Gonzales lied yet again

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288761,00.html


Paper: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Received Reports About FBI Patriot Act Abuses
Tuesday, July 10, 2007


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales received reports detailing legal or procedural violations by FBI agents in the months before he told senators that no such abuses had occurred, The Washington post reported Tuesday.

In April 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales said, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.

According to the Post, Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.

Justice officials said they did not know whether Gonzales had read the reports.

Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "The statements from the attorney general are consistent with statements from other officials at the FBI and the department." He told the Post that many of the violations were not illegal but merely involved procedural safeguards or even typographical errors.

This for all of those who defend this administration's penchant for secrecy. One of the favorite arguments for Bush and the boys is 'prove someone that someone's civil liberties were infringed upon'. Yet Gonzalez is a favorite amongst the righties on this board... oh well I guess he's ok because he's a republican liar.

[SA210]

Yoni's loyal Bush love in 3.2.1...

[Yonivore]

Pardon me for not trusting the media anymore so, I went to the Senate website and looked at General Gonzalez's testimony (http://intelligence.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?hearingId=2103) for April 27, 2005 and can not find the sentence the Post quotes him on anywhere in his testimony. Searching on the word "abuse," it doesn't appear and searching on the word "civil," it appears 5 times, 3 where he talks about renewing sunsetting sections of the Patriot Act so that civil liberties can be protected and 2 where he's talking about protecting private enterprise from civil liability for complying with Patriot Act requests.

Now, he does indicate his willingness to answer questions at the end of his testimony but there's no record any were asked. Can anyone point me to the transcript of the question and answer period of his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on April 27, 2005?

No more of this "so-and-so" lied without putting it all in context. I want to see the transcript of the entire conversation.

I've asked the question several times and have yet to get an answer, "Can you name one civil liberty you've lost since George W. Bush became president?"

[clambake]

Who cares. The Attorney General is no longer bound by laws.

[FromWayDowntown]

Pardon me for not trusting the media anymore so, I went to the Senate website and looked at General Gonzalez's testimony for April 27, 2005 and can not find the sentence the Post quotes him on anywhere in his testimony.

Do you mean that you can't find it other than the time, on April 27, 2005, when General Gonzales uttered precisely that sentence:




STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Roberts, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, Members of this Committee, I am pleased to be here to talk about reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I really appreciate this opportunity to come before Congress to discuss our successes in the war on terror and to find new ways to fight for freedom more effectively and consistent with the values that we all cherish as Americans.

As the distinguished Members of this Committee know, the threat of terrorism remains very serious and it is critical that Congress continues to provide tools that enable prosecutors and law enforcement to both confront terrorism and investigate and prosecute other serious crimes. I believe the authorities in the PATRIOT Act have enabled us to better protect America. But, the exercise of government authority is always worthy of respectful and accurate discussion. I'm open to suggestions for strengthening and clarifying the Act, but I cannot support amendments that will weaken our ability to protect our nation.

The PATRIOT Act, as we know, has helped dismantle the wall that used to separate law enforcement from intelligence officials. Prior law, as interpreted and implemented, sharply limited the ability of law enforcement and intelligence officers to share information and connect the dots in terrorism and espionage investigations. As we know, section 203 and section 218 of the PATRIOT Act, which are scheduled to sunset at the end of this year, brought down this wall. And together these provisions have reduced the statutory and cultural barriers to information sharing. And it is information sharing, as the 9/11 Commission and the WMD Commission made clear, and as this Committee knows full well, that will make the difference in our ongoing efforts to prevent terrorism.

This Committee is familiar with the successful use of section 218, including investigation of the Portland Seven and the Virginia Jihad. Section 203 along with section 218 was used extensively during the investigation of the Holy Land Foundation in 2004. Law enforcement professionals tell me that allowing sections 203 and 218 to expire would discourage information sharing, making it more difficult for us to disrupt terrorist plots.

There are other similar commonsense PATRIOT Act provisions that also will expire if Congress does not take action. Section 206, which provides national security investigators with an authority long possessed by criminal investigators, authorizes the use of multi-point or roving wiretaps, tied to a specific target rather than a specific communications facility. Before the PATRIOT Act these orders were not available for a national security investigation under FISA, a gap in the law that we believe sophisticated terrorists or spies could easily exploit. Although specific examples of the use of multi-point wiretaps under section 206 remain classified, I can represent in this open hearing that this authority has been very valuable.

As of March 30 this year we have used this authority 49 times. Importantly, 206 contains numerous safeguards to protect civil liberties. The FISA court can only issue a roving wiretap order upon a finding of probable cause, the order must always be connected to a particular target, and minimization procedures must be followed concerning the collection, the retention and dissemination of information about U.S. persons.

Section 215 also filled a gap in the law. It granted national security investigators authority to seek a court order for the production of records relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation, similar to a prosecutor's authority to use grand jury subpoenas as the building blocks of criminal investigations. Use of this provision has been judicious. We have used this authority 35 times as of March 30 of this year. Moreover, we have not sought a Section 215 order to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records, or gun sale records. Let me be clear, the reading habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those investigating terrorists
or spies.

Section 213, although not scheduled to sunset is another valuable provision of the PATRIOT Act. Section 213 codified one consistent process and standard for delayed notice search warrants, which can be used in limited circumstances, with judicial approval, to avoid tipping off criminals who otherwise might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cutoff contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest.

Now the portion of Section 213 that has received the most attention is the provision allowing a court to authorize delayed notice if immediate notice would ``seriously jeopardize'' an investigation. I would like to describe one actual case where immediate notice would have seriously jeopardized an investigation.

In this case, the Justice Department obtained a delayed notice search warrant for a Federal Express package that contained counterfeit credit cards. At the time of the search it was very important not to disclose the existence of a Federal investigation, as this would have exposed a related Title III wiretap that was ongoing for major drug trafficking activities. An organized crime drug enforcement task force, which included agents from the DEA, the IRS, the Pittsburgh police department and other State and local agencies was engaged in a multi-year investigation that resulted in the
indictment of the largest drug trafficking organization ever prosecuted in the western district of Pennsylvania.

While the drug trafficking investigation was ongoing it became clear that several leaders of the drug trafficking conspiracy had ties to an ongoing credit card fraud operation. An investigation into the credit card fraud was undertaken and a search was made of a Federal Express package that contained fraudulent credit cards. Had notice of the Federal Express search tied to the credit card fraud investigation been immediately given, it could have revealed the ongoing drug trafficking investigation prematurely and the drug trafficking investigation might have been seriously jeopardized. Even modest delay would not have been available if this provision of section 213 were deleted. It is critical that law enforcement continue to have this vital tool for those limited circumstances where a court finds good cause to permit the temporary delay of notification of a search.

Finally, I'd like to close by addressing a common question that must be answered by this Committee and this Congress--the issue of whether we should continue to impose sunset provisions on critical sections of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was a swift and decisive response to the attacks of September 11. In the weeks and months following the attacks in Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York, Democrats and Republicans came together to address the vulnerabilities in our nation's defenses.

Both Congress and the administration worked with experienced law enforcement, intelligence and national security personnel to design legislation to better protect the American people. Although there was extensive consideration in 2001, and although it is unusual to impose sunsets on statutory investigative tools, Congress included sunsets for certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act because Members wanted to ensure that we were not risking the very liberties we were setting out to defend. And I think today we can all be proud.

The track record established over the past 3 years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse. Our Nation is stronger and safer; our bipartisan work has been a success.

The Department of Justice has exercised care and restraint in the use of these important authorities because we are committed to the rule of law. We have followed the law because it is the law, not because it is scheduled to sunset. With or without sunsets, our dedication to the rule of law will continue. The Department will strive to continue to carry out its work lawfully and appropriately, and as a citizen I expect Congress will continue its active oversight over our use of the PATRIOT Act, not because it sunsets but because oversight is a constitutional responsibility of Congress.

