Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims

Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims - New York Times

August 31, 2007


Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed Thursday that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”

The disclosure, by Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales was under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony. The committee’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, had requested the inquiry this month.

For weeks, lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether Mr. Gonzales told the truth in sworn statements to Congress on a number of issues, including his involvement in efforts to preserve the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without warrants, as well as his role in last year’s dismissals of several United States attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons.

It was not clear if the investigation by the inspector general was tied to Mr. Gonzales’s announcement on Monday that he was resigning from the Justice Department, effective next month. He has offered no details for the reasoning behind his resignation or its timing, and his announcement caught top aides by surprise.

A spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, Erik Ablin, said Thursday that the attorney general had no immediate comment on the inquiry. Nor would Mr. Ablin address the specific accusations of possible false statements by Mr. Gonzales that have been cited by Senator Leahy and other Democrats.

Mr. Gonzales has insisted that he has always tried to be truthful in his Congressional testimony. After his honesty was repeatedly challenged at a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Mr. Gonzales declared, “The attorney general of the United States should try to meet the highest standard, and I have tried to meet that standard.”

Mr. Fine’s letter gives no suggestion that he has evidence to show that Mr. Gonzales has made false statements. It does show that Mr. Fine, who has broad discretion to choose what issues to investigate, does not reject the questions about the attorney general’s truthfulness out of hand and will continue to look into them after Mr. Gonzales leaves the department.

Congressional officials said it would have been unusual for Mr. Fine to refuse to investigate, given the interest of Senator Leahy and other powerful lawmakers.

Mr. Gonzales was already known to be a focus of investigations by Mr. Fine into the propriety of the Justice Department’s involvement in the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and the firing of United States attorneys last year.

The inspector general’s office does not have the ability to bring criminal charges. If Mr. Fine finds credible evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing by Mr. Gonzales or his senior aides, precedent indicates that he will refer the information to criminal prosecutors, possibly at the quasi-independent public integrity division of the Justice Department.

The White House said Thursday that it was continuing to weigh candidates to succeed Mr. Gonzales and was unlikely to announce a nominee until after President Bush travels to Australia for a meeting next week with government leaders from Asia and the Pacific. He is scheduled to return on Sept. 9.

In a letter to Mr. Fine on Aug. 16, Senator Leahy formally requested that the inspector general’s office open an investigation of possible perjury by Mr. Gonzales.

In his letter on Thursday responding to the senator, Mr. Fine wrote that he had “ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified” and that “we believe that through those investigations and other O.I.G. reviews, we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise.”

Mr. Fine noted that Senator Leahy had requested an inquiry into whether “statements made by the attorney general were intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.” The inspector general offered no timeline for the inquiry.

Mr. Leahy said in a statement he welcomed Mr. Fine’s decision to investigate. “It is appropriate that the inspector general will determine whether the attorney general was honest with this and other Congressional committees,” he said.

Several other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made a separate request this summer to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to appoint an independent prosecutor to review perjury accusations against the attorney general.

Mr. Clement has not publicly replied to their request, and he may now be able to cite the newly disclosed inspector general’s investigation in arguing against the need for an independent counsel for now. The White House announced this week that after Mr. Gonzales’s departure, Mr. Clement will serve as acting attorney general until a new one is confirmed by the Senate.

Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

Print Story: Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa on Yahoo! News


Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

By DAVID PITT, Associated Press Writer

A county judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson's ruling.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.

Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom on the form and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride.

"I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon and expected a rush of applications Friday.

County attorney John Sarcone said the county will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and immediately sought a stay from Hanson that would prevent gay couples from seeking a marriage license until the appeal is resolved. The Supreme Court could refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear it.

A hearing is likely to be held on the stay motion next week, said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.

Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, though nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dennis Johnson, the lawyer for the six gay couples who sued in 2005 after they were denied marriage licenses, had argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

On the Road at 50

Commentary by Tony Long

Culture : Lifestyle

On the Road at 50 Remains an Anthem for the 'Crazy Ones'

Sal Paradise knew what it meant to be young, with no money in your pockets but no obligations either, completely at loose ends. It meant you were free. Even if you were also a bit lost.

Paradise is the autobiographical protagonist in On the Road, Jack Kerouac's exuberant, stream-of-consciousness novel that celebrates its 50th anniversary next week. With shiftless soulmate Dean Moriarty (based on Kerouac's own real-life pal Neal Cassady) leading the way, Paradise crisscrosses America on the ultimate road trip, a pursuit of enlightenment and kicks splashed across a canvas of easy sex and dago red nights with some poetry and bennies thrown in and a cool solo saxophone playing in the background.

