech have signed a petition protesting Chancellor Kent Hance's hiring of disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a teaching position at the university.

Mr. Gonzales, who resigned from office in a cloud of controversy after the Justice Department fired nine Assistant US Attorneys and after his (less than truthful) testimony about surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency.

"I've been in the situation room. I've been in the Oval Office to talk with the president of the United States. I think I provide a perspective that very few people teaching at Texas Tech University can provide." - Alberto Gonzales

Mr. Gonzales is slated to teach a seminar class with fifteen students this fall entitled Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch. It is not known at this time if Mr. Gonzales' attorney will be on hand to advise the former AG whether or not to answer students' questions.

I just wonder if he'd take points off for a student answering a test question with "I don't recall."


Anonymous said...

how do you know his testimony was less than truthful? funny how a defense attorney would assume guilt without knowing all the facts. how do you know what he knew and if he knew all the details of what his subordinates were doing? not knowing every detail of subordinates behavior might get you fired because you should have known, but it doesn't mean you are guilty of their miscondut. do you recall the details of every activity of your subordinates, especially if they didn't tell you when they did it? you are awfully judgmental for a defense attorney, but then i bet you voted for barack obama, and certainly aren't willing to apply the same standard to him. should we hold him responsible for his aunt being here illegally, or half his cabinet appointees not paying their taxes? i bet you wouldn't agree with that.

Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy, said...

Let's see, he was the attorney general for an administration that continually lied to the American people, that condoned torture and spying on their own citizens and that did what it could to restrict our civil liberties.

Now what could possibly be wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

just once i would like for one of you people to name a single american citizen not involved in terrorism who had their civil liberties curtailed. do you really think that the government is sitting there listening to telephone conversations of average people? we don't have the resources or personnel to do that. the people that were listened to were calling overseas to people involved in terrorism. but i guess its ok with you if we get hit again. of course, when we do, people like you will be the first to blame the intelligence community for not connecting the dots, when you do everything you can to prevent them from doing so. if we had been listening to a few people before 911, maybe it wouldnt have happened, but then, we dont want to step on any terrorist toes, do we? and what did bush lie about? the wmd? every intel agency in the free world believed they were there, clinton said they were there, and saddam said they were there. the evidence sure would have been sufficient to get a search warrant if such a thing were possible. funny as hell that libs complain about going into iraq and removing a despot like saddam who was an open supporter of terrorism and mass murdered his own people (or are all those mass graves fake?), yet are pissing and moaning for us to go into darfur. just amazing

Rage Judicata said...

do you really think that the government is sitting there listening to telephone conversations of average people?

Actually, they admitted to doing just that.

But even if not, first they came for the terrorists, and I said nothing...