So, given the Department's record in using these authorities, the obvious effectiveness of these tools in stopping violent crimes and protecting our nation, and the authority of Congress to re-examine these provisions at any time to correct abuses, the sunset provisions are, in my judgment, no longer necessary and should be repealed. The authorities in the PATRIOT Act are critical to our nation's efforts in the war against terrorism. The Act has a proven record of success in protecting the security of the American people while simultaneously respecting civil liberties. And I question how we can afford to allow its most important provisions to sunset. The efforts of the terrorists to strike our country surely will not sunset.

I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee in the period ahead, listening to and responding to your concerns, and joining together again to protect the security of the American people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Roberts. Thank you, General.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_hr/shrg109-341.html

I'll acknowledge that General Gonzales's statement is one that followed the testimony that you linked to above. As the link indicates, I didn't find it on the Committee's website; I used a generic search engine with the query "april 27, 2005 hearing gonzalez" and found the full transcript of that day's hearing, including General Gonzales's correct statement.

I'll also admit that I tinkered with the formatting of the transcript, hoping to make General Gonzales's statement a bit easier to read and less lengthy in terms of page space. I did not, however, change any of the language attributed to him.

[FromWayDowntown]

er . . . um . . . er . . . um

[SA210]

::crickets::



:lol

[CubanMustGo]

:owned

YoniChangeOfSubject in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[PixelPusher]

I particularly enjoyed the juxtaposition of a Fox News article link with Yoni's "Pardon me for not trusting the media anymore" whine.

[Wild Cobra]

How about a little fairness and accuracy:

"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse"

Note the qualifier "verified"

Isn't it likely that he received reports of abuse that hadn't been verified by the time of the statement?

He didn't say there were no cases, or no allegations. Just none that were verified.

George, prove that he knew the allegations were true, else consider yourself a slanderer!

[Nbadan]

Gonzo


"A Democratic Congressman called for Alberto Gonzalez's resignation and said he wants an independent prosecutor to investigate reports that the attorney general misled Congress in denying knowledge of civil rights abuses by the FBI.

"Attorney General Gonzales has shown an apparent reckless disregard for the rule of law and a fundamental lack of respect for the oversight responsibilities of Congress," said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. "The man entrusted with enforcing our nation's laws must also abide by them - and Mr. Gonzales has apparently failed in that duty."

Tuesday's Washington Post reports that Gonzales was given at least a half-dozen reports detailing FBI abuses of power in the three months before testifying to Congress where he sought to renew the Patriot Act. In front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on April 27, 2005, he claimed he knew of no wrongdoing or abuse of power, and that the Patriot Act was free of problems, despite the reports of numerous violations of the law and FBI protocol.

The report detailed acts of unauthorized surveillance, improper searches, and other procedural and legal breaches of civil rights and privacy laws. Gonzales was also briefed on the abuse of an anti-terror tool known as the national security letter as early as 2005, well before the Justice Department's inspector general made these violations public."

Rawstory (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gonzales_told_of_FBI_abuses_claimed_0710.html)

I believe the operative phrase is "knew or should have known", add that to a date-time stamp for when these reports arrived in his office and you have the makings of an Attorney General in need of a new job.

[Yonivore]

er . . . um . . . er . . . um
Pardon me for having a life. But, that's okay, I've been known to be impatient on this board before.


:owned

YoniChangeOfSubject in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
No, I'll leave that to Nbadan who all of a sudden wants to change this from a discussion over whether or not the Attorney General lied to one over whether or not he knew or should have known the contents of FBI reports that may or may not contradict his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee depending on whether or not they contained verified or alleged instances of civil liberties abuses or some other illegality or procedural error.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by calls for the Attorney General's resignation from a side of the congressional aisle that has initiated 300 investigations of the Bush administration in 100 days and none of which, apparently, have anything to do with their Constitutional mandate to legislate.

But, as for your posting, FWD, I'm at a loss to reconcile the two sources. Can you help? It appears you've posted a government/congressional report on the same testimony I posted. Mine comes from the Committee's own website whereas yours is apparently from a non-governmental scientific organization? (I tried to load www.fas.org and it failed on several attempts. I did successfully read the page yesterday but, in the interest of at least responding, I will continue this post without benefit of a side by side comparison. )

I can't explain the differences in the two renditions. In any event, I don't think either addresses the assertion to which I originally objected. GGA posted an article and immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was irrefutable proof that Attorney General Gonzales had lied during his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on April 27, 2005.

Given the limited amount of factual knowledge available on the referenced FBI reports and General Gonzales's knowledge of the contents of those reports, it's impossible to say whether or not he lied.

What it boils down to is that some on this forum, and around the country, are predisposed to believe he lied while others, such as myself, believe there could be a reasonable explanation and that, in the context of his testimony -- absent a question from any committee member -- the Attorney General of the United States (whether it be Janet Reno or Alberto Gonzales) wouldn't voluntarily offer a blatant lie on a matter not being contended.

In reading both your source and mine, it appears this was a prepared statement from the Attorney General and that he probably read it aloud to the committee after all the members were done bloviating. Now, I haven't read the bloviations to know whether or not a statement may have caused the Attorney General to extemporaneously insert the statement in question. But, that's possible.

(It occurs to me my copy may be the written testimony as provided to the committee prior to appearance and yours may be the testimony as transcribed during testimony or afterward.)

In any case, it would be stupid for the Attorney General to knowingly lie about something he knew could be easily disproven with documents known, by him, to be in existence at the time of the alleged lie that could conceivably be disclosed -- as apparently they were, at least in some part.

Most people get caught in a lie because they lie when they are unaware of the existence of contradictory evidence. (i.e. Bill Clinton didn't know about the blue dress and Sandy Berger didn't know he was being observed.)

So, before you -- or anyone, for that matter -- can demonstrate the Attorney General lied in that testimony you're going to have to demonstrate the FBI reports; a) contain verified instances of civil liberties abuses; and, b) were read (not just should have been read, Nbadan) or, that the contents were known (not just should have been known, Nbadan) by the Attorney General prior to his testimony.

For an administration that has been accused of lying at every corner, their critics are notoriously inept at actually proving any lies. So, I'm coming down in the AG's corner for now.

Back to you FWD.

[Yonivore]

Oh yeah, one more thing. Can you name one civil liberty you've lost since George W. Bush took office?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh yeah, one more thing. Can you name one civil liberty you've lost since George W. Bush took office?


I see you dusted off the old "if it doesn't affect you directly, just shut-up about it" comeback. Nice.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Countdown to Xray asking "if you've got nothing to hide, then why should you care if the government is spying?"

[xrayzebra]

^^Well OG, can you name anyone that has lost any civil liberties
since Bush took office?

[Oh, Gee!!]

^^Well OG, can you name anyone that has lost any civil liberties
since Bush took office?

So I guess because I can't name anyone, then logically it must mean that no one has lost any civil liberties since Bush took office? I'm sure somebody here could do a quick search and find allegations of abuse by the White House, but that wouldn't satisfy you. So why bother?

[boutons_]

Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say

By John Solomon
The Washington Post

Wednesday 11 July 2007

Two senior Justice Department officials said yesterday that they kept Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales apprised of FBI violations of civil liberties and privacy safeguards in recent years.

The two officials spoke in a telephone call arranged by press officials at the Justice Department after The Washington Post disclosed yesterday that the FBI sent reports to Gonzales of legal and procedural violations shortly before he told senators in April 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001.

"I have discussed and informed attorneys general, including this one, about mistakes the FBI has made or problems or violations or compliance incidents, however you want to refer to them," said James A. Baker, a career official who heads the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.

