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 do ents 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 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 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.

Chairman Roberts. Thank you, General.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005...rg109-341.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::

[CubanMustGo]

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

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.

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 Cons utional 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 do ents 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...

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 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.

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 do ents 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.