As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
posted on July 10, 2007 12:52:36 PM new
That seems to happen a lot with this administration. To deny any verifiable case of civil liberties abuse, knowing that there is verifiable evidence, is either arrogant or stupid--maybe a little of both.
posted on July 10, 2007 03:57:46 PM new
Cheney is priviledged in every way. He answers to nobody and can lie with impunity.
Gordon Silverstein, a constitutional scholar at UC Berkeley, said Cheney's claims were all the more noteworthy given his repeated assertions of executive privilege, based on his senior position within the Bush administration, as a reason why he has not had to testify before Congress or provide lawmakers with information on such national security issues as torture, interrogation and CIA renditions of terrorists.
"Here's a guy who raises 'executive privilege' to historic levels to exempt himself from all rules and oversight, and now he says he's not part of the executive branch?" said Silverstein. "Here we have a subordinate part of the executive branch asserting independent constitutional authority even against its own superior. It is flabbergasting."
posted on July 10, 2007 05:32:30 PM new
Appears to me that the liberals here didn't like the most recent ruling by the appeals court that said the aclu and others THEY represented 'had no standing'....since none of them had their civil rights violated.
lol
And even your diane feinstein told reporters there had been NO civil rights violations. No one could present anyone who's 'right's' have been violated. So IF gonzales was misleading anyone....there was feinstein right behind him agreeing there were none.
=================================
Updating this article four years.....we STILL have had NO ATTACKS on our land. Are the liberals happy about that? Not that I've read. They spend their time INSISTING we're all being lied to and there are those whose 'rights' are being violated.
I'd love for them to post who those people are. lol lol lol Even the aclu failed to do so.
==========
NYBarReview.com
'No Wonder Gore Flunked Law School'
Posted by Jeremy Robb
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
ChronWatch
Al Gore made it clear this past weekend why he dropped out of law school by calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act.
''Where civil liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road to an intrusive, 'Big Brother'-style government — toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book '1984' — than anyone ever thought would have been possible in the United States,'' Gore told a crowd of enthusiastic supporters on Sunday. ''These constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that those violations are necessary in order for them to take every precaution against another terrorist attack,'' he said.
Apparently, Al Gore either hasn’t read the Patriot Act (like virtually all of its critics) or he’s showing exactly why it was necessary for him to drop out of law school. I’m curious how Al Gore and the ACLUholes define civil liberties. We hear all kinds of barking about ''constant violations of civil liberties'' from these people, but where is the evidence? Can they point to a single case where someone has had their civil liberties abused because of the Patriot Act?
Though it’s not an exciting read, I would encourage everyone to at least scan through the Patriot Act to see what it actually says. Based on what you read and hear in the media, you might be a little shocked to find that there is no reference to spying on innocent citizens, peering into your library records, or locking you up without due process.
Whether it is ignorance, politics, or both, many radicals on both the left and the right have heavily criticized the Patriot Act as a serious invasion of civil liberties and privacy, and intrusion by government. The problem is that it’s a lie. Unfortunately, it’s a lie that could cost thousands of lives in this country.
The Patriot Act essentially plugs gaps in various existing laws and adapts many practices used in fighting organized crime to fighting terrorists as well. It also does the important job of allowing information to be more easily shared between various state and federal law enforcement agencies to help prevent future terrorist attacks due to lack of communication time lost trying to connect the dots to diffuse terrorist activity.
So far the security measures taken by state and federal law enforcement, including the Patriot Act, have worked beyond expectations. Who can honestly say after 9/11 that they would expect zero successful domestic terrorist attacks to occur over the next two years? I fully anticipated multiple terrorist attacks to succeed in the months following the attacks of September 11. But they never happened.
And the lack of successful terrorist attacks has not been due to the terrorists taking a break. I asked a former member of the White House counter-terrorism team, who was in the White House on September 11, whether he was aware of any major domestic terrorist attacks that had been thwarted over the past two years. His answer? ''Yes, a lot.'' I clarified that I was talking about attacks that would have been the magnitude of September 11. He then clarified, ''Yes, there have been a lot. I can’t get into specifics, but let’s just say that thanks to some incredible work by law enforcement we have averted a lot of major disasters.''
