White House, Cheney's office, subpoenaed

[Wanderer]

Do Not Hesitate, Show No Mercy! There I go dreaming again...

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

Separately, 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.

Leahy, D-Vt., raised questions about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.

"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The escalation is part of the Democrats' effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.

The White House contends that its search for would-be terrorists is legal, necessary and effective — pointing out frequently that there have been no further attacks on American soil. Administration officials say they have given classified information — such as details about the eavesdropping program, which is now under court supervision — to the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply with the new ones.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa — sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Also named in subpoenas signed by Leahy were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties — the White House, Cheney's office, the Justice Department and the National Security Council — have until July 18 to comply, Leahy said. He added that, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., he would consider pursuing contempt citations against those who refuse.

Gonzales, in Spokane, Wash., on Wednesday to discuss gang issues with local officials, said he had not seen the subpoena documents and could not comment on them directly.

"There are competing institutional interests," Gonzales said.

The Judiciary committees have issued the subpoenas as part of a look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors for political reasons. The Judiciary committees subpoenaed Miers, one-time White House legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, though they have yet to testify.

Now, with senators of both parties concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee has shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice.

The issue concerning Kavanaugh, a former White House staff secretary, is whether he misled the Senate panel during his confirmation hearing last year about how much he was involved in crafting the administration's policy on enemy combatants.

The Bush administration secretly launched the eavesdropping program, run by the National Security Agency, in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspected of having terrorist links. The program, which the administration said did not require investigators to seek warrants before conducting surveillance, was revealed in December 2005.

After the program was challenged in court, Bush put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in 1978. The president still claims the power to order warrantless spying.

The subpoenas seek a wide array of documents from the Sept. 11 attacks to the present. Among them are any that include analysis or opinions from Justice, NSA, the Defense Department, the White House, or "any entity within the executive branch" on the legality of the electronic surveillance program.

Debate continues over whether the program violates people's civil liberties. The administration has gone to great lengths to keep it running.

Interest was raised by vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to persuade Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, who temporarily held the power of the attorney general's office during his boss' illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

Fratto defended the surveillance program as "lawful" and "limited."

"It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties," Fratto said. "The program is classified for a reason — its purpose is to track down and stop terrorist planning. We remain steadfast in our commitment to keeping Americans safe from an enemy determined to use any means possible — including the latest in technology — to attack us."

____

Associated Press Writer Nicholas K. Geranios in Spokane, Wash., contributed to this report.

[Justforfun000]

Well it's encouraging to see that even when the government itself strays down the path of corruption, the very system of American justice can eventually deal with it. Americans have been rightfully bashed for many disagreeable actions and attitudes over time, but this reminds us that ultimately they are a self-correcting nation in the long run.

[CmdrWilkens]

Its hilarious that we have one thread about the committe authorizing the subpoenas then two more when they are actually issued.

That said Bush may dig his heels in enough with this one for us to finally get a ruling in the courts and Alito craziness aside the older conservatives aren't as likely as one might think to jump for the whole unitary executive and power of the kings crap that would enable the White House to evade handing over the documents. Still could be interesting.

[Shinova]

What's to stop them from just destroying the documents in question and just lie under oath anyway?

[Superman]

What's to stop them from just destroying the documents in question and just lie under oath anyway?

Nothing. They'll probably get a big laugh over doing it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What's to stop them from just destroying the documents in question and just lie under oath anyway?

That kind of thing could lead to the situation spiraling out of control. Destroying documents makes you look really bad and renders it impossible for you to recover from it, because you destroyed any mitigating evidence. It would also lead to obstruction of justice and perjury charges for more White House aides, essentially a repeat of Scooter Libby where they'll throw the people who did the shredding under the bus. That in itself carries some risk of an aide cutting a deal with the prosecutor, especially after the example that was made of Libby. Granted, I'd bet my eye teeth that any administration goons who end up in prison are going to receive a December 2008 pardon, but still...

I wouldn't doubt the White House's willingness to destroy a bunch of documents and then play dumb about it, but that sort of thing is definitely a last resort. I'd expect them to exhaust all of their other options before they actually shred anything. Claiming that the office of the vice president is an amorphous extra-legal body that belongs to no branch of the federal government and is therefore impervious to oversight by anybody is only the first step in the dance.

[Superman]

Couldn't something like this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court?

[CmdrWilkens]

Couldn't something like this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court?

That's usually where it has to go if the White House remains intransigent according to almost every legal scholar I've ever heard weigh in on the issue.