On the Road has spoken to every generation since it appeared, and it's still got plenty to say in a society where consumer conformity is sold as rebellion by savvy marketers and the tyranny of the pop-culture machine smothers any truly iconoclastic voice.

Although not published until 1957, the book was set in the late '40s and written in the early '50s -- then, as now, troubled, conflicted times in the United States. On the one hand, this country had emerged from World War II as its clearest winner. We were, by far, the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

But then the Russians got the bomb, and we all got scared. All those backyard bomb shelters aside, though, we had plenty of our own demons to deal with right here. The war may have established American hegemony, but it also shook the country's social structure to its core.

Women who had tasted the workplace for the first time were now sent home, as the men came back to reclaim their jobs. A lot of those gals didn't want to go, and a lot of the boys coming home decided that "home" wasn't necessarily where they wanted to be: Soldiers and sailors had discovered that an entire world existed outside the confines of their hometowns. Blacks who had left the largely rural South during the war, looking for work in northern factories and shipyards, found themselves marooned in urban ghettos, feared and despised.

A largely static, stifled prewar population had scattered to the four winds.

The '50s, to a large extent, were about the establishment trying to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube. In the end, it couldn't be done. The result was a creeping estrangement between the old order and a growing number of Americans who felt alienated in their own country.

The Beat movement was a conspicuous manifestation of this alienation, and if Allen Ginsberg was its literary heart, Kerouac was its soul. On the Road was -- and remains today -- an eloquent, if unpolished, anthem for the dispossessed, the outsider, the one who doesn't quite fit in.

Kerouac himself never fit in, although he spent a good part of his life trying to. He died young and unhappy, but to measure On the Road against the bitterness of its author's life is to miss the point. The novel is about the yearning for freedom. What you do with that freedom once you've attained it ... well, that's up to you. It was then. It is now.

Whether Kerouac was a "great" writer is certainly debatable (define "great," for starters); that he was one of America's most influential writers is beyond dispute. On the Road, at 50, sells more copies in a given year than most new fiction does, so it evidently still strikes a chord somewhere.

Kerouac gets kicked around pretty good in academia and by other writers, mostly East Coast snoots who wrinkle their noses at the idea of automatic writing. It was Truman Capote, remember, who dismissed Kerouac with one of the bitchiest literary putdowns of all time: "That's not writing, that's typing."

Without a doubt, writing on a scroll in a nonstop, three-week frenzy of Benzedrine-fueled inspiration doesn't represent the height of literary craft. But On the Road is a banshee cry for freedom, not pop literature, so in this case Kerouac's improvisation thoroughly guts Capote's measured prose.

While you're digesting that morsel, try this one: On the Road is as deserving of a place in the geek's literary canon as anything penned by Tolkien, Gibson or Dick. Kerouac didn't invent alien civilizations or futuristic worlds, but he helped break down the walls of convention in the real one. If the modern geek is the maverick he often claims to be, then he owes at least a cursory nod backward to a genuine maverick, one who helped pave the way while on a hopeless struggle to find himself.

Fifty years along, On the Road still resonates for those of us possessed of a restless spirit, who see gray conformity as spiritual death, who place the value of the individual above the mere possession of things. For us, Sal Paradise's odyssey stands as the antidote -- and as a warning to keep a close watch on our souls.

"sigh...can you hear me now?"

I am reposting this blog from one of the people on my MySpace friends list because I think it is very good and brings up some points which I also feel strongly about. I would highly recommend checking out this person's blogs. Her MySpace profile is here - http://www.myspace.com/danielleabreu


sigh...can you hear me now?

I guess the trailer park disease is spreading in the country faster then we expected. Last night I heard one of the most disturbing facts ever, followed by a even more disturbing comment by a busty "Britney Spears" type imbecile masked as a Miss Teen USA wanna be. During last week's pageant, Miss South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton was asked why one-fifth of Americans couldn't find USA on a map.

