« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales: NSL Abuses Weren't Really Abuses
Nothing provides a tone-setter for today's confrontational Senate Judiciary Committee showdown with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales like a bracing denial of the facts. And that's what Gonzales gave to chairman Pat Leahy when Leahy asked about Gonzales's repeated statements to Congress that there weren't any problems with the way the FBI used their National Security Letter authorities to gain personal or financial information on U.S. citizens without warrants. In fact, the AG received repeated and timely notification about NSL abuse precisely when he was telling Congress that nothing was wrong.
Leahy started by asking, simply, if Gonzales wished to change his earlier testimony:
On the strict question of whether Gonzales, you know, lied, he pled context: he was speaking earlier about broader problems with the Patriot Act. But that's obviously wrong, since the FBI's NSL authority for intelligence investigations derives from the Patriot Act. So then he sought to redefine what we should mean by "abuse." Just because a problem with a National Security Letter is serious enough to require notification of the president's Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), he said, doesn't mean it's a big deal.
IOB violations, which is what I want to refer to these as -- is IOB violations -- referrals or violations made to the Intelligence Oversight Board. These do not reflect, as a general matter, intentional abuses of the Patriot Act.
But the issue isn't intentionality. It's whether the process allowing FBI agents to obtain information on American citizens without court orders is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the wrong people don't find themselves mistakenly ensnared in an investigation. That's exactly what happened with these "IOB violations" -- something Gonzales was informed about, and something he didn't tell the Senate, nor deal with, until a March report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General disclosed the problem.
The "good news," Gonzales states, is that under just-issued rules to correct the problem that Gonzales didn't tell the Senate existed, he'll be notified in a "semi-annual report" after the Justice Department's National Security Division studies IOB referrals. Of course, Gonzales's notification of NSL blunders hasn't been the problem over the last three years -- getting him to do anything about it has. Leahy called it an "Alice in Wonderland" situation.
Comments (28)
TheraP wrote on July 24, 2007 11:24 AM:How nice. Semi-annually he'll get info to lie about.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:30 AM:If the ROBERTS Supreme Court someday agrees with Gonzales on this issue, will you then claim that 5 Justices are guilty of a "bracing denial of the facts"?
anon wrote on July 24, 2007 11:35 AM:Brilliant! Michellle Malkin! I'm sure Chertoff will sort out all this bad business with immigrants.
joejoejoe wrote on July 24, 2007 11:36 AM:Senator Jeff Sessions just quoted a Michelle Malkin column in the hearing. Next up Tom Coburn will be quoting Atlas Juggs. Nice government we have...The Price is Right has a more formal process for replacing Bob Barker than we have for replacing US Attorneys.
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 11:40 AM:Another featherin the hat of the Republicans is that their member on the committee can't even stick to the subject. They can only spout the most vile, knuckle-dragging, moronic base rhetoric. It soooo funny to see the party of "values" and "accountability" and "Amurika" can't even stay on page when we are investigating the most serious charges of misuse of the DOJ since the mid 19th century. What a bunch of pathetic asshats.
Harriet in the Mire wrote on July 24, 2007 11:40 AM:Jakie-Poo - I love your every doo-doo. More Mire!
Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 24, 2007 11:42 AM:Yes Jake,
If the Roberts and the rest of the Fascist Five join Bush, Cheney and Gonzales in urinating on the Constitution in this particular issue . . . They would be fanning the flames o' denial o' facts.
Lizzy L wrote on July 24, 2007 11:44 AM:It sounds like G is saying that in order for something to be considered "abuse," it has to be intentional -- we meant to do it. So, errors of fact, errors of judgment, errors in execution, politicization of decision-making, all of these are just -- what? Mistakes, presumably, for which no one needs to be held accountable. Bleah.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:45 AM:joejoejoe:
If Congress wants to change that process (probably over a Presidential Veto), by all means, go ahead and try. I've proposed such non-partisan legislation on an earlier thread.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 11:47 AM:Why is the word "shame" Jakie-Poo?