"I've discussed a number of times oversight concerns and, underlying those oversight concerns, the potential for violations. And I'm sure we've discussed violations that have occurred in the past," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein.

But Wainstein defended the 2005 statement by Gonzales that he was unaware of civil liberties abuses related to the government's counterterrorism effort. Wainstein cited what he described as a dictionary definition of "abuse" in defending Gonzales's remark.

Democratic lawmakers, citing that disclosure, yesterday accused Gonzales of misleading them about the existence of legal or rules violations by the FBI.

Wainstein said Gonzales was saying only that there had been no intentional acts of misconduct, rather than the sorts of mistakes the FBI was self-disclosing. "That is why I cited the definition of 'abuse,' which in Webster's ... implies some sort of intentional conduct. And I think that is sort of the common understanding of the word 'abuse,'" Wainstein said.

( typical lawyer, playing semantics and word games to weasel around and obscure the issue that common sense sees clear as day )

Civil liberties groups and key Democratic lawmakers dismissed that explanation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) noted that Gonzales said in a written statement last week that he first became aware of problems with the FBI's use of a tool known as a "national security letter" earlier this year. Copies of the FBI reports sent to Gonzales in 2005 and 2006 described several problems with the letters, which allow agents to secretly collect Americans' phone, computer and bank records without a court order or grand jury subpoena.

"This inconsistency is a disturbing addition to a growing list of misleading answers by the attorney general to questions from the Judiciary Committee, and it is unacceptable," Leahy said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on civil liberties, said Gonzales should resign and a special prosecutor should be appointed. "Attorney General Gonzales has shown an apparent reckless disregard for the rule of law and a fundamental lack of respect for the oversight responsibilities of Congress," Nadler said.

The White House stood behind Gonzales. President Bush "has said repeatedly that he has great faith in the attorney general, and that has not changed," spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Justice Department officials said yesterday that they have been unable to determine whether Gonzales actually read any of the FBI reports but that he was informed at various times about the sorts of problems those reports described.

Baker said many of the violations described in the reports involved the inadvertent overcollection of phone data or surveillance that went beyond what agents were authorized to collect. "If you do an overrun or an overcollection, that is a violation of law," he said.

Baker said he could not immediately recall the specific topics and dates of his discussions with Gonzales about FBI missteps but described the conversations this way: " 'Hey, there is an issue that has come up; here it is,' what it has to do with, describe the problem, inform him what corrective action we're taking or what we've worked out with the bureau or what we're telling the bureau to do."

Wainstein said the department's past review of FBI reports of violations were not as thorough as they should have been, and he said Gonzales has now mandated that officials review every report and brief the attorney general twice a year.



==================


Gonzales Faces New Firestorm in Congress

By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters

Tuesday July 10 2007

Washington - Embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced a new firestorm on Tuesday sparked by a report he may have misled lawmakers in 2005 about civil liberty violations by the FBI.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, responded by promising that Gonzales would face tough questions about this and other matters at a hearing planned by his panel later this month.

And Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who chairs a House Judiciary subcommittee, renewed calls for Gonzales to resign and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to determine if he had misled Congress, "a serious crime."

But President George W. Bush brushed off the flap about his longtime friend, who earlier served as White House counsel.

"The president has said repeatedly that he has great faith in the attorney general, and that has not changed," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Gonzales assured Congress in 2005 that the FBI had not abused powers granted under the anti-terror USA Patriot Act despite having received reports of potential violations.

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for Gonzales, told reporters he did not know whether the attorney general had read the reports sent to the president's Intelligence Oversight Board.

But Roehrkasse and other Justice Department officials denied that Gonzales had given misleading testimony. "Just because the FBI makes a referral to (the board) does not necessarily mean somebody's civil liberties has been abused," Roehrkasse said.

Gonzales has drawn fire from Congress on a number of fronts, from the administration's treatment of detainees to its warrantless domestic spying program to his controversial firing last year of nine top federal prosecutors.

"This should be the last straw, but there never seems to be a last straw when it comes to George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.

With Bush's support, Gonzales has fended off bipartisan calls to resign. He has promised to remain chief U.S. law enforcement officer as long as he believes he is effective and the president backs him.

--------

Additional reporting by Jim Vicini and Tabassum Zakaria.

[xrayzebra]

^^Allegations! Yep, I'll bet you can find a bunch of them. Like
Yoni said. 300 investigations in 100 days, I would say there are
more than enough allegations to go around.

But alleging doesn't make it so. From looking on this forum alone
I think you can safely say no one has lost any rights. Up to
and including wishing the President to be killed. Along with
sundry other members of his administration. And yet, these
same people are still posting. So much for lost rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But alleging doesn't make it so. From looking on this forum alone
I think you can safely say no one has lost any rights. Up to
and including wishing the President to be killed. Along with
sundry other members of his administration. And yet, these
same people are still posting. So much for lost rights.

Yep, the fact that the 20 or so regular posters on the political forum of a website devoted to the Spurs (a sports franchise) are allowed to post whatever thought that pops into their head is a clear indication that no one in this entire country has lost any civil liberties in the entire time Bush has been in office. Sweet argument there, Xray.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep, the fact that the 20 or so regular posters on the political forum of a website devoted to the Spurs (a sports franchise) are allowed to post whatever thought that pops into their head is a clear indication that no one in this entire country has lost any civil liberties in the entire time Bush has been in office. Sweet argument there, Xray.


leave Ray on the other dead-enders alone..they are on a roll... :lol

It's amazing to me that many people that have worked in and around this administration have sung a consistent theme. politics trump science, economic policy, nationak defense, the FDA..etc.. yet to the dead enders all of these people have axes to grind or agendas......

Now when a former clinton associate comes out with a book that isn't to kind to them the same folks treat it as gospel...

I guess for the dead enders it's simple. Anything that paints this Administration in a negative light it is because the person making the claim is not credible. Anything that paints a dem in a bad light it is rock solid truth and all dems are guilty of the claims that were made

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^Allegations! Yep, I'll bet you can find a bunch of them. Like
Yoni said. 300 investigations in 100 days, I would say there are
more than enough allegations to go around.

But alleging doesn't make it so. From looking on this forum alone
I think you can safely say no one has lost any rights. Up to
and including wishing the President to be killed. Along with
sundry other members of his administration. And yet, these
same people are still posting. So much for lost rights.


Hey ray are we now going to judge all crimes against " if it hasn't happened to you then why worry about it" standard?

[Extra Stout]

When Argentina fell under military dictatorship, they only "disappeared" under 1000 people, who might have been violent inciters anyway. And when they bulldozed the shantytowns, they were only clearing illegal squatters off government and industrial property. (Villa 31 especially is a real eyesore for tourists in Retiro and a major source of property crime. And don't get me started if you're a San Lorenzo fan!) Out of a country of 40 million, who could really tell the difference anyway?

Pinochet over in Chile was the same way -- AND he was as devoted a free-market reformer as you'll ever see. Think how much foreign investment he attracted with his policies!

These police states get an unnecessarily bad rap. We need to rethink our ideas of freedom in light of these new threats, or else al-Qaeda will be cooking our 11-year-old children and forcing us to eat them.

[PixelPusher]

When Argentina fell under military dictatorship, they only "disappeared" under 1000 people, who might have been violent inciters anyway. And when they bulldozed the shantytowns, they were only clearing illegal squatters off government and industrial property. (Villa 31 especially is a real eyesore for tourists in Retiro and a major source of property crime. And don't get me started if you're a San Lorenzo fan!) Out of a country of 40 million, who could really tell the difference anyway?

Pinochet over in Chile was the same way -- AND he was as devoted a free-market reformer as you'll ever see. Think how much foreign investment he attracted with his policies!