Without the provisions in the Patriot Act, who knows how many of these multiple major terrorist attack plans might have succeeded. Repealing the Patriot Act under the guise of ''civil liberties violations'' puts everyone’s life in jeopardy without cause. How many news stories or 60 Minutes pieces have you seen that document the civil liberties violations of United States citizens due to the Patriot Act? Don’t you think these Bush-hating leftists would take every opportunity they could to document these violations?
Not all Democrats are as ignorant and dangerous as Al Gore and the ACLUholes. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Del) recently called criticism of the Patriot Act ''ill-informed and overblown.'' Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Cal) thinks there is ''substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed.'' She added, ''I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me.''
So don’t allow law school flunkies like Gore to influence your opinion about the Patriot Act. Unless, of course, you’re a terrorist who wants to make it easier to destroy our country.
==========================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 10, 2007 05:56:42 PM new
As usual, just because some liberal asks a question.....the liberal press runs with it with NO PROOF of anything. typical of the left.
=============
Paper: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Received Reports About FBI Patriot Act Abuses
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
AP
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
WASHINGTON — Democrats raised new questions Tuesday about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have known about FBI abuses of civil liberties when he told a Senate committee that no such abuses occurred.
Lying to Congress is a crime, but it wasn't immediately clear if Gonzales knew about the violations when he made those statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee or intentionally misled its members.
[fox news - in part]
========
It's most of what they ran on in '06 - no solutions just a bunch of 'questions' / 'accusations'. No plans of their own....and we see just how little they have accomplished as they continue down this 'let's find anything we can make stick on the republicans'. lol lol lol
posted on July 10, 2007 06:14:07 PM new
"It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the THREE MONTHS before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act."
He may not have known of these when he testified, but if he didn't then that surely makes him an incompetent AG. The FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation sends half a dozen reports over 3 months and the U.S (see FEDERAL)AG and he does not know about them? If he did know, he lied to Congress. Either way, it stinks.
posted on July 10, 2007 06:32:58 PM new
LOL...no CC it could mean many things.
But his spokesperson has also said these reports weren't tied to the PA.
Now, you prove they are. Obviously the aclu COULDN'T.
============
from the WA postdepartment spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.
"The statements from the attorney general are consistent with statements from other officials at the FBI and the department," Roehrkasse said. He added that many of the violations the FBI disclosed were not legal violations and instead involved procedural safeguards or even typographical errors.
posted on July 10, 2007 10:25:18 PM new
posted on July 8, 2007 11:12:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""Liberals worry too much about the 'rights' of and about protecting our enemies.""'
NO WHERE has it been said that liberals wish to protect our enemies and YOU as usual, CAN'T show where anyone has indicated that.
Neoconservatives worry too much about their own sniveling yellow-bellied butts.
They are willing to sell out the ideals of America, to agree to ANYTHING as long a "Big Daddy" does ANYTHING to let them believe he's protecting them.
They are willing to give up the very freedoms and rights our troops are allegedly fighting for in Iraq.... freedoms and rights that Americans throughout history have fought and died for....all because they are SCARED....
They LOVE sending others to be maimed and die for them but haven't the courage to simply stand up to tyranny even WITHOUT risking life and limb.
They'd sellout this country (are selling out this country) in a minute if someone scares them into thinking something might happen to THEM!
But as long sh!t's only happening to another American they're happy...
posted on July 11, 2007 11:30:30 PM new
Since when can a president tell PRIVATE citizens to ignore subpoenas ???
And W H Y would he????
Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify
Updated 11:03 PM ET July 11, 2007
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons, even as a second former aide told a Senate panel Wednesday she knew of no involvement by Bush in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors. Contempt citations against both women were a possibility.
House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refused to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers' lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.
Across the Capitol, meanwhile, former White House political director Sara Taylor found out what Miers may already have known: It's almost impossible to answer some committee questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's claim of executive privilege.
