Alberto Gonzales Knew About Violations of the Patriot Act
Posted by Stephanie Taylor on July 10, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Two years ago, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asked Congress to renew the USA Patriot Act. During his testimony, he assured senators that the FBI had not abused its new powers under the Act:
"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
But according to a new story in the Washington Post, Gonzales received a report six days earlier from the FBI about the Patriot Act that described how agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have.
In fact, in the three months before Gonzales testified before the Senate intelligence committee, he received at least six reports that detailed legal or procedural violations that had occurred under the Patriot Act.
The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.
...Caroline Fredrickson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new documents raise questions about whether Gonzales misled Congress at a moment when lawmakers were poised to renew the Patriot Act and keenly sought assurances that there were no abuses. "It was extremely important," she said of Gonzales's 2005 testimony. "The attorney general said there are no problems with the Patriot Act, and there was no counterevidence at the time."
Comments (16) «
Gonzales and his selective memory strikes again. When are we getting rid of these criminals?
IMPEACH THE BASTARDS NOW!!!!!
Posted by immaconservative on July 10, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Not really sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that civil liberties aren't important?
What's PATHETIC is thinking that your so called security is worth the cost of your civil liberties--ESPECIALLY while you conservatives are pushing for more wars which will kill more of our soldiers.
It is not just the burden of the soldier to die for our freedom. It is upon ALL of us. I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in a society without our civil liberties. To surrender any of them is spitting of the graves of those who died for our freedoms. I won't have it. DO NOT disrespect those who served and died.
Thanks for the excellent post!
The so called "Patriot Act" legislation in my personal opinion is one of the worst laws ever enacted by Congress, because the Act endeavors to trample on civil liberties and rights that have been guaranteed to us as free citizens under the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers provided for specific civil liberties and civil rights because they distrusted government officials to exercise power in absolutist terms. The Orwellian Patriot Act proves out their wisdom. The passage of this law into permanent legilsation demonstrates a stark lack of respect by many people in our Congress for our rights as a free people in an open society.
This is an issue that should unite voters from every political party in my opinion. Privileges may be curtailed but rights are legal assurances that have been absolutely guaranteed to us and should not be compromised in some arbitrary way.
Some ninety members of the Senate voted to make the so called "Patriot Act" permanent. As a genuinely liberal voter who respects the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am not voting for any of these people to be my President until Congress repeals the legislation in question!
Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress initially promised after the 911 tragedy that the so called "Patriot" Act legislation would be passed on a temporary, emergency basis. They have gone back on their promise to voters. Obviously, the Founding Fathers were correct in placing limits on the power of our government to interfere in the lives of its citizens.
Next time you think we should relax some of the Bill of Rights restrictions in the name of security, think about all of the terrorist attacks in Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan...etc. NONE of these societies have civil liberty protections like we have, yet they've suffered far worse attacks than we have. They are in the unfortunate position of being geographically easier targets, but they all have very strict security measures in place. Those measures DO NOT work.
The only freedom we DON'T have by Constitution is the power to remove these freedoms. Most of the founding fathers suggested (and carried out) armed resistance for such tyranny.
I would be upset about Alberto Gonzalez and the revelation that he isn't interested in defending the American peoples' Constitutional right, but, that's old news.
Everyone already knows Alberto Gonzalez is a palooka.
immaconservative = NancyAndHarryMustGO!!! = trolls
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
I'm not referring only to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, however, is often cited as a defense for sidestepping the already-unconstitutional FISA court. There have been abuses. While it is reported here that these were just errors and accidents, I'm of the opinion that the danger exists and that we have suffered abuses at the hands of the NSA and FBI. We will never know, will we? I'm certainly not inclined to trust the promises of this administration.
Remember the warrantless wiretap program was kept secret until it's existence was leaked to the press.
Impeaching Gonzales would be easy and benefical to the whole country.
And when the Republicans rallied around him in the Senate, it would make them all look even more corrupt than the House Republicans did when they protected Foley.
I say go for it. It would be like getting the administration on trial without all the fuss if it were Cheney or Bush. This guy lied under oath a gizillion times to Congress. He deserves to be put on the block if Bush won't fire him.
And if Gonzales called the President as a witness for his defense, I don't see how he could get out of testifying under oath either. We owe it to posterity to get Bush on the record instead just leaving them with his fake performances in front of the camera.
The more evidence you fing in this regard.The more this w administration will ignore. Until the repubs stand up and say enough he will stay in office!.This whole administration needs to impeached and still the repubs stay back and allow this to ruin their party!Talk about loyalty to a fault?
I can't imagine Sen Feinstein won't want to get to the bottom of this, she's not the type who likes to be made to look like a fool.
After the AG briefing of the Senate Intelligence Committee she publicly declared "no abuses" had taken place, and then the act was re-authorized....but we also had a much different body of Congress then too.
I don't think the Sen. Intelligence Committee is going to care one bit about what a couple of hack aids of Gonzo's are saying in his defense.
He's toast if they want him to be.
Talk about loyalty to a fault?
Posted by virgo on July 10, 2007 at 03:13 PMvirgo,
Talk about stupidity to a fault?
But then these Republican crooks only had their fake familiy values to run on.
They did all they could to hurt the working man in this country by outsourcing and hiring illegals. They bastardized our Bill of Rights and Constitution. They ran off our allies, irritated our enemies, and sickened the entire world with their pious excuses for torture.
Without the fear from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, their thinly veiled racism and religious hypocrisy would have sunk them. The only agenda they've ever really had was making the rich richer.
Borrowing our Treasury into the poorhouse to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy...by borrowing from Communist China was their one new big idea?
That's an agenda to run on in 2008? Try continuing this Iraqi occupation for another decade or two.
I thought the Patriot Act was already a violation of our civil liberties. This is just insult to injury.
Liberals...the "rights" we enjoy through the Bill of Rights may be suspended in the event of a national emergency. I would call having terrorists on our doorstep an emergency, wouldn't you? Suspending habeas corpus is both legal and constitutional. Dems should go back and read up on the laws of this country before commenting on matters that are over their head. Treason is not supporting liberals and their liberal policies. Treason is supporting the enemy who is trying to kill us. That's the democratic party.
The measures in place in places like Israel and Saudi do work, it's just that tight security can catch ALL terrorists because they get cleaver and find a way around the system. But those security measures catch the MAJORITY of terrorists and keep the attackers at bay. There is no one catch all security measure, but I would rather have the system Israel has than the do nothing system the dems are proposing.
I would rather have the system Israel has than the do nothing system the dems are proposing.
Posted by RushBabies on July 10, 2007 at 10:47 PM
This country already has a system, it's called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I'll stay with that one.
Bin Laden loves you for supporting The Patriot Act....
just another example of the arrogant misuse of power by this administration. thats why the president supports gonzales, he is his yes man.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