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:48 AM:Well, Richard L. Adlof, not "legally" speaking of course ; )
Jane wrote on July 24, 2007 1:18 PM:If the Roberts Supreme Court thinks that it is okay to spy on Americans without a court order I would say that it is time to impeach them.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:57 PM:Every President (with Supreme Court approval) has spied on the enemy -- American or not -- during wartime. Good luck impeaching Bush for that.
Mick Savage wrote on July 24, 2007 2:15 PM:Jake D.ickhead,
You just stated that Every President does the same thing as Boosh has been doing - we are all the enemy now?
Logic, not so much, Brownshirt?
biggerbox wrote on July 24, 2007 2:32 PM:If Abu had wanted to be honest, he would have replied, "No, there have been no abuses. There have been a number on unintentional technical violations of the rules, but not what I would consider abuse."
He was intentionally misleading, and everyone knows it.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 2:33 PM:The only Americans being spied on are alleged terrorists or those with connections to terrorists -- just like FDR spied on Japanese-Americans -- at least Bush has not gone so far as to lock up all Arab-Americans. But, yes, in case you've forgotton what happened on 9/11, they would be the enemy.
Johann wrote on July 24, 2007 3:04 PM:Jake:
Your comment: "The only Americans being spied on are alleged terrorists or those with connections to terrorists -- "
You are making a broad assumption here without ant facts to back it up.
As an exercise, explain how a person is determined to be an "alleged terrorist", or determined to have "connections to terrorists".
Good luck.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:14 PM:If said person has been in contact with bin Ladin, for instance, that's one suspicion -- you want me to list them all?
Andrew Weakland wrote on July 24, 2007 3:14 PM:"Easy, he has dark skin and prays to Allah." -Jake the Brownshirt
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:22 PM:Andrew:
Notice my post at 3:14 PM stated nothing about the skin pigment / religion of the person who has been in contact with bin Ladin.
Andrew Weakland wrote on July 24, 2007 3:37 PM:I will admit Jake, I was merely having a chuckle at your expense. I do wish to know if you honestly believe the DoJ could at any point bring demonstrable evidence to bear that showed every target of warrantless wiretapping has had contact with Osama Bin Ladin? I doubt they could do it for ANY of them. If they could, then they could have gotten a warrant! That is the inherent contradiction of you argument Jake. Eavesdropping without a warrant is, by definition, UNWARRANTED :-P
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:45 PM:This is a load of BS: "rigorous to ensure that the wrong people don't find themselves mistakenly ensnared in an investigation."
No, the purpose of _judicial oversight_ is to ensure that the _rights_ of _all people_, not just criminals/defendants/targets, are preserved.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:46 PM:Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 11:30 AM
Speculative. Irrelevant. Troll.
Andrew Weakland wrote on July 24, 2007 3:49 PM:Why i believe Jake has summed himself up quite well.
JohnJ wrote on July 24, 2007 5:15 PM:Can you reverse IP Jerk the troll and see if it's working on a government computer on government time?
I'll bet it's real IP comes from "Crystal City" where almost all my "pings" (trying to break into a computer) are received from.
I suspect trolling is an initiation for all the "Regent" mail order degrees that the WH loves so much.
parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 8:41 PM:It is pretty obvious that AG AG will lie and distort to keep his job "overseeing" the potential abuses of the Patriot Act. How much more of this can the Senate take? Should they just go on basking in the incompetence of someone they approved to serve as the highest peace officer in the land? Or, should they just wait til the next election where those who decide to run against such a no nothing, do nothing bunch of political hacks can pick and choose from AG AGs testimony of incompetence and obsequiousness?
Even Orrin Hatch looked angry at having to listen and carry water for this dying horse.
Jake Off wrote on July 24, 2007 11:32 PM:If Jake D is working for the government, here's a message to Bush and Cheney: rot in hell you fucking assholes!
johnnydoughey wrote on July 25, 2007 1:16 AM:I think this is pretty typical in civil service...
you are presented with a problem
you ask for more money and staff to solve the problem
you write tons of documents concerning how to fix the problem
all the money is spent before actually fixing the problem
you are caught having not fixed the problem
you ask for more money and staff to figure out why the previous solution did not solve the problem....
throughout this problem solving activity, no one is really found to be at fault... the process itself is to be blamed...
Gonzales has learned well....