Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White House Subpoenaed over Wiretapping

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • White House Subpoenaed over Wiretapping



    June 28, 2007

    White House Is Subpoenaed on Wiretapping

    By JAMES RISEN


    WASHINGTON, June 27 — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and the Justice Department after what the panel’s chairman called “stonewalling of the worst kind” of efforts to investigate the National Security Agency’s policy of wiretapping without warrants.

    The move put Senate Democrats squarely on a course they had until now avoided, setting the stage for a showdown with the Bush administration over one of the most contentious issues arising from the White House’s campaign against terrorism.

    Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the committee, said the subpoenas seek documents that could shed light on the administration’s legal justification for the wiretapping and on disputes within the government over its legality.

    In addition, the panel is seeking materials on related issues, including the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.

    The panel’s action was the most aggressive move yet by lawmakers to investigate the wiretapping program since the Democrats gained control of Congress this year.

    Mr. Leahy said Wednesday at a news conference that the committee had issued the subpoenas because the administration had followed a “consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection” in dealing with Congressional efforts to scrutinize the program.

    “It’s unacceptable,” Mr. Leahy said. “It is stonewalling of the worst kind.”

    The White House, the vice president’s office and the Justice Department declined Wednesday to say how they would respond to the subpoenas.

    “We’re aware of the committee’s action and will respond appropriately,” said Tony Fratto, White House deputy press secretary.

    “It’s unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation,” Mr. Fratto added.

    A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney said his office would respond later, while a Justice Department spokesman said, “The department will continue to work closely with the Congress as they exercise their oversight functions, and we will review this matter in the spirit of that longstanding relationship.”

    Under the domestic eavesdropping program, the N.S.A. did not obtain warrants before listening in on phone calls and reading e-mail messages to and from Americans and others in the United States who the agency believes may be linked to Al Qaeda. Only international communications — those into and out of the country — were monitored, according to administration officials.

    The Senate panel’s action comes after dramatic testimony last month by James B. Comey, former deputy attorney general, who described a March 2004 confrontation at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, then attorney general, between Justice Department officials and White House aides over the legality of the wiretapping program.

    Before Mr. Comey’s testimony, the White House had largely been able to fend off aggressive oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping since it was first disclosed in December 2005. The Republican-controlled Congress held hearings last year, and even considered legislative proposals to curb the scope of the eavesdropping. But Mr. Cheney repeatedly pressured Republican Congressional leaders to pull back.

    When the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections, many observers predicted that the N.S.A. program — which a federal judge declared unconstitutional — would be one of the first Bush administration operations to undergo new scrutiny. But in January, the administration announced that it was placing the program under the legal framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move it had previously refused to consider.

    The Democrats have largely focused on objections to the Iraq war in their first months in power, and have appeared reluctant to take aggressive steps to challenge policies on harsh interrogation practices, secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and domestic wiretapping for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism.

    For instance, at a confirmation hearing on June 19 for John A. Rizzo as general counsel of the C.I.A., no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee directly challenged the agency’s secret detention or harsh interrogation practices.

    Mr. Rizzo successfully dodged tougher questions by saying he preferred to answer them in closed session. The Senate Intelligence Committee has conducted closed-door oversight of the wiretapping, but it has not been as aggressive as the Judiciary Committee in publicly challenging the administration over it.

    But Mr. Comey’s testimony has given Democrats an opening to argue that they are focusing on the legal issues of the program, rather than on the merits of monitoring the phone calls of terrorist suspects.

    “The Comey testimony moved this front and center,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Alarm bells went off. His testimony made it clear that there had been an effort to circumvent the law.”

    The Senate panel has been asking the administration for documents related to the program since Mr. Comey testified. But the White House had not responded to a letter from Mr. Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel. As a result, the panel voted 13 to 3 last Thursday to authorize Mr. Leahy to issue the subpoenas, with three Republicans voting in favor of issuing them. Separately, the House Judiciary Committee has also threatened to issue subpoenas for the same documents.

    The wiretapping is just one of several legal issues on which Congress and the administration are squaring off. For example, the White House is under pressure to respond to subpoenas issued two weeks ago by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for witnesses and documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors. Thursday is the deadline for the White House to turn over documents linked to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director.

    If the White House fails to produce the material, the House and Senate could begin a process leading to contempt resolutions to force compliance. Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney is in a separate standoff with Congress and the National Archives over his office’s refusal to follow an executive order concerning handling of classified documents.

    Mr. Cheney declared that his office did not have to abide by the order that all executive branch offices provide data to the Archives about the amount of material they have classified. His office said that he is not a member of the executive branch, because he is president of the Senate.

    David Johnston and Scott Shane contributed reporting.
    The Democrats are choosing the path of confrontation?! Really?! The White House refuses to give over documents, stonewalls, and its the Dems that are choosing confrontation?

    Of course the White House will find a way to dodge it, but I hope Congress nails this administration to the wall. Though the chances of that aren't all that great.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

  • #2
    -> U.S. Forum

    I think Vermont ought to secede the Union. They've been nothing but trouble for quite some time now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, they've been blocking King Bush from wiping his ass with the Constitution... what nerve!
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment


      • #4
        A) I agree with Winston

        B) Doesn't subpoenaed for the most part mean, "We would like you to explain this to us" ?

