Posted on 07/10/2007 9:22:01 PM PDT by Santa Fe_Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.
Gonzales is a weak link. He either fired the attorneys for cause or he didn’t. If he did he needs to ‘splain that. If not it’s the White House travel office all over again.
No he didn't. And that was in retrospect the greatest mistake of his administration. Most of his problems can be traced to the Clinton carryovers.
>>Do you guys pay attention at all? Using that as a defense just makes you sound ignorant. Rush isn’t even using that one anymore. GWB fired ALL USAs in the same way that Clinton did when he came into office. All presidents do that.<<
Maybe not enough attention. I read the Harriet Myers proposed firing all 93 attorneys and that Gonzalez rejected this as disruptive and thus we have the genesis for limited firing.
If all the attorneys were fired why were there Clinton holdovers still there to be re-fired in 2005?
Here is one of many articles that seem to match my recollection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html
I don’t want to duplicate so let me refer you to #18.
Exactly.
I’d love to see Jerrold Nadler sit on him.
We (conservatives) are at war with a lot of people.
Terrorists, DemocRats, liberals, Rinos, and the current Administration with its anti-gun, pro-illegal henchmen like Mr. Gonzales.
That was after he was reelected. They tossed around the idea of firing all 93 again (a second time).
“forced insertions of objects into the rectum.”
Washington does that to all of us every April 14th.
He can’t because Bush didn’t. The only President I ever remember doing that in 60 years was Clinton.
Including Republicans who were successful Attorneys digging out dirt on well-placed politicos and who would be potential candidates to take out Dems in gubernatorial elections like Chis Christie in New Jersey.
Real genius that Harriet. Too bad the Supreme Court has lost her “talents” (sarcasm)
The fact that President Bush fired all USAs when he came into office has been discussed a million times on FR. Seek and ye shall find (all Presidents do it). In the meantime:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2de4e70eb6.htm
“Nearly five months after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, his administration has begun to replace dozens of top federal prosecutors, ousting Democratic appointees across the country and installing Republican selections.
This political rite of change, though, has been postponed in at least one prominent jurisdiction: Mary Jo White, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been kept on, largely to complete two politically charged investigations that have already provoked precisely the cries of partisanship Ms. White has so successfully avoided over the last eight years.”
She was ultimately fired.
_______
Also see the text of this memo from the documents released from the DOJ to the Senate:
“In a March 4 memo titled “Draft Talking Points,” Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, “The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?”
That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. “Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months,” he said.
A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo.
“On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately,” McNulty said.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25836/print
I realize that CREW is a liberal group but the docs. were released in PDF so they aren’t searchable unless somebody takes time to transcribe.
I’ll be darned - thanks for the correction.
Yes, the Clintonistas fired all 93 of their DOJ attorneys! Here's a March 2007 Wall Street Journal story on it:
excerpt...
"As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno-- or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices."
Article: "The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys":
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
The purpose of the GC was to limit the devestation of war by discouraging nations, militias and others from using civilians and critical civilian infrastructure like hospitals, schools and houses of worship as cover for troops, equipment and weapons, from using civilians as human shields, etc, so that after a war is over the society can get back on its feet as soon as possible and order can be restored.
When involved in a fight you must at times seek cover; naturally you are going to gravitate towards using as cover or staging areas whatever it is you enemy is unable or unwilling to hit. If you are a terrorist your choices are unlimited, even cruel- the best places are among the innocent. If you are a lawful combatant the choices are limited, for you seek to avoid killing people unneccessarily and cannot use hospitals, churches, schools to take cover. You have rules of engagement and could face prosecution for violating them, or death at the enemy's hands if you abide by them. The terrorist isn't burdened by rules and uses this weakness against you.
The GC was designed to handicap the terrorist by denying him protections that are reserved for lawful combatants and bystanders. It was to make a distinction between what is lawful behavior and what is not acceptable, or rather, who is legal and who is not. Those who abide by the rules- whose fighters are distinguishable from the civilian population, who do not hide their weapons so as to appear as noncombatants, those who have a clear chain of command which can and are held accountable for the behavior of their personnel and so on ...fall on the lawful side of the GC and because of this they are supposed to be treated civilly on capture according to GC guidelines. This last was the 'reward'- the 'carrot'- to encourage a code of honor that intended to protect civilians and make recovery from war easier.