These police states get an unnecessarily bad rap. We need to rethink our ideas of freedom in light of these new threats, or else al-Qaeda will be cooking our 11-year-old children and forcing us to eat them.
Oh, yeah? Were YOU ever personally affected by Pinochet's policies! Did YOU personally know any of these so-called "dissapeared" people? Unless you shove rotting corpse with verifiable dental records in front of my face, it's all just a bunch of liberal paranoia and hype! [/YoniXrayWC]

[FromWayDowntown]

Pardon me for having a life. But, that's okay, I've been known to be impatient on this board before.

Yeah -- just returning a favor. Nothing personal, I assure you.


But, as for your posting, FWD, I'm at a loss to reconcile the two sources. Can you help? It appears you've posted a government/congressional report on the same testimony I posted. Mine comes from the Committee's own website whereas yours is apparently from a non-governmental scientific organization? (I tried to load www.fas.org and it failed on several attempts. I did successfully read the page yesterday but, in the interest of at least responding, I will continue this post without benefit of a side by side comparison.)

I can't explain the differences in the two renditions. In any event, I don't think either addresses the assertion to which I originally objected. GGA posted an article and immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was irrefutable proof that Attorney General Gonzales had lied during his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on April 27, 2005.

My effort was mainly to show that General Gonzales had, in fact, uttered the very statement that you suggested had never been made. I haven't had the time or the inclination to fully ferret out the disparity, but I'm certainly inclined to believe that I found the full public transcript of the hearing, while you unearthed selected portions of the testimony. It appears to me that the statement you linked yesterday was the joint statement of General Gonzales and Robert Mueller; what I quoted yesterday was the individual testimony of General Gonzales. I also think that General Gonzales' individual testimony was likely pre-written and not responsive to particular questions posed that day by members of the committee. I think that because the transcript reveals that the member "bloviation" period and question and answer colloquies all occurred after General Gonzales made his statement.

The transcript reads like this (I've created the day's agenda -- specific statements can be found via the link I provided yesterday):


DAY TWO

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005

United States Senate,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Roberts, DeWine, Snowe,
Rockefeller, Levin, Wyden and Mikulski.

I. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN

II. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV

III. Prepared Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III (what Yonivore quoted)

IV. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES (what I quoted)

V. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

VI. Prepared Statement of Porter J. Goss

VII. Statements from Members of the Committee and Questions to Witnesses



Given the limited amount of factual knowledge available on the referenced FBI reports and General Gonzales's knowledge of the contents of those reports, it's impossible to say whether or not he lied.

It's a question of degree, I think. I don't dispute that Wild Cobra might be right in suggesting that General Gonzales saved himself from complete disgrace by using the word "verified" in his statement. I think the use of that word, in that context is somewhat disingenuous if DOJ had previously received reports of civil rights violations in connection with its programs, but I think that using the word "verified" probably saves him from perjury.


What it boils down to is that some on this forum, and around the country, are predisposed to believe he lied while others, such as myself, believe there could be a reasonable explanation and that, in the context of his testimony -- absent a question from any committee member -- the Attorney General of the United States (whether it be Janet Reno or Alberto Gonzales) wouldn't voluntarily offer a blatant lie on a matter not being contended.

See above. I'm not predisposed to think that he lied; I'm predisposed to thinking that his programs skate the constitutional borderline, but I don't think he has to lie to protect his arguments. With that said, he made (it appears) a deliberate choice to be something less than completely truthful by his choice of words in this context, and I find that troubling.


In reading both your source and mine, it appears this was a prepared statement from the Attorney General and that he probably read it aloud to the committee after all the members were done bloviating.

That assumption is incorrect. Read the transcript I linked; it lists the events of the day chronologically and refutes your assumption expressly.


Now, I haven't read the bloviations to know whether or not a statement may have caused the Attorney General to extemporaneously insert the statement in question. But, that's possible.

It's not. He made his statement before any questions were posed.


(It occurs to me my copy may be the written testimony as provided to the committee prior to appearance and yours may be the testimony as transcribed during testimony or afterward.)

That would be incorrect as well. Again, you posted the joint statement offered by General Gonzales and Director Mueller. I posted the testimony of General Gonzales.


In any case, it would be stupid for the Attorney General to knowingly lie about something he knew could be easily disproven with documents known, by him, to be in existence at the time of the alleged lie that could conceivably be disclosed -- as apparently they were, at least in some part.

Agreed. But you might recall that Americans were quite upset with President Clinton's attempts to rely on very specific word choices to justify statements made about his personal life. I'm not sure why the distrust should have been so rampant in one case but would be completely unreasonable in another.


So, before you -- or anyone, for that matter -- can demonstrate the Attorney General lied in that testimony you're going to have to demonstrate the FBI reports; a) contain verified instances of civil liberties abuses; and, b) were read (not just should have been read, Nbadan) or, that the contents were known (not just should have been known, Nbadan) by the Attorney General prior to his testimony.

I'm not trying to prove that he lied. I was trying to prove that you were wrong in immediately blasting the media report as unreliable. You intimated that General Gonzales hadn't testified about civil rights violations. I simply sought to prove that he had. I didn't enter this thread to win an argument about perjury.


For an administration that has been accused of lying at every corner, their critics are notoriously inept at actually proving any lies. So, I'm coming down in the AG's corner for now.

Fair enough. I merely pointed out that you were wrong for blasting the original report -- for your suggestion that the quote attributed to Gonzales had somehow never been uttered. I think his word choice is disingenuous -- you don't.


Back to you FWD.

FWD, out.

[Yonivore]

I see you dusted off the old "if it doesn't affect you directly, just shut-up about it" comeback. Nice.
I would venture to say there have been civil liberties abuses committed in just about every administration since Washington's...knowingly and unknowingly, intentionally and unintentionally, with good intentions and with bad.

The point I am making in asking the question is that for all the wailing over President Bush's trashing of the Constitution and chipping away at our civil liberties, you can't point to one civil liberty that has been taken away, wholesale.

So, again, name a provision of the U. S. Constitution the current administration has invalidated through it's actions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, again, name a provision of the U. S. Constitution the current administration has invalidated through it's actions.

I think you just changed the question.


I would venture to say there have been civil liberties abuses committed in just about every administration since Washington's...knowingly and unknowingly, intentionally and unintentionally, with good intentions and with bad.

And admitted that Bush has probably abused civil liberties, so I guess you answered your own question. :pwnage/smiley

[clambake]

So, again, name a provision of the U. S. Constitution the current administration has invalidated through it's actions.

You secretly want this to be true. C'mon Yoni, admit it. You hope it would continue and expand, at least until a measure is past that prevents Negroes from scaring you.

[Yonivore]

Yeah -- just returning a favor. Nothing personal, I assure you.
Cool.


My effort was mainly to show that General Gonzales had, in fact, uttered the very statement that you suggested had never been made.
Okay, for the sake of argument -- without conceding the accuracy of either of our sources -- let's assume he did say that. Incidentally, while I did express doubt he made the statement (based on my reading of the testimony on the Senate's website), that wasn't the cruxt of my argument or even the initial reason for responding to GGA's initial post.

The media gets so much wrong but, even in reading the article he posted, they don't call him a liar. GGA did that. I was merely responding to a frustration that many, based on rather limited knowledge or understanding of the circumstances surrounding an event, will immediately jump to the conclusion that their villain du jour has lied.

But, the point is taken that I based my assertion he never uttered the statement on a possibly incomplete source and without digging very deep.

That not withstanding, and as you point out, even if he did say it, it's not necessarily a lie. So, for the sake of brevity, I'll not argue the point of whether or not he made the statement in favor of arguing whether or not it constitutes a lie. How's that?