"I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps," she said tentatively. ( or brains for that matter)

She also made random references to South Africa, "Asian countries" and "the Iraq", and said they needed support from the American educational system. (yeah, Im sure people in "the Iraq"...so many comments so little space. Think of this one as an ad lib)

I don't know where to even begin on what's wrong with that statement. Let me just vent one comment though, she came in 4th place. This moron was placed in consideration as an option to lead other upcoming trailer park hopefuls. No wonder darwinistic ideology never catches on in certain parts of the country. Their completely content with their elected leaders in all fields scrapping by with the bare minimum. It's encouraged. If i ever hear one defensive comment that pageants winners are doing it for scholarships, and their Mother Teresa type mission charities etc. so help me god, and I'm not even that religious. Anyways, this morning while reading an article in The Star Ledger of the latest U.S made disaster in Iraq, things made sense. How in world is this uneducated blond Koolaid suppose to speak sense and understanding, when degree carrying "journalists" can't decipher the difference between civilians and insurgents. Do they even know what insurgency means. Here's a tidbit of the article:

..." Some 30 masked Insurgents attacked a U.S. outpost Sunday, triggering the gun battles that ended when a U.S. Jet bombed a house where a gunmen had taken refuge. In addition to the dead, 14 insurgents were captured, the military said.

Iraqi officials said eight people were killed in the house bombing. Police and hospital officials identified the dead as Mohammed Adbul-Wahab, his mother, wife, and five of his young children. U.S. Military spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly told the associated Press he had reports of two civilian casualties, a male and a female who were in a taxi during the initial fire-fight.

"Any civilian casualties are truly regrettable, but it is important to understand that our forces are there to secure the people of Samarra and bring then peace, not bring them harm like the insurgents did," Donnelly said."...

I better see a proper detraction on this. Where do I even begin. They start the article saying that the "insurgents" attacked specifically U.S troops at an american outpost not civilians in the area, and the americans in self defense (obviously) attack back, and kill a family of 8 because 1 gunman was hiding out on their property, and all this is for civilian protection interests. I don't know about you, but doesn't common sense tell you that if the american troops weren't there, these so called insurgence might not have been in attack mode, and maybe these poor civilians would have had a chance. And I don't know about you, but I've seen cops before, and when one of those felons go running into someone's yard or house they don't bomb the whole house. They usually tend to go in their guns drawn and mortal combat that shit, for lack of a better reference.

But this is just another problem of these young products of the No Child Left Behind Generation. To them All Iraqis are the enemies. And to kill 8 civilians and children because of 1 person seems to not even get a one breath hesitation. And for the "journalist" who wrote this not to concentrate on what's written between the lines and not question actions and statements that are unjust is just as appalling and dangerous to the world as the actions from the actual perpetrator. Keeping the ignorance factor a float seems like the new journalistic theme of this century.

And side note... if i hear one more michael vic story.....yes it's a sad tragedy what he did to dogs. I have two furry daughters and i can't imagine my world without them. But to bring more attention to this then to human civilian lives, or the lack of progress in the Gulf coast, or the horrible flooding in India where people are trapped in flood made island situations without access to food or water, just proves my 'America Has Lost Common Sense Theory'. At this point its past a theory or hypothesis, I am pretty much sure the book on this is in. The jig is up.

Today is the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings famous "I have a dream speech." He's probably rolling in his grave as I write this. But here is a small excerpt that i've always liked.

'We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.'

New misgivings on wiretap law

Some Democrats regret updating FISA to expand the NSA's ability to tap American calls.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

The administration's warrantless wiretapping program looks set to be the subject of renewed and bitter wrangling between Congress and the White House when lawmakers return to Washington in September.

And this upcoming battle promises to be far more complex than a run-of-the-mill dispute over an agriculture bill, say, or tax legislation. The law in this area is unusually dense and difficult. The underlying activity is classified. One of the key administration figures dealing with the issue is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, an official in whom many in Congress have little trust.

"Essentially, it's a difficult situation to have a rational conversation on the merits," says Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The expanded snooping powers of the National Security Agency (NSA) have been controversial ever since they became public in 2006. To critics, the program opens the door to the possibility of dangerous infringement on the civil liberties of US citizens. To supporters, they're a necessary tool against terrorism in an era of cellphones and Internet communications.

At issue now is the temporary update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed earlier this month, just before Congress fled Capitol Hill for its summer break. This update was made necessary when the secretive judicial body that oversees the wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, banned eavesdropping on foreigners whose communications were being routed through the United States.

The legal update, which expires in six months, allows the NSA to resume siphoning such communications. In one of its key changes, US intelligence no longer needs to know that at least one of the parties to a communication is abroad prior to eavesdropping. It needs only to "reasonably believe" that one person is off US soil.

In the weeks since this bill's passage some Democrats have begun to regret the manner in which it was approved. They feel the vote was held in haste, with summer break looming. And they've started to worry that by changing just a few words in a massive piece of law they've opened the door to practices they did not intend.