The 'stick' is simply that those who fail to abide by the code will not be recognized as lawful combatants and cannot expect to be treated as such. Nor SHOULD they be treated as such lest the 'stick' cease to have any effect or meaning and the purpose of the GC fail. This is why the GC doesn't offer protections to those outside its definitions of lawful combatants and civilians- it is essential for the survival of civilization that we not reduce soldiers to the status of outlaws nor elevate outlaws to the status of civilians or soldiers.
Ideologies which need fear to thrive - communism, islamofascism, anarchic mobs and the like - don't care for the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful ones because they by nature fall on the unlawful side.
Gonzales realizes there is a difference between soldiers and terrorists and that is why those who don't hate him so.
93 initially, then about 20 more during the following eight years.
All this hub-bub over a measly eight...
JUNE 26, 1996 : (FILEGATE : WHITE HOUSE ILLEGALLY OBTAINS FBI FILES ON POLITICAL OPPONENTS & COMPETITORS - INCLUDING THE FILE ON FORMER CIA DIRECTOR ROBERT GATES, WHO WOULD LATER BE NOMINATED IN 2006 BY PRESIDENT W BUSH TO REPLACE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD-- see TRAVELGATE) In documents it was discovered that an additional 300 FBI files were obtained by the White House, among them files on former National Security advisor Brent Scowcroft and former CIA Director Robert Gates. It was revealed that federal prosecutors wanted to indict former White House travel director Billy Dale before the 1994 mid-term elections.The charge emerged from FBI e-mail messages. The messages, obtained by congressional Republicans, date from fall 1994, when Dale was indicted. One reads: "I contacted Jane who advised that she was advised by (FBI special agent) Pam Bombardi, that (Department of Justice) trial attorney Stuart Goldberg had stated that she was to 'do the indictment before the elections, probably on Oct. 4, 1994," FBI employee Gregory Meacham wrote to a colleague by e-mail. "Since when do indictments hinge on election dates?" House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman William Clinger (R-Penn.) asked. Also, an FBI agent interviewed by Senate Republicans said he was pressured by top Clinton aides for confidential information on Dale. White House personnel security head Craig Livingstone resigned, and former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum apologized that the White House improperly collected some 700 FBI reports.
US Attorneys are not employees, they are appointees serving at the pleasure of the executive branch which must go through a congressional nomination process. They can be dismissed at any time, which is why Clinton could get away with canning them all. He went further and got all the IG's too, as I recall.
“Doctor, I have this recurring erotic dream where Charles Schumer trades places with William Wallace at the end of Braveheart but the disembowelling goes terribly wrong and it takes hours before Chuckie dies.”
HH: (Macarthur Park music playing) Welcome back, America. It’s Hugh Hewitt with Professor Philip Bohlman, president of the Society For Ethnomusicologists. Professor, at the University of Chicago, I think I’m with you, Professor, on Richard Harris and Macarthur Park. Is that torturous?
PB: (pause) Excuse me?
HH: What do you think of that song?
PB: (longer pause) Well, I don’t completely understand what you’re asking me.
HH: Well, we’re trying to figure out which music…is it because the music is louder, or is it the particular music that you’re objecting to being played to the jihadists?
PB: First of all, I don’t think the question is one of jihadi. I don’t…I think using that term is very misleading, and I’m afraid that it’s not a line of questioning that I find productive at all.
HH: Well, why is it misleading to use jihadi?
PB: Well, what is your definition of that term?
HH: Someone engaged in global jihad, in an effort to use violence to advance the return of the caliphate.
PB: Well, I think that this is not what we’re talking about here.
HH: Well, would you agree Zarqawi is a jihadi? Zawahiri?
PB: I don’t know how you’re using the term, and I don’t want to be baited into this sort of …
HH: I don’t want to bait you. But I’m trying to get to the key question, which is let’s say we’ve got Osama and Zawahiri in a room. Can we play music to upset them?
PB: There is no point in doing it.
HH: But if the professional psyops interrogators think there is, could we?
PB: You’ve moved the conversation away from the discussion of this particular position statement, and I think that I…that it’s only appropriate...what I think about, the conversation here is not what I think might happen if Osama is in a room. This is not…this has nothing to do with the position statement that the Society For Ethnomusicology put up on its website.
HH: Well, actually, I think it’s a concrete hypothetical example, or we could use Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Are you familiar with him?
