Gonzales lied yet again

[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 Cons ution 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. Cons ution the current administration has invalidated through it's actions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, again, name a provision of the U. S. Cons ution 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. Cons ution 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 cir stances 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 cons utes 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 cons utional 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 cir stances, 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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, cons utional 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 cir stances, 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
le 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
cir stances 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
cons utional 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-...d=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 cons ution, 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 uncons utional.

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-...d=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 cons ution, 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 uncons utional.

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 ers are such hypocrites..

[FromWayDowntown]

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

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 cons utional. 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 cons utional. 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 ers 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 ed 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 ed over on your personal time scheduling.

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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

Wearing a jacket that blares " the Draft" in a public courthouse is recognized cons utional 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 su ion 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 " the Draft" in a public courthouse is recognized cons utional 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 cons utional right to facial hair. But, I am saying you don't have the cons utional right to look su ious and not arouse su ion.

[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 su ion as well as experienced more scrutiny when I travelled.

No big deal.