Some civil liberties experts believe that the US may now be able to gather a wide range of information from US citizens on home soil without a warrant as long as it bears upon the monitoring of a person thought to be overseas.

Nor do many lawmakers like the fact that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is one of the key officials who will determine how the new rule is put into practice.

The bottom line: The vote will likely be revisited.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D) of Michigan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) of California wrote that "Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six-month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken."

In addition, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Aug. 20 threatened to pursue contempt charges against the administration over its reluctance to produce documents outlining the eavesdropping's legal foundation.

Senator Leahy subpoenaed the NSA, the National Security Council, and the offices of the president and vice president for these papers in late June. They are necessary, he says, so that the Senate can understand better exactly what it's voting for in regard to warrantless wiretapping.

White House counsel Fred Fielding has asked for more time to respond. In an Aug. 20 letter to Leahy, however, he noted that the White House had identified a "core set" of these papers that it would likely withhold under a claim of executive privilege.

Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, indicated that they had found more than 40 "Top Secret/Codeword Presidential authorizations" and memoranda dealing with the issue.

"When the Senate comes back in session, I'll bring it up before the committee," Leahy said at a press conference. "I prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there's no question that they are in contempt of a valid order of the Congress."

In regard to the subpoenaed documents, both sides have strong arguments for their positions, notes one legal expert.

Congress is directly legislating on the subject. In fact, eavesdropping legislation "is a critically important item on the congressional agenda," notes Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Yet courts have generally favored claims of executive privilege when they deal with issues of national security. And any move to hold the White House in contempt of Congress over the withheld documents would be slow going.

"It's hard to see that moving very far even this year," says Mr. Tobias.

Lindsay Lohan Reaches Plea Deal

This really pisses me off! I know far better people than this ignorant, arrogant little tramp whose lives have been ruined for lesser charges than she faced. And we collectively wring our hands and wonder why we have a drug problem in this country, when we give a free pass to one of the reigning princess' of the current 'brat pack'?! For some completely incomprehensable reason this woman is apparently a 'role model' to many young girls and this is the message we send them?!


Lindsay Lohan Reaches Plea Deal, Will Serve One Day In Jail; 'I Relapsed,' Actress Says

August 27, 2007

Lindsay Lohan reached a plea deal Thursday (August 23) on misdemeanor DUI and drug charges that will find her spending one day in jail, serving 10 days of community service and completing a drug-treatment program, according to The Associated Press. She will not stand trial.

Through her lawyer, Lohan pleaded guilty to two counts of being under the influence of a controlled substance (cocaine), and no contest to two counts of driving with a blood-alcohol level above .08 percent and one count of reckless driving. Two DUI counts were dropped, and all the charges are misdemeanors -- a lucky break for the actress, as felony charges could have landed her in jail for more than a year.

Lohan was placed on 36 months probation and will be required to complete an 18-month alcohol-education program and pay hundreds of dollars in fines. She must also finish a three-day county coroner program that will require her to visit a morgue and talk to victims of drunken drivers.

"It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs," Lohan wrote in a statement released to MTV News. "Recently, I relapsed and did things for which I am ashamed. I broke the law, and today I took responsibility by pleading guilty to charges in my case.

"No matter what I said when I was under the influence on the day I was arrested, I am not blaming anyone else for my conduct other than myself," the statement continues. "I thank God I did not injure others. I easily could have. I very much want to be healthy and gain control of my life and career and have asked for medical help in doing so. I am taking these steps to improve my life. Luckily, I am not alone in my daily struggle and I know that people like me have succeeded. Maybe with time it will become easier. I hope so."

Lohan's cocaine charges stem from a small packet of cocaine police discovered in her jeans when she was arrested on July 24 in Santa Monica, California. According to prosecutors, the amount of cocaine found tested below the .05 grams required to qualify for a felony filing. After a May 26 crash — in which Lohan is alleged to have lost control of her Mercedes and crashed into a tree on Sunset Boulevard at 5:26 a.m. — tests on a substance found in Lohan's purse came up as .04 grams of cocaine powder, according to a press release on the charges from the DA's office.

During her second arrest — for allegedly chasing another car driven by the mother of a former assistant — officers found a container on Lohan that tested positive for .02 grams of cocaine, according to the DA office press release.

Lohan is currently at the Cirque Lodge treatment center in Sundance, Utah, where she has been ordered to stay indefinitely.