It's a question of degree, I think. I don't dispute that Wild Cobra might be right in suggesting that General Gonzales saved himself from complete disgrace by using the word "verified" in his statement. I think the use of that word, in that context is somewhat disingenuous if DOJ had previously received reports of civil rights violations in connection with its programs, but I think that using the word "verified" probably saves him from perjury.

See above. I'm not predisposed to think that he lied; I'm predisposed to thinking that his programs skate the constitutional borderline, but I don't think he has to lie to protect his arguments. With that said, he made (it appears) a deliberate choice to be something less than completely truthful by his choice of words in this context, and I find that troubling.
Why is it a question of degree? It is only disingenuous if AG Gonzales was attempting to avoid the question of whether or not abuses had been reported -- not verified. But, as I explained in my other post, it appears it may have been an extemporaneous comment and, as such, was being used to bolster the assertion that they have taken great pains not to violate civil liberties.

If however, the direct question of "Have any civil liberties abuses occurred under any of the programs in question?," (or some variant), had been asked during his testimony, then you'd be right, he was being somewhat disingeneous; or, if he had been asked whether or not such abuses had been reported, then, I'd go beyond what you've asserted and say he was evasive and dishonest -- yes, even lied. But, so far there's no record he was responding to such questions. But, even then, you'd have to demonstrate he had read the reports (or knew of their contents) and that they actually contained information of civil liberties abuses and not just other unrelated illegalities and procedural errors.

So, absent those circumstances, I don't even think you can claim he was being disingeneous unless, of course, that is your predisposition on the Attorney General.

And, as far as the programs "skating" the constitutional borderline, I have no problem with that in the context of discovering and preventing terrorism. I would expect the administration to push the edge of the envelope in pursuit of that objective. Absolutely.

I think it says alot that you're merely alleging they skate the borderline as opposed to others who allege they have wholesale thrown out constitutional protections and limitations in their pursuit of national security. I believe this administration has, time and time again, demonstrated they were extremely thoughtful in their approach to civil liberties, constitutional issues, and citizens' rights when designing and executing some of their programs.

But, who could foresee that their political opponents would, at every opportunity (300 in 100 days), rake them over the coals for every conceivable or imagined misstep?


Agreed. But you might recall that Americans were quite upset with President Clinton's attempts to rely on very specific word choices to justify statements made about his personal life.
I'm not sure exactly to which of his lies you're referring but, I think the American people had considerable cause to not believe Clinton. He's a proven and demonstrated liar.


I'm not sure why the distrust should have been so rampant in one case but would be completely unreasonable in another.
Again, just because his political opponents have called him a liar for pretty much his entire tenure as Attorney General doesn't make him one. Now, if you can point to one confirmed lie, you'd at least have the start of a point. But, partisan distrust doesn't make him a liar. Lying does.

And, Bill Clinton was a proven liar.


I'm not trying to prove that he lied. I was trying to prove that you were wrong in immediately blasting the media report as unreliable. You intimated that General Gonzales hadn't testified about civil rights violations. I simply sought to prove that he had. I didn't enter this thread to win an argument about perjury.
I don't think I was wrong in blasting the media. I can put my hands on two recent incidents that show the media has a penchant for slanting their stories to produce a desired impression. I stand by my assessment the same could be true in this case.

You are right that I suggested Gonzales hadn't made the statement at all and, I concede I was wrong to assert that without having definitive proof. However, I still contend that neither you nor I have produced an accurate transcript of the testimony.


Fair enough. I merely pointed out that you were wrong for blasting the original report -- for your suggestion that the quote attributed to Gonzales had somehow never been uttered. I think his word choice is disingenuous -- you don't.
I think given what we know right now, there's no way to know if he was being disingeneous or not. It certainly could be that he has read the report and has determined those instances of civil liberties abuses (if, in fact, such was among the abuses reported) were suspect, unsustained, or not verified.

That would make his statement completely true. Would it not?

[Yonivore]

I think you just changed the question.
No but, thanks for playing.


And admitted that Bush has probably abused civil liberties, so I guess you answered your own question. :pwnage/smiley
Again, no.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No but, thanks for playing.

swift

[PixelPusher]

Yoni views domestic wiretapping, suspending Habeus Corpus, etc., as perfectly proper emergency wartime powers for the president (Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil war, blah, blah, blah)...he isn't bothered by the quandry that our "War on Terror" is fundamentally different from The Civil War or WWII, as there is no defined victory which would bring our "state of emergency" to an end, so these temporary wartime powers and now permanent wartime powers.

[FromWayDowntown]

Since Yonivore doubts my source, here's exactly the same testimony (in precisely the same order -- that is, before any questions were posed or statements made by members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) from April 27, 2005 as found on the Government Printing Office's website.

Either the GPO is in on the media conspiracy to misattribute statements to General Gonzales or General Gonzales actually uttered the words attributed to him.




STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, Members of
this Committee, I am pleased to be here to talk about
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I really appreciate this
opportunity to come before Congress to discuss our successes in
the war on terror and to find new ways to fight for freedom
more effectively and consistent with the values that we all
cherish as Americans.
As the distinguished Members of this Committee know, the
threat of terrorism remains very serious and it is critical
that Congress continues to provide tools that enable
prosecutors and law enforcement to both confront terrorism and
investigate and prosecute other serious crimes.
I believe the authorities in the PATRIOT Act have enabled
us to better protect America. But, the exercise of government
authority is always worthy of respectful and accurate
discussion. I'm open to suggestions for strengthening and
clarifying the Act, but I cannot support amendments that will
weaken our ability to protect our nation.
The PATRIOT Act, as we know, has helped dismantle the wall
that used to separate law enforcement from intelligence
officials. Prior law, as interpreted and implemented, sharply
limited the ability of law enforcement and intelligence
officers to share information and connect the dots in terrorism
and espionage investigations.
As we know, section 203 and section 218 of the PATRIOT Act,
which are scheduled to sunset at the end of this year, brought
down this wall. And together these provisions have reduced the
statutory and cultural barriers to information sharing. And it
is information sharing, as the 9/11 Commission and the WMD
Commission made clear, and as this Committee knows full well,
that will make the difference in our ongoing efforts to prevent
terrorism.
This Committee is familiar with the successful use of
section 218, including investigation of the Portland Seven and
the Virginia Jihad. Section 203 along with section 218 was used
extensively during the investigation of the Holy Land
Foundation in 2004. Law enforcement professionals tell me that
allowing sections 203 and 218 to expire would discourage
information sharing, making it more difficult for us to disrupt
terrorist plots.
There are other similar commonsense PATRIOT Act provisions
that also will expire if Congress does not take action. Section
206, which provides national security investigators with an
authority long possessed by criminal investigators, authorizes
the use of multi-point or roving wiretaps, tied to a specific
target rather than a specific communications facility. Before
the PATRIOT Act these orders were not available for a national
security investigation under FISA, a gap in the law that we
believe sophisticated terrorists or spies could easily exploit.
Although specific examples of the use of multi-point wiretaps
under section 206 remain classified, I can represent in this
open hearing that this authority has been very valuable.
As of March 30 this year we have used this authority 49
times. Importantly, 206 contains numerous safeguards to protect
civil liberties. The FISA court can only issue a roving wiretap
order upon a finding of probable cause, the order must always
be connected to a particular target, and minimization
procedures must be followed concerning the collection, the
retention and dissemination of information about U.S. persons.
Section 215 also filled a gap in the law. It granted
national security investigators authority to seek a court order
for the production of records relevant to a foreign
intelligence investigation, similar to a prosecutor's authority
to use grand jury subpoenas as the building blocks of criminal
investigations. Use of this provision has been judicious. We
have used this authority 35 times as of March 30 of this year.
Moreover, we have not sought a Section 215 order to obtain
library or bookstore records, medical records, or gun sale
records. Let me be clear, the reading habits of ordinary
Americans are of no interest to those investigating terrorists
or spies.
Section 213, although not scheduled to sunset is another
valuable provision of the PATRIOT Act. Section 213 codified one
consistent process and standard for delayed notice search
warrants, which can be used in limited circumstances, with
judicial approval, to avoid tipping off criminals who otherwise
might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses,
cutoff contact with associates, or take other action to evade
arrest.
Now the portion of Section 213 that has received the most
attention is the provision allowing a court to authorize
delayed notice if immediate notice would ``seriously
jeopardize'' an investigation. I would like to describe one
actual case where immediate notice would have seriously
jeopardized an investigation.
In this case, the Justice Department obtained a delayed
notice search warrant for a Federal Express package that
contained counterfeit credit cards. At the time of the search
it was very important not to disclose the existence of a
Federal investigation, as this would have exposed a related
Title III wiretap that was ongoing for major drug trafficking
activities. An organized crime drug enforcement task force,
which included agents from the DEA, the IRS, the Pittsburgh
police department and other State and local agencies was
engaged in a multi-year investigation that resulted in the
indictment of the largest drug trafficking organization ever
prosecuted in the western district of Pennsylvania.
While the drug trafficking investigation was ongoing it
became clear that several leaders of the drug trafficking
conspiracy had ties to an ongoing credit card fraud operation.
An investigation into the credit card fraud was undertaken and
a search was made of a Federal Express package that contained
fraudulent credit cards. Had notice of the Federal Express
search tied to the credit card fraud investigation been
immediately given, it could have revealed the ongoing drug
trafficking investigation prematurely and the drug trafficking
investigation might have been seriously jeopardized. Even
modest delay would not have been available if this provision of
section 213 were deleted. It is critical that law enforcement
continue to have this vital tool for those limited
circumstances where a court finds good cause to permit the
temporary delay of notification of a search.
Finally, I'd like to close by addressing a common question
that must be answered by this Committee and this Congress--the
issue of whether we should continue to impose sunset provisions
on critical sections of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was a
swift and decisive response to the attacks of September 11. In
the weeks and months following the attacks in Washington,
Pennsylvania, and New York, Democrats and Republicans came
together to address the vulnerabilities in our nation's
defenses.
Both Congress and the administration worked with
experienced law enforcement, intelligence and national security
personnel to design legislation to better protect the American
people. Although there was extensive consideration in 2001, and
although it is unusual to impose sunsets on statutory
investigative tools, Congress included sunsets for certain
provisions of the PATRIOT Act because Members wanted to ensure
that we were not risking the very liberties we were setting out
to defend. And I think today we can all be proud.
The track record established over the past 3 years has
demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil
liberties put in place when the Act was passed. There has not
been one verified case of civil liberties abuse. Our Nation is
stronger and safer; our bipartisan work has been a success.
The Department of Justice has exercised care and restraint
in the use of these important authorities because we are
committed to the rule of law. We have followed the law because
it is the law, not because it is scheduled to sunset. With or
without sunsets, our dedication to the rule of law will
continue. The Department will strive to continue to carry out
its work lawfully and appropriately, and as a citizen I expect
Congress will continue its active oversight over our use of the
PATRIOT Act, not because it sunsets but because oversight is a
constitutional responsibility of Congress.
So, given the Department's record in using these
authorities, the obvious effectiveness of these tools in
stopping violent crimes and protecting our nation, and the
authority of Congress to re-examine these provisions at any
time to correct abuses, the sunset provisions are, in my
judgment, no longer necessary and should be repealed.
The authorities in the PATRIOT Act are critical to our
nation's efforts in the war against terrorism. The Act has a
proven record of success in protecting the security of the
American people while simultaneously respecting civil
liberties. And I question how we can afford to allow its most
important provisions to sunset. The efforts of the terrorists
to strike our country surely will not sunset.
I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee in
the period ahead, listening to and responding to your concerns,
and joining together again to protect the security of the
American people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:24983.wais

[Wild Cobra]

For an administration that has been accused of lying at every corner, their critics are notoriously inept at actually proving any lies. So, I'm coming down in the AG's corner for now.

So am I. I have yet to see such lies. The media twists the contents and to a casual observaer, he lied. It appears most people don't understand the English language today.

The word "VERIFIED" changes everything. Unless someone can show Gonzalez had knowledge that the allegations were checked and factual, they are just allegations.

Rumor is all journalists operate with today. There are very few real journalists anymore.

Are you Bush-whackers so hateful of him, you conveniently ignore "verified" or are you that prejudiced to find a man guilty until shown innocent, or are you all idiot?

What bothers me the most is that I believe I am associating with people who have treasonous intents to the constitution, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. If you all want to live in such a backwards society, then move out of the USA. You don't deserve it.

As for the patriot act, I have yet to see an argument to show it unconstitutional.

Protected against "Unreasonable search and seizure." How is tracing the steps of known agents of war unreasonable?

As for the FISA laws, they can be waived by the president for instances associated to his Commander in Chief responsibilities. He never needed approval. He is the executor of federal law.

There are no violations.

[Yonivore]

Since Yonivore doubts my source, here's exactly the same testimony (in precisely the same order -- that is, before any questions were posed or statements made by members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) from April 27, 2005 as found on the Government Printing Office's website.

Either the GPO is in on the media conspiracy to misattribute statements to General Gonzales or General Gonzales actually uttered the words attributed to him.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:24983.wais
Way to ignore the actual debate here. I've already allowed it was possible he said what is claimed. How about the rest of my post?

But, thanks for finding another, more reliable source than www.fas.org...especially after I thought we were past that part of the argument.

[FromWayDowntown]

Way to ignore the actual debate here. I've already allowed it was possible he said what is claimed. How about the rest of my post?

But, thanks for finding another, more reliable source than www.fas.org...especially after I thought we were past that part of the argument.

I've already addressed the substantive debate points -- anything else would merely be reiteration of what I've already said.

I'm not sure why you were blasting my original source, since all it did was link to the GPO's transcript, which would appear to be content-neutral. I'd do more than allow that it was possible that he said it -- he very clearly did.

You showed your ideological ass on your initial point.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So am I. I have yet to see such lies. The media twists the contents and to a casual observaer, he lied. It appears most people don't understand the English language today.

The word "VERIFIED" changes everything. Unless someone can show Gonzalez had knowledge that the allegations were checked and factual, they are just allegations.

Rumor is all journalists operate with today. There are very few real journalists anymore.

Are you Bush-whackers so hateful of him, you conveniently ignore "verified" or are you that prejudiced to find a man guilty until shown innocent, or are you all idiot?

What bothers me the most is that I believe I am associating with people who have treasonous intents to the constitution, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. If you all want to live in such a backwards society, then move out of the USA. You don't deserve it.

As for the patriot act, I have yet to see an argument to show it unconstitutional.

Protected against "Unreasonable search and seizure." How is tracing the steps of known agents of war unreasonable?

As for the FISA laws, they can be waived by the president for instances associated to his Commander in Chief responsibilities. He never needed approval. He is the executor of federal law.

There are no violations.

On the topic of parsing words to escape lying...

I have pointed out on more than one occasion concerning the WMD 'evidence
that was provided to Congress. Bush has NEVER stated that the Congress got everything HE HAD available to make the case for war.. What bush has consistently said that Congress saw what he saw when it came to the 'evidence'.... There is a huge difference in seeing the same thing as opposed to seeing everything Bush had in front of him.. I know the rightines on the board will play stupid and claim these staements mean the same thing but they don't. Bush has been very clever and measured when speaking of the pre-war evidence..