        Seems a little shoddy to make it seem worse than it is.
        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

        Comment


        • #5
          Sloww, subpoenas are a little more serious than that. You don't get to ignore them and not have consequences. It isn't a request, it's an order. If a court subpoenas you Sloww and you refuse or otherwise fail to get proper permission to decline, you get to look forward to fines and possible jail time. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached for his refusal to comply with subpoenas. I doubt Bush will be impeached, but the day is still young for the Bush WH to play a game of Chicken...

          So the subpoenas are out. What are we looking at?
          by Kagro X
          Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 06:04:02 PM PDT

          OK, so the subpoenas have been issued:

          The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.

          Besides issuing the subpoenas, the Senate Judiciary Committee also is summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs, committee chairman Patrick Leahy announced.
          What happens if the White House and the VP tell Congress to go Cheney itself?

          Essentially, the Senate's options for dealing with non-compliance are:

          1. Move to hold the targets of the subpoenas in statutory contempt of Congress

          2. Move to hold the targets in inherent contempt of Congress

          3. Extend the deadline for compliance and make threats regarding either #1 or #2 above

          4. Come to some negotiated settlement with the "administration" -- i.e., closed door, no transcript testimony, limited document release, etc.

          5. Do nothing, complain loudly about obstructionism, stonewalling, and lawlessness, and hope that voters elect Democrats in 2008, because Republicans are so nasty

          6. Ask the House to impeach

          That's really about it. Most likely outcome? If history's any guide, the answer lies somewhere in the neighborhood of #4. Although it should be said that history's never really been any kind of a guide for this "administration." But there's always a first time for everything, and no doubt when backed into a corner, the White House gang will be depending on the quasi-precedent of the negotiated settlement to save its bacon (or at least allow them to futz around long enough to run out the clock and slip out the back door in January 2009).

          Problems?

          Well, statutory contempt of Congress is prosecuted at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. And we know where the U.S. Attorneys' offices are at these days. But has the U.S. Attorney ever declined to prosecute such a case? Yes it has: EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, during the Reagan administration.

          How about inherent contempt? Well, that takes the Justice Department out of the loop. But it's a daring move, involving trying the contemnors at the bar of the Senate, and possibly arresting and imprisoning them on the direct authority of the Senate and its Sergeant at Arms. Has it ever been done? Yes it has, though the last time was over 70 years ago.

          Extended deadlines, negotiated settlements and doing nothing all carry their own peculiar problems, mostly political. Will the executive branch ever take the legislative branch seriously if they don't hold the line? Will voters take Congress seriously? Will they be angry? Grateful? Indifferent? And what will future presidents think they're likely to face if this Congress lets this president slide?

          And finally, impeachment. We know the problems, and don't need to list them again. But is this really an impeachable offense?

          Yes it is:
          Article 3

          In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

          In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

          Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

          Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
          Just wanted to remind everyone of that.

          Get your popcorn, and send your Congresscritter a note of encouragement. The options going forward are limited, and they're going to need to stiffen their spines for a long fight if they're going to offer any serious resistance to the Bush "administration's" vision of the New Imperial Presidency.

          Remember:
          Pelosi was asked what was most important about regaining majority status. "Subpoena power," she said.
          The. Most. Important. Thing.

          Let's see how we do it.
          The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

          The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

          Comment


          • #6
            WOW, DRose. Thanks for that lengthy dissertation, but I already knew.
            Must be a burden, thinking you have to explain everything to everyone, whether you really need to explain or not. I bet it takes up a lot of time.
            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

            Comment


            • #7
              He just posted a link... no need to be an ass Sloww.
              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SlowwHand
                WOW, DRose. Thanks for that lengthy dissertation, but I already knew.
                Must be a burden, thinking you have to explain everything to everyone, whether you really need to explain or not. I bet it takes up a lot of time.
                Originally posted by SlowwHand
                A) I agree with Winston

                B) Doesn't subpoenaed for the most part mean, "We would like you to explain this to us" ?

                Seems a little shoddy to make it seem worse than it is.
                Seems a little shoddy to imply it is a request when clearly it is an order. It does not mean "We would like..." it means "Get your ass over here, NOW." You implied it is a request when clearly it is an order.
                The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  VT
                  Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                  -Arrian
                  grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                  The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                    He just posted a link... no need to be an ass Sloww.
                    Nobody rattled your cage.
                    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DRoseDARs




                      Seems a little shoddy to imply it is a request when clearly it is an order. It does not mean "We would like..." it means "Get your ass over here, NOW." You implied it is a request when clearly it is an order.
                      Just how does the legislative branch get to give "orders" the executive branch ? Hmmm?

                      A congressional subpoena may be an order to you or me but it is piffle to the president and through his powers as head of state, the executive branch. Thats not to say that congress couldnt take more serious actions (such as impeachment) if the matter was serious enough however.
                      We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
                      If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
                      Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The point still remains that no matter if you describe it as a request or an order, it's still for answering questions. It's not an indictment.
                        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SpencerH
                          Just how does the legislative branch get to give "orders" the executive branch ? Hmmm?

                          A congressional subpoena may be an order to you or me but it is piffle to the president and through his powers as head of state, the executive branch. Thats not to say that congress couldnt take more serious actions (such as impeachment) if the matter was serious enough however.
                          Consider that ignoring a subpoena is grounds for impeachment (in fact that was what Nixon was going to be impeached for before he resigned).

                          And yes, a subpoena is an order. At least all the subpoenas I've issued have said "You are hereby required..."
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ..to come and answer questions?
                            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Somebody better run over to 1600 Pennsylvania and tell him.

                              White House refuses to answer subpoenas
                              Constitutional showdown possible over firing of federal prosecutors.

                              WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

                              Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.
                              Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                              "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                              He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X