After first refusing to answer questions about Bush's possible role in the firings, Taylor later told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she knew of no involvement by the president. Further, she said, she knew of no wrongdoing by administration officials in the controversy that has hobbled the Justice Department and imperiled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The developments whipped across Washington as part of a broader dispute over the boundaries of Bush's executive power and Congress' oversight duty. Democrats, in control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, are probing whether the White House ordered the prosecutor firings in ways that might help Republicans in elections.
The Bush administration acknowledges that the firings were clumsily carried out but insists no wrongdoing occurred. Bush has offered to allow his aides, including counselor Karl Rove, Miers and Taylor, to be interviewed by congressional investigators _ but only in private and without a transcript.
Democrats on the committees rejected the offer and subpoenaed Miers and Taylor to appear this week, a possible foreshadowing of what's to come for Rove.
In letters dated Tuesday, White House Counsel Fred Fielding told Miers' lawyer that Bush had ordered her to stay away from Thursday's hearing.
"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," Fielding wrote to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning. "The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007."
Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.
Conyers had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee's subpoenas.
"A refusal to appear before the subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings," Conyers and Sanchez, wrote back to Manning. "The subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena."
At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy held open the possibility of contempt proceedings against Taylor if she does not answer follow-up questions posed during his hearing Wednesday.
"That's a decision yet to be made," Leahy said.
Taylor, eager to exhibit a willingness to answer questions but refusing to do so on many of them, revealed some details behind the firings.
"I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys," she said under stern questioning by Leahy, D-Vt. "I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed."
When asked more broadly whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, Taylor said, "I don't have any knowledge that he was."
She said she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired. Taylor said she had no knowledge that Bush was involved in the planning of whom to fire, an assertion that echoed previous statements by Attorney General Gonzales, his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.
Taylor disputed Sampson's account that she wanted to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation.
"I expected him to go through Senate confirmation," Taylor said under questioning by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Taylor also issued a stiff defense of her colleagues in the Bush administration.
"I don't believe there was any wrongdoing by anybody," she said.
On almost every question, Taylor hesitated as she considered whether answering would cross Bush's order to not reveal internal White House deliberations.
"I'm trying to be consistent and perhaps have not done a great job of that," Taylor said. "I have tried."
The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter, said that may not be enough to protect her from a contempt citation for failing to answer many of the committee's questions.
"There's no way you can come out a winner," said Specter, R-Pa. "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing."
That, in effect, was Bush's order to Miers _ say nothing.
Fielding based his advice to Bush on a Justice Department memo this week that quoted former officials _ from former Attorney General Janet Reno to the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, writing as an assistant attorney general _ as saying the president and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas.
The Democrats shot back that those documents referred only to White House advisers currently serving. Miers and Taylor left the White House earlier this year.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 12, 2007 07:01:02 AM new
Bush limits access to ex-aides
By Jon Ward
July 10, 2007
President Bush yesterday said he has instructed two former administration officials not to testify this week before Congress, on the grounds that to comply with a committee's subpoena would weaken the executive privilege powers of the office.
[snip]
"The president feels compelled to assert executive privilege, with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers," said White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House judiciary committees.
The president remains willing to provide limited access to documents and private testimony regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, Mr. Fielding said, but not under the compulsion of subpoenas.
Mr. Bush has already asserted executive privilege in response to subpoenas seeking internal documents related to the firings.
Mr. Bush is trying to preserve his ability to "receive candid advice from his advisers," and the ability of his advisers to "communicate freely and openly with the president, with each other, and with others inside and outside the executive branch," Mr. Fielding said.
=================================
Also, from todays WashingtonTimes:
"This dispute over Democratic claims that the firings were politically motivated has been simmering for months but the issue of executive privilege - how much information lawmakers can force presidents to disclose - is as old as the nation. Ever since George Washington refused to release his War Department correspondence, the executive and legislative branches have tussled over their authority."
And:
"Louis Fisher, a Library of Congress expert on presidential powers, has said the dispute over the fired prosecutors is not one that's likely bound for the federal courthouse. The law is unsettled in the area. A 1974 Supreme Court decision held the president could not withhold the Watergate tapes from federal prosecutors. But the high court made it clear it wasn't getting into whether presidents may refuse demands from Congress."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 12, 2007 07:21 AM ]