The reason I bring this us is I am sick and tired of the righties on this board who conveniently ignore this administration's word play to dance around the truth yet were in an uproar when Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman..a bj isn't intercourse.. so when Bill made that statement he wasn't outright lying but he sure was skirting the truth.. you fuckers are such hypocrites..

[FromWayDowntown]

As for the patriot act, I have yet to see an argument to show it unconstitutional.

Protected against "Unreasonable search and seizure." How is tracing the steps of known agents of war unreasonable?

As for the FISA laws, they can be waived by the president for instances associated to his Commander in Chief responsibilities. He never needed approval. He is the executor of federal law.

There are no violations.

It must be nice to be that certain. There are a whole lot of extremely smart lawyers who can't agree that the programs are constitutional. Perhaps you should submit your logic to them and once and for all end that debate. I'm sure they just need someone to clear it up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It must be nice to be that certain. There are a whole lot of extremely smart lawyers who can't agree that the programs are constitutional. Perhaps you should submit your logic to them and once and for all end that debate. I'm sure they just need someone to clear it up.

some are in the justice department

[Wild Cobra]

I know the rightines on the board will play stupid and claim these staements mean the same thing but they don't. Bush has been very clever and measured when speaking of the pre-war evidence..
It's not playing stupid. It is not allowing ones self to be shown stupid when the truth is exposed.

It is also called having an open mind.

The reason I bring this us is I am sick and tired of the righties on this board who conveniently ignore this administration's word play to dance around the truth yet were in an uproar when Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman..a bj isn't intercourse.. so when Bill made that statement he wasn't outright lying but he sure was skirting the truth.. you fuckers are such hypocrites..
I'm not going to debate why there is word play, but can we accept that all politicians do it?

The question isn't so much about word play, but being an intelligent enough observer to not jump to conclusions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It is not allowing ones self to be shown stupid when the truth is exposed.

Foretelling

[Cant_Be_Faded]

^^Well OG, can you name anyone that has lost any civil liberties
since Bush took office?



People cannot grow bushy ass beard/mustache/sideburn combinations as easily as in the past because they get detained by airport security, run through a gauntlet of inquiries, then fucked over on your personal time scheduling.

[Yonivore]

People cannot grow bushy ass beard/mustache/sideburn combinations as easily as in the past because they get detained by airport security, run through a gauntlet of inquiries, then fucked over on your personal time scheduling.
Choosing to look like a terrorist and not draw suspicion is a civil liberty?

[FromWayDowntown]

Choosing to look like a terrorist and not draw suspicion is a civil liberty?

Wearing a jacket that blares "Fuck the Draft" in a public courthouse is recognized constitutional civil liberty.

I'm not sure why wearing a bushy beard would be exempt from similar recognition.

[exstatic]

For an administration that has been accused of lying at every corner, their critics are notoriously inept at actually proving any lies. So, I'm coming down in the AG's corner for now.
What would it matter if it were proven? Bush would just commute or pardon any loyal soldier....

[MannyIsGod]

Choosing to look like a terrorist and not draw suspicion is a civil liberty?How many terrorists commiting acts on US soil look like that? Go ahead and look at the pictures of the last 30 or so and let me know.

Thanks.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hetfield also looked like the Boogeyman to some as well, providing some further justification for his detention.

[Yonivore]

Wearing a jacket that blares "Fuck the Draft" in a public courthouse is recognized constitutional civil liberty.
Political speech.


I'm not sure why wearing a bushy beard would be exempt from similar recognition.
No one is saying you don't have the constitutional right to facial hair. But, I am saying you don't have the constitutional right to look suspicious and not arouse suspicion.

[Yonivore]

What would it matter if it were proven? Bush would just commute or pardon any loyal soldier....
So why are the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money by initiating 300 investigations over the first 100 days of their majority tenure if Bush is just gonna pardon or commute all their convictions and sentences?

I'd be pretty pissed if I were a Democrat right now. Talk about pissing into the wind.

If, of course, your assertion were correct.

[Yonivore]

How many terrorists commiting acts on US soil look like that? Go ahead and look at the pictures of the last 30 or so and let me know.

Thanks.
Well, I'll be damned! Look what crawled out of a Gazan terrorist tunnel to comment. Where'ya been, Manny? And, how's that self-rule by terrorists, over in "Palestine," working out for your peeps?

As for your question, are you suggesting they racially or ethnically profile? The dudes wore their facial hair like the Taliban in a country that had just been attacked by Islamo-fascists.

In 1995, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building, everyone with buzz cuts got closer scrutiny. I know, I worked in law enforcement at the time and I also had a buzz cut -- and both looked at people with such styles with more suspicion as well as experienced more scrutiny when I travelled.

No big deal.

[boutons_]

"So why are the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money by initiating 300 investigations"

because they can, and because they should, to expose the Repug lies and incompetence that have fucked up US govt, military, and security since Jan 2001.

[boutons_]

The Repugs hit Clinton with 1050 subpoenas for bullshit, for pure harassment, for crimes that were never proven, so the Dems have a quite ways to go before they even match that number.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, I'll be damned! Look what crawled out of a Gazan terrorist tunnel to comment. Where'ya been, Manny? And, how's that self-rule by terrorists, over in "Palestine," working out for your peeps?

As for your question, are you suggesting they racially or ethnically profile? The dudes wore their facial hair like the Taliban in a country that had just been attacked by Islamo-fascists.

In 1995, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building, everyone with buzz cuts got closer scrutiny. I know, I worked in law enforcement at the time and I also had a buzz cut -- and both looked at people with such styles with more suspicion as well as experienced more scrutiny when I travelled.

No big deal.


Wasn't Mcveigh caught within hours of the blast? Why would people with buzz cuts be worried if he was already captured? Do you mean the buzz-cut profiling lasted all of 3 or 4 hrs? That makes no sense whatsover..

[Yonivore]

Wasn't Mcveigh caught within hours of the blast? Why would people with buzz cuts be worried if he was already captured? Do you mean the buzz-cut profiling lasted all of 3 or 4 hrs? That makes no sense whatsover..
No, it lasted for quite awhile...months, if I recall.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I know, I worked in law enforcement at the time and I also had a buzz cut -- and both looked at people with such styles with more suspicion as well as experienced more scrutiny when I travelled.

security guard at the local piggly-wiggly is not exactly working in law enforcement

[Yonivore]

security guard at the local piggly-wiggly is not exactly working in law enforcement
You're right. What's your point?

[Wild Cobra]

"So why are the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money by initiating 300 investigations"

because they can, and because they should, to expose the Repug lies and incompetence that have fucked up US govt, military, and security since Jan 2001.
That wouldn't be so bad if they were exposing lies. That's not what they're doing. Their looking for lies!

They have nothing of substance.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That wouldn't be so bad if they were exposing lies. That's not what they're doing. Their looking for lies!

They have nothing of substance.

are you Xray's slightly less stupid child by any chance?

[Yonivore]

That wouldn't be so bad if they were exposing lies. That's not what they're doing. Their looking for lies!

They have nothing of substance.
Actually, Congressional investigations -- not related to contemplated or pending legislation -- is believe, by many, to be extra-constitutional.

Calling hearings and subpoenaing administration officials under the threat of contempt of Congress charges, on matters not related to pending legislation, is a rather new phenomenon.

I suspect the White House is pressing the issue -- by directing Ms. Miers not to testify and claiming executive privilege -- so that this separation of powers squabble can finally be decided, once and for all, where it should be. In the courts.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm sure that's what the WH is doing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, Congressional investigations -- not related to contemplated or pending legislation -- is believe, by many, to be extra-constitutional.

Calling hearings and subpoenaing administration officials under the threat of contempt of Congress charges, on matters not related to pending legislation, is a rather new phenomenon.