PB: This…the hypothetical, we’re not talking about hypotheticals.
HH: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in custody. He’s actually…are you familiar with him?
PB: I am, yes.
HH: Could we use the Barney song on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
PB: No.
HH: Could we use any music on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
PB: What would be the point?
HH: I don’t know. Richard Harris could destabilize a lot of people.
PB: (pause) That…your statement…that statement alone shows an understanding of interrogation that accepts a level of cruelty that I find personally reprehensible.
HH: Cruelty and destabilization are very different things, Professor.
PB: They…I don’t agree with you.
HH: Is it cruel to keep them imprisoned?
PB: It is cruel to keep anyone imprisoned without habeas corpus.
HH: So do you believe, actually, that we have enemies that want to kill us, you personally?
PB: That’s not the point of what the Ethnomusicology statement is about.
HH: I know, but now you’ve really opened my eyes, that you guys are quite significant ideologues opposed to serious engagement with the War On Terror. I’m just wondering how far your personal ideology takes you.
PB: If that’s what your eyes have been opening to, you did not read the statement carefully, and you do not understand what it is that…the context of it.
HH: Well, here’s one part of the statement, and you can explain to me. You are committed to drawing critical attention to the abuse of such standards through the unethical use of music to harm individuals in the societies in which they live. Can you give me a couple of examples of the unethical use of music to harm individuals in the societies in which they live, excepting, of course, rap, which is too easy?
PB: The use of music at high volume to…to…directed at…into public streets in Iraq, for example, which is meant to drive people to…into their homes, and to disrupt their normal way of life.
HH: And do you have any example of an unethical use of music to harm individuals in the societies in which they live which the United States did not perpetrate?
PB: (pause) There are uses of music in this way, that go through history. The use…much of the use of music at the beginning of a battle in which loud music is performed. We know this from the earliest historical accounts of battles.
HH: Like bagpipes to get the Scots a’rollin’?
PB: That’s not a very good example. I mean to say the use, the use of drums and loud double reed instruments at various points in various wars. The…the Scots, I think that’s an exaggeration.
HH: So any particulars, with specifics? You guys referred to in your statement, you guys and gals, to the unethical uses of music to harm individuals in the societies in which they live. We have the use in interrogation, we have the use in Iraq to drive people indoors. And we have a generalized thing. But is there, like, did you ever condemn any previous use of music not originating in the United States?
PB: First of all, I want to object to the use of the term ‘gals.’ I think this is an insulting term, and I hope that you don’t speak like this about women.
HH: I actually don’t think gals is, but I just want to go back to the question. Any specifics?
PB: I don’t agree…I mean, I don’t agree with your statement…I think this is a really insulting thing to say about women.
HH: Well, I know. You’re on the record. Duly noted, we’ll publish the transcript. My question is, though, do you have any specifics about the use of, the abuse of music to harm individuals in societies not perpetrated by the United States?
PB: Um…(pause) Do I have any specifics?
HH: Yes.
PB: Well, okay, I can tell you that in the writings of the 14th Century, a North African writer, Ibn Khaldun. There are sections in his introduction to…in a general history called Al-Muqaddima, in which he talks about this, yes.
HH: And did you…well, I guess there’s not much point in issuing a condemnation of that. But any other societies in the world today where music has been used? For example, the Soviets used to bind people up in tight cloths, and fill them full of psychotropic drugs, and Vladimir Bukovsky comes to mind, and so I can give you an example of torture by the use of psychotic drugs, and horrible things in Castro’s Cuba prisons. Are you familiar that Castro is a torturer extraordinaire, for example, Professor?
PB: I…I don’t know that I’m familiar with that term that you use. It’s not a term that I’m familiar with.
HH: Do you think that Castro is a vicious, dictatorial thug who tortures people?
PB: This has nothing to do…
HH: But it’s not a trick question.
PB: Would you please talk about our statement?
HH: I am. I could get…I’m running out of time. Will you come back tomorrow?
PB: I can’t come back tomorrow.
HH: Okay, just a last…I’ve got 30 seconds. Do you think Castro is a tyrant?
PB: You have only 30 seconds. Please let me say that you have moved the conversation away from the specific position statement. I invite your listeners to read the text. Our discussion that you have baited me into is the wrong discussion.
HH: Professor, I’m sorry, we’re out of time, but you have an open invitation to return to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.