I suspect the White House is pressing the issue -- by directing Ms. Miers not to testify and claiming executive privilege -- so that this separation of powers squabble can finally be decided, once and for all, where it should be. In the courts.


Hey I agree with Yoni... :jekka

[PixelPusher]

Calling hearings and subpoenaing administration officials under the threat of contempt of Congress charges, on matters not related to pending legislation, is a rather new phenomenon.

I wouldn't characterize the Gingrich led Congress of the mid to late 90's as "relatively new", but time does fly...

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, Congressional investigations -- not related to contemplated or pending legislation -- is believe, by many, to be extra-constitutional.
Agreed. Investigating things not related to their responsibility?

Are they trying to take over not only the executive, but the judicial too?

Calling hearings and subpoenaing administration officials under the threat of contempt of Congress charges, on matters not related to pending legislation, is a rather new phenomenon.
I call it harassment.

I suspect the White House is pressing the issue -- by directing Ms. Miers not to testify and claiming executive privilege -- so that this separation of powers squabble can finally be decided, once and for all, where it should be. In the courts.
That might be true. Besides, you don't let someone strong-arm you into a position even if you have noting to hide. It's a matter of principle.

Besides, nobody is safe with the way perjury charges and obstruction of justice charges are being abused by the left. Just make one mistatement....

[Oh, Gee!!]

...so WC's courtship of Yoni continues.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is an interesting article, just over an hour old:

House panel rejects Bush privilege claim (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors)

I bring this one up because of some key insight near the end:


Republicans accused Democrats of proceeding in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing by Miers or any White House officials.

Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, the ranking Republican on Sanchez' subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, warned Democrats that a contempt citation would fail evidentiary standards in court.

"You can't go to the courts essentially and say, 'We don't know what we don't know, therefore give us a subpoena so we can find out,'" Cannon said.

"There is no proof whatsoever that Harriet Miers likely holds some smoking gun with respect to the U.S. attorney situation," added Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.

Seems like harassment to me!

[Yonivore]

Hey I agree with Yoni... :jekka
Well Kum-bah-freakin'-yah!

[clambake]

...so WC's courtship of Yoni continues.


shhhhhhhh, don't startle them. I want to see them mate, and observe their pillow talk. They are dancing around a very important conclusion. Bush says he knows nothing about these attorney decisions. Why would Bush try to prevent anyone from knowing what they don't know if he claims to not know what it is they don't know, you know?

[FromWayDowntown]

Seems like harassment to me!

In litigation, if a party seeks to depose a witness and is denied access to that witness despite a subpoena, that denial is punishable via contempt or other sanctions. Obviously, it's a different sort of subpoena power that exists with respect to separation of powers issues, but I would generally think that Courts would be inclined to acknowledge the need for congressional subpoenas to be respected.

If Miers wants to come to Congress and claim that executive privilege prohibits her from answering certain questions, that's one thing -- if the White House thinks she should be exempt from even having to appear because she's within the purview of the Executive Branch, then Congressional oversight of executive action will be a farce.

I'm sure that the Bushies aren't terribly concerned about that possibility coming to pass, but they'll be bent when a Republican Congress wants to ferret out the details of perceived wrongdoing by a Democratic President -- but, of course, that's never happened before.

[Yonivore]

In litigation, if a party seeks to depose a witness and is denied access to that witness despite a subpoena, that denial is punishable via contempt or other sanctions. Obviously, it's a different sort of subpoena power that exists with respect to separation of powers issues, but I would generally think that Courts would be inclined to acknowledge the need for congressional subpoenas to be respected.
Really? I think the courts are going to be inclined to tell Congress that without a legitimate legislative reason, the have no subpoena power. I think the courts will go even further and tell them that unless they are deliberating specific legislation, they have no reason to hold a hearing, demand appearances, or claim oversight.

But, that's just me.


If Miers wants to come to Congress and claim that executive privilege prohibits her from answering certain questions, that's one thing -- if the White House thinks she should be exempt from even having to appear because she's within the purview of the Executive Branch, then Congressional oversight of executive action will be a farce.
Congressional oversight of executive action is a farce.


I'm sure that the Bushies aren't terribly concerned about that possibility coming to pass, but they'll be bent when a Republican Congress wants to ferret out the details of perceived wrongdoing by a Democratic President -- but, of course, that's never happened before.
No, we're not.

[Wild Cobra]

In litigation, if a party seeks to depose a witness and is denied access to that witness despite a subpoena, that denial is punishable via contempt or other sanctions. Obviously, it's a different sort of subpoena power that exists with respect to separation of powers issues, but I would generally think that Courts would be inclined to acknowledge the need for congressional subpoenas to be respected.
Even when there is no crime that can be shown to have occured?

They are hunting for a crime that likely doesn't exist! They have insufficient probable cause!

[boutons_]

"They are hunting for a crime that likely doesn't exist!"

you mean like Monica blowing Clinton?

[Wild Cobra]

"They are hunting for a crime that likely doesn't exist!"

you mean like Monica blowing Clinton?

LOL... Do you even know what you're talking about?

This had nothing to do with the BJ's BJ recieved. It started with the Paula Jones case when Monica Lewinsky was pressured to lie under oath about Jones. A real allegation of sexual harassment by Jones is what caused this. Note, Jones was paid off by president Clinton, almost $1,000,000 to settle.

This is where the perjury charges started from. A real investigation involving facts that can be substantiated! Remember Lind Tripp's tape recording?

Jones settles so her case is dropped, president Clinton really lies, and the initiating case was against him.

[Nbadan]

The Paula Jones case was a partisan attack on Clinton funded by Republican-operative and billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, that failed horribly....


In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex[citation needed]. It was upon the basis of this statement that the perjury charges in his impeachment were drawn up. However, despite Republican control of the Senate, Clinton was found not guilty on both the perjury and the obstruction of justice charges

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones)

[Yonivore]

The Paula Jones case was a partisan attack on Clinton funded by Republican-operative and billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, that failed horribly....

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones)
Juanita Brodderick? Gennifer Flowers? Kathleen Willey?

C'mon, Slick Willy was a hound dog that forced Hillary to form a "Bimbo Eruption Squad" to squelch the problem.

[Wild Cobra]

The Paula Jones case was a partisan attack on Clinton funded by Republican-operative and billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, that failed horribly....

Failed yes, horrible no. Maybe he is the opposite of George Soros. Does that matter?

Back to the topic;

The Paula Jones case laid the grounds for a credible impeachment process. What this congress is doing against president Bush has no legal case what so ever.

Big difference.

[boutons_]

"What this congress is doing against president Bush has no legal case what so ever."

In your dubya-sucking opinion.

There are are areas where impeaching dubya and dickhead is built on solid supsicions.

The run-up to the bogus Iraq war, where NONE of the cherry-picked/hyped/fabricated "evidence" played out. dickhead attacked Wilson for daring to doubt the what was the totally bogus yellow-cake affair. Libby's 4 perjuries (why did he perjure himself?) indicate he had plenty to hide (why not just tell the truth?), eg, dickhead's evil hand in the slime-Wilson/out-Plame affair, which was part of dickhead's plan to pre-empt and intimidate ALL attacks on his pre-war bullshit evidence.

The total lack of post-war planning by Rummy and his refusal to even let the subject be broached by his generals. Did dubya and dickhead, agitating and intimidating for the war, have any post-invasion contingencies? no. incompetence in declaring and prosecuting a war are grounds for impeachment.

What did dubya/dickhead/Condi/Tenet have to hide about the pre-9/11 period? They stone-walled for months before agreeing to "co-operate" with the 9/11 commission, only after circumscribing their co-operation so much, eg chicken-shit dubya refused to testify alone, that the 9/11 commission couldn't really get at the WH role pre-9/11. Derelection of NatSec duty is grounds for impeachment.